this is a wonderful blog — can you tell me how to receive automatic updates? Thanks.
I will definitely share this blog url with friends and colleagues who are interested in the issues you discuss.
Best wishes,
Kathleen Quinlivan
About the “Front Door” (UPDATED!)
UPDATED July 23, 2008:
The “Front Door” continues to grow.
We are pleased to let you know that in just a few short months, many citizens from many neighborhoods throughout our beautiful Town and Village have visited this Blog - and continue to return often.
Just like the residents of the Front Door neighborhoods, our many visitors represent the full spectrum of political ideology and political party affiliation, as do those who have contributed articulate articles for this Blog and those who have offered many thoughtful comments.
Granted, in any community, there will always be many differences of opinion. There is nothing more healthy.
But perhaps we can all agree that what’s most important at the local level, right here in our beautiful Town and Village, is not politics, or political power, or our silly local minor-league political parties - but the issues - and the decisions made on these issues - past, present and future - especially issues that have had or will have a negative impact on our neighborhoods, our community character, our quality of life, our pocketbooks, the viability of our local businesses, and yes, our voice.
Hopefully you will notice that on this Blog.
We also hope you will notice that in our presentation of honest research and discussion of the issues, a dedication is made to the premise that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
Thank you for your continued interest.
*****************************************************************************************************************
The “Front Door” of Orchard Park is an established community of honest, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying town folks who, perhaps just like you, are concerned about how current and future political decisions concerning growth and development will affect our properties, our neighborhoods, and each of our family’s quality of life.
Our beautiful area of town (the north side of town) has been undergoing tremendous negative changes in recent years resulting from the cumulative commercial and residential development projects approved by our Town. Traffic has increased dramatically, green space has disappeared or is threatened, and an important town watershed (Smokes Creek) has been significantly reduced, resulting in increased stormwater flows and flooding potential. The north side of Town specifically, and our entire Town in general, is slowly taking on an overdeveloped “Amherst Look”. We don’t want “Amherst” here.
We coined our name “The Front Door” as a result of what we learned from an Orchard Park Planning Board meeting that took place 0n January 8, 2003. We thank them for it.
During the backslapping unanimous Planning Board approval of the sprawling Hammocks Apartment Complex now built at the corner of Southwestern Blvd and Orchard Park Road (an intersection we also know as the “5 Corners”), we not only received a geography lesson, but also gained some interesting insight into the attitude and perceptions of some powerful and politically-connected decision makers in our Town.
We learned from our Planning Board that the “Front Door to Our Main Street” is the area of our Town located somewhere south of the 5 corners.
They let us know that this development project “stabilizes the entry to our Town”, and that there was a need for “a good transition as one drives into Orchard Park”, and that the project fulfills a need to “buffer the new commercial development at the corner with the residents to the south”, and that the project provided these residents to the south with “a good boundary to what could become profuse commercial sprawl”.
Folks, the “Front Door to Our Main Street” does is not lie south of the 5 Corners. There are over 500 homes and over 2,000 residents in the “Front Door” neighborhoods of Orchard Park north of the 5 corners - from Bieler Road, Berg Road, and the Minden Drive subdivision to the West, Lake Avenue, Boldt Court, Creekside Drive, and Faahs Drive to the South, Eaglebrook Drive, The Green, and Brimfield Court on the North, and, Michael Road to the North and East.
Our goal as an organization of concerned citizens is to actively participate in the development decisions that will affect the future of our neighborhoods, and to remind our town elected and appointed officials at every opportunity of a few simple facts:
- We were here first,
- We cherish our properties and neighborhoods just the way they are,
- Any future development here must result in ZERO negative impact, and
- The quality of life we have come to expect and enjoy in Orchard Park, NY is not subject to any form of compromise.
Responses
By: kathleen quinlivan gregg on October 13, 2007
at 3:43 am
This is an excellent Blog and hope all our neighbors read it, especially before the upcoming election.
It objectively describes the problems caused by the “Power Block” on the Town Board. They are the protectors of the “Haves” and the transmitters of the burdens to the “Have Not’s”. The Front Door residents are among the “Have Not’s”
For another ongoing example, stop and take a look at the newly erected McDonalds on the Five Corners. It has been raised to a height that will provide a sign high and large enough to make the seven Corners look good. It will further inundate the neighboring yards and the adjoining Smokes Creek. Just think,”Mickey Dee” got this terrific welcoming sign free of charge, thanks to our inept and arrogant Planning and Town Boards. who enabled this travesty. Once again, they have the gall to ignore us, further congest an already congested corner, while announcing a proposed moratorium to save the entrance to Orchard Park. The new motto ought to read “Welcome to the Orchard Parking Lot”.
Another McDonald sign will complement a corner already filled with a car wash, a gas station, a car rental agency and a hot dog stand. Ms. Ackerman and company exhibit real concerned for us. She still doesn’t know we exist and now plans to beautify and preserve the rest of the corridor. I thought they couldn’t hurt us any more, but under-estimated their talent to further destroy our neighborhood in order to protect the tax base for the “Haves”.
The “Have Not’s”are made to contribute again.
Thanks folks for enhancing the speed with which the “Trans fat delights” will be doled out. Cellino and Barnes must be weeping that they lost out on the opportunity to welcome our visitors to Orchard Park. The Lamar Sign Co. must be laughing with tears in their eyes, fighting a town that doesn’t even know its own boundaries.
Oh well, we can plant another batch of “Forget Me Not’s”. I doubt that I will forget. I hope others will join me in voting out the “three to two” Power Block that is working feverishly to buy another election.
Please note that I haven’t used the most recently bantered rhetorical words: “Politicians, Ethics, or Decency”. If you apply what this Board’s actions have done to the residents of the real Front Door of Orchard Park, those words would urge you to join us in our attempt to save what is left of our neighborhoods.
It might be well to remember that your neighborhood will be next. The only power the “Have Not’s” wield is the power to vote. Let’s not waste it.
——————————————————————————–
By: Tony on October 24, 2007
at 12:46 pm
Tony - the town board and the planning board fought very hard to minimize the impact of the “new” McDonalds. They fought with McDonalds to minimize the size of the building and instead of the two large pedestal signs at the old site, there will now be only one. The traffic flow should also be improved so as to eliminate traffic queuing onto OP Road.
Hey - I am no fans of McDonalds and ask that you read the 1/2007 Planning Board minutes when McDonalds appeared before that board. http://www.orchardparkny.org/indexing/planning/html/PB_2007_JAN.html. You will find that it was no walk in the park for McDonalds. You will also find that it was Ackerman who took the time and iniative to wrestle with McDonalds to soften the architectural impact of the new building. One of the problems ithat the town and planning board have is the lack of an enforceable architectural code.
As frustrating as it is when dealing with large retailers like McDonalds , we do have personal property rights in this country and if a property is zoned correctly there is little the town and planning board can do unless there are real safety or other environmental issues that make a project unacceptable.
Your personal attack on Ackerman is unwarranted. She and the planning board worked very hard to get the best design possible. McDonald’s was under no legal obligation to offer alternative designs other than their boilerplate options. Ackerman was able to get something better than boilerplate. You take aim at Ackerman but where was Murphy and Yeomans? You should consider that those two talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. Perhaps with the support of Murphy and Yeomans Ackerman might have gotten more from McDonalds
I don’t know if you have ever attended a Planning Board meeting. I do know that Murphy and Yeomans have not. In fact they have not demonstrated much interest in development other than to sit on the fence and wave their finger in the wind to see what will be the politically popular stance. That’s not leadership.
If you haven’t attended a planning board meeting, I suggest you do.
By: Joe on October 25, 2007
at 10:09 am
Can you explain to me why Nan did what she did on this Wal-Mart issue? You are so correct in stating that the town can do little if the property is zoned for the development itself. In the case of the Wal-mart it was Nan who pushed the re-zoning. We lost valuable commercial space that could have brought us jobs and development without 10,000 car trips a day! The State replied in letters with a clear caution that to do so would seriously impact the commercial zoning ratio.
Do you have some insight as to why she would create this ridiculous situation for us - and please don’t tell me that her close relationship with the developer was not a part of it. Why did she do this to us?
By: Jane Shumaker on October 26, 2007
at 1:43 pm
I believe that the property was formerly zoned industrial. It’s not big enough to be developed for an industrial park such as Quaker Centre and Sterling. It’s got RR tracks running behind it and the property on the northside is zoned commercial, so from a planning viewpoint it made sense to rezone it to commercial as is the case from the I-90 in Hamburg to the 219. There is some residential sprinkled in along Milestrip in Hamburg.
Retailers like to be among other retailers, that’s why the old Wal Mart in Hamburg on 20A is not very successful. Market studies show retailers have greater success when they are in an area where there are multiple other retailers to choose from.
Also, remember, that the Wal Mart site was originally pitched as a Sam’s Club. It was a smaller project. Wal Mart made the business decision not to build more Sams and switched to a Superstore. Cross your fingers, I heard on the radio the other morning that Wal Mart investors are not real happy with corporate’s expansions plans, so Wal Mart could go away.
By: Joe on October 26, 2007
at 2:37 pm
Please note I meant the eastside of the property not the northside in the first paragraph. I should have consulted my Rand McNally first.
By: Joe on October 26, 2007
at 3:58 pm
you are correct it was to be a Sam’s Club and it was industrial - but the point is it is not true that no other viable business could have gone in there.
What is so disturbing and has me fed up and looking into this town and it’s actions is how this re-zoning took place. It is a “zonegate” move as I like to call it now.. that started the problem. If someone wants proof of that go ask Toni the former Supervisor - she will tell you how this took place in a Nan whirlwind move.Perhaps Nan did not think that her Sam’s Club would morph into the Wal-Mart monster that it is to us. There are factual studies that prove the Superstore will attract 10,000 car trips a day! Drive down Transit road to the Amherst one to see it in action. As for shareholder sentiment on expansion - Wal-Mart has to show bottom line profits and they have flatlined for quite some time - you are very right about that…..- but THEY did not go away. The town just received a week or so ago another modified plan from Wal-mart. Thank you for pointing out I have used the wrong terms - I meant the rezone went from industrial to commerical allowing the retail.
By: Jane Shumaker on October 26, 2007
at 5:08 pm
Are you claiming that 10,000 cars will go in and out of that site per day? I don’t believe it. Site your source, publish the link and I will look at it. But don’t site some quack who has an anti-Wal Mart bias. I won’t buy it.
Hysterical claims and comparing a less than one mile stretch of Milestrip Road to an 5-7 mile stretch of Transit Road is ludicrous. You cannot compare the two - it’s apples and oranges. Give me fact, leave out the emotion and then I can consider your argument.
By: Joe on October 27, 2007
at 8:38 am
People! I for one am not a Wal-Mart fan. If I need to go there, the sale price of the item needed better be worth it!! BUT my point here is we already have a Wal-Mart on 20A, just down the road and not far from where I live. Guess what, HAMBURG IS BENEFITING FROM THE TAXES PAID BY THIS WAL-MART LOCATION! Allowing the store to move a few miles north of it’s current location, places them in Orchard Park and, ladies and gentelmen, THIS GETS ADDED TO OUR TAX REVENUE! While Supervisor Mary Travers-Murphy who, mind you, is supposed to be the Budget Director, threatens us with a 15% tax hike (when do I move out of this town), I would prefer to see Wal-Mart ease the pain of this increase instead of it being absorbed by myself and the rest of our town residents!
By: PCINOP on October 27, 2007
at 2:14 pm
The source of the traffic numbers is THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (Trip Generation Report for Wal-Mart) Google it and you will find the number is correct. If you wish to order a copy of the report you can from the phone number on the site. The ITE is used by municpalities all over the country - traffic engineers, developers, and city officials rely on their studies. This is not a joke
In addition, the number of trips on is much higher on weekends…something betwee 12,000 and 14,000 These stores are often almost 250,000 square feet. Some take up land space of 5 football fields - do the research. I also have made a contact with Phil Winters TDM Program Director, Center for Urban Transportation Research, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA - you can reach him at winters@cutr.usf.edu He provided me with many valuable factual resources.
I am not a quack, and you are welcome to check this out yourself. Perhaps when you do you will understand the anger driving the emotion, especially when you consider that type of traffic generation on a 1 mile strip of land compared to a 5-7 mile on Transit. Are you aware that Wal-Mart has stated our town”s land rule on parking spots is not necessary? That they are trying to negotiate 100 less spots needed than our town tells them they need? They have come back with a proposal to cut into Benzing. Do you know that Wal-Mart parking lots invite overnight campers? Please go check these facts out. I did.
TO PCINOP
You need to gather the facts on the tax abatements that Wal-Mart is being given. Then you will have to factor in the town’s “costs” in services. These are all real issues you can research. When you come up with the net return you will like many others realize this is not the gravy train it looks like. Then you will need to understand that they have a 10yr lease that reduces their taxes every year. Wal-mart is a bottom line profit driven company - it has been over expanding and it’s stockholders are pounding their fists. Wal-Mart could walk away from a supercenter in a hearbeat and leave us with an albatross - the cost to them is meaningless.
Mary and a tax increase? What is it with this town? Mary just got here and Nan has been spending for years - how can this be Mary’s increase? Do you think we ended up in this situation overnight? And one last point - if towns benefit from development as you state, and Nan has said yes to every developer friend, why would we be in a position to be looking at a tax increase?
I know you know that’s because the goverment we have had in OP has been spending all this money - hasn’t Nan been there for 16 years?
I will join you and the rest of our townspeople in demanding that they cut spending before raising our taxes. It is my understanding that at the work session this was discussed.
By: Jane Shumaker on October 27, 2007
at 6:52 pm
Your statement that Ackerman is somehow responsible for a tax increase is nonsense. Our tax rate in OP is lower, that’s right lower, than it was when Ackermanfirst came into office. Not coincidentally, the tax rate is lower undert the Republican majority than it was when the Democrats last had the Town majority.
The tax increase is the result of large increases in the costs of emloyee benefits, most of it healthcare. The union’s refusal to accept a one payer provider is costing the Town many thousands of additional premium dollars every year.
Jemiolo was in negotiaton, and playing hardball with this union to go to the one payer. The union does not like this and supports and camaigns for Yeomans. Yeomans gets elected and refuses to become involved in negotiations. Murphy does the same. Murphy hires someone to represent the Town and that person gives away the store to the union. That’s the reason for this large tax increase.
By: Joe on October 28, 2007
at 9:17 am
Hello, folks.
Sorry to butt in.
The following is for your consideration.
1) First, from the Buffalo News, April 5, 2007:
“CSEA Approves Four-Year Contract: TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK”
By Elmer Ploetz
Blue-collar workers in Orchard Park have reached an agreement with the town for a four-year contract that will take the town through the end of 2008.
The contract is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005, when the last contract expired.
The key to the contract, said Town Board members, was an agreement to create a health insurance committee with representatives from the union and Town Board, as well as other town unions.
“We have language in there that says they will come back to the table with all the other factions of town government and negotiate to get under one carrier,” said Supervisor Mary Travers Murphy.
Moving all the town’s workers to one health insurance carrier has been a goal of the Town Board for some time and was one of the major issues in negotiations. The town has said it will slow the explosion in health insurance costs.
“We would eventually like them to embrace having one carrier,” said Councilman David Kaczor. “It’s very difficult when you have three unions that represent three distinct groups.”
Travers Murphy said the goal is for the Police Benevolent Association and the town’s white-collar union to join the committee, so health coverage can be standardized among the town’s workers.
Toby Zintz, president of Orchard Park’s blue-collar CSEA unit, said the contract was approved Wednesday afternoon by a 25-2 vote. It met the unit’s goal of maintaining health coverage, Zintz said.
“The majority has Traditional Blue coverage and wanted to keep it,” Zintz said. “We worked it out so Traditional Blue was more affordable for the town.”
The contract also includes 3 percent raises for each year. By the end of the contract, pay will range from $19.58 an hour for laborers in all areas to $24.30 an hour for mechanics.
As far as revising health insurance further, Zintz said, “If the town has some other ideas, we’re waiting to hear them.”
Kaczor said the contract was negotiated by the Town Board as a whole after Councilman Stanley Jemiolo Jr., the board’s representative on the negotiating team, was defeated in his bid for re-election in November.
The negotiations had apparently been completed last year, but the Town Board rejected the deal.
_________________________
2) Second, an excerpt from the OP Town Board Minutes of April 4, 2007:
“(Not on the Agenda) Authorize Supervisor to Sign the Agreement.”
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN DIETRICK, WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KACZOR, TO WIT:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Supervisor to sign the Tentative Agreement by and between the Town of Orchard Park and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., AFSCME, Local 1000, AFL-CIO/Town of Orchard Park Blue Collar Unit.
Councilman Dietrick stated signing this contract is a huge step for the Town being that Health Insurance was such a big issue. He also stated he was pleased that the Town has agreed to form a health insurance committee. All parties understand that there will be no unilateral changes in the present health insurance coverage until each respective body, Town Board and Town Unions, ratifies new health insurance coverage subject to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
The resolution was unanimously adopted.
By: RDS on October 28, 2007
at 10:09 am
Hi Joe, I think the above sets the record straight.
1. I am a republican, not the least bit interested in the continuance of “party” voting - I’m voting on character and ethics - regardless of party…. party voting has lost it’s value in our government.
2. Read my statement under Cushman. I am disgusted with anyone who thinks my tax dollar should pay their full ride for benefits - no one pays mine.
3. Please read OPFront Door’s analysis of the cause of the tax increase. It is not Mary’s tax - it is our tax - “we are the they - they are the us” - We need people who understand they may have to fight unpopular fights to properly serve us. What I simply wanted you to take note to was that you can’t have a fiscal budget problem from a Town Supervisor whose hands have been tied by a majority. The problem could not have possibly started with one person.
I am so tired of self serving politics
p.s - did you have the opportunity yet to check out the ITE figures on superstores?
By: Jane Shumaker on October 28, 2007
at 10:30 am
Jane states in an earlier post regarding Walmart that “In addition, the number of trips on is much higher on weekends…something betwee 12,000 and 14,000 These stores are often almost 250,000 square feet. Some take up land space of 5 football fields - do the research.”
This would lead you to believe that this is what is proposed in OP and would certainly shock us all. However, this is not what is proposed in OP. So…I did some research and found the following information of which you might have some interest.
Check out the Planning Board minutes from May 9, 2007. Here’s the link: http://www.orchardparkny.org/indexing/planning/html/PB_2007_MAY.html
I did a few ITE searches and found the following. Here’s the link: http://www.againstthewal.com/studies/MarkWolfeBigBoxCCMeasureCalcs021004.htm
Table 2
Daily/Weekly Trips from Land Use 813 (Free Standing Discount Superstore)
For An Assumed Store Size of 200,000 Square Feet
Number of
Studies Average
Trip Rate Low End of Range of Rates High End of Range of Rates
Weekday Trips 10 10,847* 5,930 12,806
Saturday Trips 10 12,601* 7,064 14,722
Sunday Trips 10 9,396 5,522 14,054
Weekly Trips 76,232 42,236 92,806
Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip
Generation, 7th Edition.
* indicates fitted curve equation was used instead of average trip rate
The table does not fit well here but the bottom line is that in the the average trip rate would be about 76,000 per week which equals Janes claim of 10,000 average per day. To her credit, she leaves out the the high estimate of about 92,806 trips, but does not inlcude the low end rate of 42,236 trips. Remember, these rates are for a 200,000 s.f. Super Center.
Now, the proposed OP Walmart is to be 134,088 square feet or about two thirds the size of the 200,000 s.f. store.
There will be other factors including trip rate including proximity to other Wal Marts and alternative shopping options of which we have quite a few.
Leading a casual reader of your quoted statements would lead that reader to believe that a 250,000 s.f store is proposed in OP. This cherry picking only information that supports your postion is intellectually dishonest.
By the way of your football field analogy, an NFL football field is about 57,600 square feet. 134,088/57,600 is 2.3 football fields.
By: Joe on October 29, 2007
at 11:02 am
Joe, I am glad that you found ITE’s traffic study.
I do apologize for not having the sqaure footage of ours correct. I did not review May’s minutes, and all involved including the town have just called it a “superstore” to me. - - I went from the ranges I found on the site.
As you state ours is proposed to be 134,088 - so let’s round it to 134,000 -
ITE’s figures of 10,000 avg cars a day for a 200,000 sq foot store used as a basis, let’s do the math.
134,000 is .67 of 200,000
.67 of 10,000 cars a day = 6,700 cars/day AVG
ARE YOU REALLY BETTER NOW WITH 6,700 cars a day? (and how many huge rigs does it take to keep that store supplied - doubt they will do air deliveries)
Thank you for pointing out that I did not use the highest end of the numbers ITE gives. - I used the average car trips a day
You point out that other factors exist such as proximity to other Wal-Marts and alternative shopping options. What you don’t point out is that most of the alternative shopping outlets are across the street, and you don’t point out that a college full of kids is up the street, and that the “street” itself is much smaller than say that of the 5-7 mile expanse of Transit Road.
So to visualize a good comparison, you need to drive into Williamsville as I do everyday, take their ECC college, their movie theaters, their Kohls, their Target, their Barnes and Noble, their Ashley furniture, their Premier, their Cold Stone Creamery (which we will soon have) their Marshalls, Petsmart and a few other eateries and establishments and SQUASH THEM ALL TOGETHER on that section of Milestrip that connects them to the area’s largest retail concentration on McKinley. Further, this Milestrip section has a major traffic safety issue already.
Now let’s add that WAL-MART REFUSES to modify it’s building to add the 152 additional spaces our city ordinance requires. In a very arrogant statement to the town board they stated …we will prove you don’t need them. Would you believe them or the town that we empowered to draw up these ordinances?
Respectfully, my question to you and everyone else is - are you saying that 6,700 cars a day is not a major issue to an area that has traffic safety issues already, that BOXES in the residents of Lake, Berg, Bielak, Minden South Western and so many of the surrounding streets I can’t even list?
Since we may not have them in a few years I trust that we aren’t allowed to factor in the however many home games we play, adding football traffic to that. (Penance days for our doormat people on this end of town?)
Now sorry to say that while Wal-Mart is not just about traffic, I would not list all the other things they are about - Americans need to decide on this monopoly for themselves. HOWEVER, there is one I WILL NOT FAIL to mention and that is that there is absolutely one motive they have that we BETTER pay close attention to. It is drive out the competition. So let’s analyze our area, Wegmans, Tops, Target, Kohls, for the big ones - now Arthurs, the small brake and oil shops, the graden centers, etc. etc. Who is left standing when Walmart expands like a SPIDER WEB ( let’s see -one in Hamburg and one in OP?) and accomplishes it’s goal? Who is left with the buildings that no tenant will take? What have we accomplished for our community down the road if we put businesses out of business in the interest of cheaper toothpaste?
Lastly, and something so few understand that it is scary. Wal-Mart is a company that has been flat lining in profit for a very long time - so long that the shareholders are pounding their fists. They have stated growth is on an oversurge, and that profits are suffering. Wal-mart for the first time has announced they MAY meet analysts estimates this quarter - The price of growing too fast. Everyone has to understand this - if Wal-Mart anchors two stores in a fairly close proximity, (ours and Rogers road a supposed done deal) and the manuever doesn’t work - it’s simple for them - WALK AWAY - leave the building, cut the loss - we would be a meaningless drip in the bucket.
They start off with a 50% reduction in taxes and increase 5% a year until they are at the rate we should collect. They very carefully calculate that into their profit margin, and their tactics to drive out the competition - close a store and leave another standing. Smart business - our problem is we don’t understand Smart Development yet in OP. You build up your retail and then partner up with a wolf?
I hope you and others in Orchard Park will carefully look at this - Wal-Mart is not here to become our buddy - they want our market share, and to get it someone has to lose it. Taxes we gain on one end will likely go out the door on the other.
We need SMART DEVELOPMENT
By: Jane Shumaker on October 30, 2007
at 6:21 pm
PCINOP:
Property value losses surrounding the project might offset Wal-Mart’s addition to OP’s revenue stream. Do you think that the residential lots adjacent to Sheridan Drive and Niagara Falls Boulevard have experienced increases in value as the area developed?
If you’re really concerned about taxes, dissolve the village government; there is no need for more than one governmental entity for a town of roughly 30,000 residents. Alternatively, move out to where taxes are low - as likely will be the quality of roads, schools, infrastructure, and other public services. Living in Orchard Park is practically a dream . . . I’m not surprised that it comes with a hefty price.
By: Chris Willett on November 4, 2007
at 5:11 pm
There are two more large subdivisions in the works that will soon contribute to more sprawl in Orchard Park and change the town’s character forever:
1. Smokes Creek Subdivision: Across the road from Birdsong (south side of Jewett Holmwood Rd) on the former Yates farm: 1. C.B.. File #47-07,”Smokes Creek Subdivision” concept review of proposed 26-lot subdivision, 26.17-acres vacant land located at 7295 Jewett-Holmwood Road, across from the Birdsong Subdivision, south side of Jewett-Holmwood Road, Zoned R-1. Formerly a part of the Yates Farm property.
2. Courtyard at Birdsong: RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby schedule a Public Hearing for Wednesday, February 6, 2008, at 7:00 PM, for Dominick Piestrak, “Courtyard at Birdsong”, to rezone vacant land located on the North side of Jewett-Holmwood Road and East side of Freeman Road, from R-1 to “Conservation Management Overlay District” (CMO) for the purpose of constructing 39 single family homes, as recommended by the Planning Board, and be it further
I encourage everyone to participate in our local government and let your voice be heard. Please attend town meetings and public hearings above.
By: DJ on January 6, 2008
at 11:35 am
HELLO ALL–THE REPORT BY THE EFFICIENCY TASK GROUP HAS NOW BEEN ISSUED
WE WILL ALSO BE SENDING OUT F/U MATERIAL BASED ON OUR FINDINGS AND REC.
I HAVE ALSO WRITTEN A SHORT ARTICLE “NYS FROM EMPIRE STATE TO WELFARE STATE IN ONE LIFETIME”
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE COPIES OF ONE OR BOTH–SEND ME AN EMAIL AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO SEND YOU COPIES.
I DO NOT EXPECT THE MATERIAL WILL GET WIDE CIRCULATION FROM THE PAPERS OR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.ONE OF THE COMM. IS WORKING TO GET IT REPORT UP ON A WEBSITE AND IF SUCCESSFUL I WILL ADVISE
REGARDS TO ALL DON QUINLAN
By: DON QUINLAN on January 20, 2008
at 11:42 am
