Thank you to one of my Greenhurst neighbors who has stayed on top of this issue and kept me in the information loop. I appreciate all the help I can get. Please share with neighbors who do not have email. As per the neighbors request, this person has asked to remain anonymous. Karen --- On Fri, 8/8/14, James Callahan , Jonathan Bleuer > Date: Friday, August 8, 2014, 10:37 AM Thank you for your comments. The Planning Board is working on addressing all issues that have been brought forward related to the proposed Eastgate Plaza access to Greiner Road. At this time, they do not have an exact timeframe, but in the very near future there will be a meeting or meetings to address comments. We will provide notice as to when these meetings will occur so that everyone interested has an opportunity to attend. Jim C. James B. Callahan Town of Clarence Director of Community Development [email protected] (716) 741-8933 Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 5:19 PM To: James Callahan Cc: Robert Sackett; Carolyn Delgato; Jonathan Bleuer Subject: RE: Eastgate Plaza Access to Greiner Road 8/06/2014 Mr. Callahan Director of Community Development: I see that the planning board has selected URS Corp to further study > Eastgate Access onto Greiner Road. URS is an primarily an engineering firm. What entity will review the legal questions raised and “all issues ever raised associated with the development of the Eastgate Plaza” ? (I have attached the zoning law preventing access to Greiner and meeting minutes referencing this law, provided by your office, for your reference). buffalonews/city-region/clarence/clarence-town-board-votes-to-clarify-zoning-code-20140723 In other matters, the board approved signing an agreement with URS Corp. to do an access study of a proposed new Greiner Road entrance and exit to East gate Plaza on Transit Road. Benderson Development Co., which owns the plaza, will pay for the study. Residents on nearby streets oppose the plan. Also, Benderson has acquired the former podiatrist building next to Spillios Restaurant and plan on locating a fast food restaurant there, presumably with a drive thru. The justification provided by Benderson for Eastgate access to Greiner is that it will supposedly improve traffic flow on Transit, however placing a fast food franchise right around the corner conflicts with their altruistic” pursuits on Greiner. Benderson must feel that Transit Road can handle the increased traffic that a fast food franchise will surely generate. Also, as you know, several options to improve the function of Transit Road are entirely within Benderson’s control, For example: Benderson will not allow Spillios access to their parking lot for business reasons and “supposedly” cannot link their Delta Sonic Car wash (and several curb cuts) to the larger parking lot which is connected to a signaled light which again is in conflict with their goal of improved traffic flow on Transit Road, a NYS road. bizjournals/buffalo/news/2014/04/03/kaboob-curry-relocating-to-main-street.html What entity is reviewing the legal questions raised here ? Specifically, the direct conflict with existing zoning laws preventing any access road from the Eastgate Plaza onto Greiner ? Given Benderson’s plan to add another fast food establishment and drive thru to Transit Road how can the Planning Board accept Benderson’s justification for access to Greiner ? I look forward to your response. Sincerely, -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6/10/14, James Callahan > wrote: Subject: RE: Eastgate Plaza Access to Greiner Road To: Cc: Robert Sackett , Carolyn Delgato ,Jonathan Bleuer Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2014, 4:15 PM Thank you for your comments. The Planning Board will continue to analyze all comments. Original Message----- From: Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 > 12:58 PM To: James Callahan Cc: Robert > Sackett; Carolyn > Delgato; Jonathan Bleuer Subject: Re: Eastgate Plaza Access to Greiner Road Thank you for the detailed response. The intersection of Greenhurst & Greiner, is less than 500 feet from my home and I consider it to be an extension of my drive way that I need to access daily to make a living. I am not a NIMBY type. However the sacrifices that you would be asking of me are extreme. The justification given for my sacrifice is also very unbalanced, especially when you consider that the “improvement” to Transit Road is disputed, marginal at best, and will also cause new deficiencies. Further, the #1 traffic generator on Transit Road is the Super Walmart contained in the Eastgate Plaza. Please advise Benderson to explore access onto Sheridan Drive, a 4 lane State Road, that is closest to the Super Walmart. This current proposal does not offer a fair and equitable way for me to leave my home, there would be no light, (too close to > Transit) So, I would need to sit there wait “for gaps” or until no guests of the Eastgate plaza are coming or going, as their movements are generally unencumbered, (I have a stop sign, they do not) Also, any queued car(s) would prevent me from making a left hand turn for an indefinite amount of time. This is not a practical or equitable sharing of a 2 lane county road in a residential neighborhood - it would be an extreme and dangerous burden, it will lower the resale value of my home and the justification provided for it is weak. The last traffic study indicated peak wait times of 13 minutes, that is not acceptable and should serve as a constraint for your approval. The current M&T Access Road would also continue to “operate as is” adding another layer of dysfunction to an already stressed area. I am glad that you mentioned that all past actions associated with this access road will be reviewed, as you know this not a new idea and a significant amount of analysis and commentary already exist. I have sent a copy of the existing zone law and meeting notes to you previously so I assume that they will be part of any new review. I also know that you will tell me that you feel that you can proceed with your review. The point I want to emphasize is that this zoning law does exist and does speak to the sentiment that existed by those that were in your seats 15 years ago. Finally, I am troubled by the assertion that applicant continues to make stating that this very proposal was solicited by the Town of Clarence in 2005 and that there is a statute by NYS requiring the Planning Board to approve proposals that offer connectivity and take pressure off of Transit Road. Can you elaborate on whether in fact this is arcuate and if you still personally support this road being built ? -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6/10/14, James Callahan , Jonathan Bleuer
Posted on: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:58:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015