An Article Submitted by Chris Willet
At first glance, it appears reasonable to approve the construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter across from Quaker Crossing, even from a land use perspective. Because the Milestrip Road Corridor is a highly trafficked, nonresidential strip with easy access to a major expressway, it seems a fitting location for major retail development.
Why not put all of the town’s strip malls in one place? Further, cursory investigation reveals that business development brings tax revenue to the town.
A thorough examination, however, reveals a substantial number of adverse (and in some cases, cumulative) environmental impacts - consequences that, if appreciated by members of the Town Board, would doom the project.
The Wal-Mart proposal is more than just another symptom of over-development in Orchard Park; it is both unnecessary and unwise.
§ 1.0 - Spatial Inequities
Environmental injustice refers to the placement of undesirable land uses, such as expressways, factories, landfills, prisons, and major retail outlets, in residential areas inhabited by demographic groups traditionally disadvantaged by race, ethnicity, income, or political affiliation.
In Orchard Park, it is interesting to note that the majority of undesirable developments, including the proposed Wal-Mart, are located in the northwest quadrant of the town, home to the Census block groups with the municipality’s lowest median household incomes.
While some aspects of this inequity may have resulted from the natural course of development outward from the metropolitan core, it is unequivocally certain that residents in the northwest corner of town suffer the environmental impacts of undesirable uses to a greater extent than their peers in other sections of Orchard Park. Further, it is worth noting that the vast majority of the membership of both the Town Board and the Planning Board resides outside of the northwest quadrant.
§ 2.0 - Comprehensive Planning
In the State of New York, zoning regulations must be applied “in accordance with a [municipality's] comprehensive plan.” Zoning refers to local ordinances that restrict the use and appearance of private property. (It is long established that governments may regulate land uses to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.)
A comprehensive plan is a legally binding document that addresses the amenities and challenges of a municipality with respect to spatial planning, transportation, economic development, environmental resources, and service provision. A comprehensive plan also describes the objectives that the municipality will pursue in future efforts at planning and development. Ideally, the plan considers input from all key community stakeholders, including members of the public.
Orchard Park’s Comprehensive Plan, a form of which is available on the town’s website, was officially adopted on Wednesday, September 19, 2007. A review of the “Goals and Objectives” section of the plan illustrates that the Wal-Mart proposal is, in many ways, antithetical to the legally documented intent of the town with regard to growth and development. In fact, very few objectives could be cited as consistent with the project and its zoning.
On page D1, for example, the Comprehensive Plan states that Orchard Park’s government must “maintain the integrity of the Town’s residential neighborhoods by using all available means to preserve the quality of residential life in all sectors of Orchard Park. The cumulative effects of environmental, aesthetic, safety, and related issues must be foremost in the decision-making process of future development proposals.”
Given both this mandate and the extensive list of concerns broached by citizens at the public hearing for Wal-Mart’s Draft Scope - many of which specifically discussed adverse environmental impacts regarding aesthetics, air pollution, traffic safety, and water quality - it behooves the Town Board to take a hard look at many aspects of this project, including the existing congestion on Milestrip Road, the use of residential streets as “cut-throughs,” and the replacement of acres of vegetation with blacktop.
The Comprehensive Plan also proposes that Orchard Park “use traditional town planning techniques that support public interaction and a sense of community.” While imprecise, this objective presumably refers to the increasingly popular implementation of neotraditional design principles, including the use of pedestrian-friendly spaces, mixed-use structures, and side or rear parking lots. Any observer will affirm that Wal-Mart’s corporate style (big-box stores located on major arterials behind vast parking lots) is most utterly contradictory to the intent to design spaces that promote “public interaction and a sense of community,” as required by the Plan.
Indeed, strip-mall development is the embodiment of the worst consequences of suburban sprawl - automobile dependency, runoff, traffic congestion, uncontrolled growth, urban heat islands, visual sterility, and an overall lower quality of life.
Zoning classifications that promote such unfortunate development appear to be inconsistent with many of the objectives cited in Orchard Park’s official plan.
On page D2, the Comprehensive Plan states, “Conserve wooded areas and greenway corridors to maintain the rural nature of the Town, help maintain property values, and protect ecological resources.” Replacing acres of green space with intensive development is not consistent with this objective. Indeed, many of the plan’s objectives speak to concerns much larger than the proximate discussion regarding Wal-Mart; these goals outline the desired character of the town.
Given this context, it is not unreasonable that residents question the motives of the Town Board; Wal-Mart appears to be the next step in a trend towards build-out - a trend already responsible for the excesses of the “auto mall” on Southwestern Boulevard, the Tops Plaza at “five-corners,” Quaker Crossing on Milestrip, and the rapid expansion of residential subdivisions throughout the town.
While the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with many of the stated objectives listed in the Plan, one more deserves mention. On page D4, the plan states, “Recognize the importance of the Village area as the central business hub of Orchard Park, and support its integrity and economic viability.” If the town continues to embrace the construction of massive discount retailers that have a known history of forcing local businesses to close their doors, it will be very difficult to maintain a stable, functioning village center.
Again, the Town Board must examine Orchard Park’s zoning ordinances; do the listed classifications encourage the type of business development that the town’s stakeholders value and desire?
§ 3.0 - Retail Redundancy
Given the proximity of Target, Tops, Wegmans, Kohl’s, Rix, and the McKinley Mall, all of which offer competitive prices, it is difficult to see the need for an additional retail giant that will rob existing employers of market share and exacerbate the adverse environmental impacts already present at Quaker Crossing.
Further, by allowing Wal-Mart to move the short distance from Hamburg to Orchard Park (roughly two miles), the town will effectively steal tax revenue while leaving its neighbor with an abandoned wasteland. This scenario does not represent regional planning; it represents ruthless planning.
§ 4.0 - Environmental Impacts
On Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at the public hearing for Wal-Mart’s Draft Scope, a group of citizens presented a lengthy document that thoroughly examined and described the adverse environmental impacts that will result from the construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter at Quaker Crossing. This document is available on the Front Door Blog, an online nexus of discussion and documentation concerning issues of governance and planning in Orchard Park.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the detrimental cumulative impacts of the Wal-Mart project will greatly exceed the purported benefits. It is important to understand that what we build in Orchard Park becomes a reflection of our town.
Thus, I respectfully request that all of us - both citizens and public officials - thoroughly examine the positive and negative consequences of this proposal in sufficient detail to determine if further conventional “bigbox” development truly serves the best interests of the citizens of Orchard Park.
Note: Here is a link to the .pdf version of this excellent article, complete with footnote references: embracing-the-mundane-by-chris-willet-4-29-08
