The Orchard Park Town Board approved a phony Comprehensive Plan on September 19, 2007.
The approved phony Plan document, passed by board vote of 3-2, is the second draft phony document offered by the political majority’s designated sole “author”, Councilwoman Nan Ackerman.
Here is the link to the phony document (still referred to as a “draft”):
http://www.orchardparkny.org/town/townboard/2007_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf
The final phony document is now called an “Update”, referring, I believe, to the notion that the Town had a Plan to start with. Absolute nonsense.
This phony document is nothing short of an embarrassment. So are the phony contents. It’s an empty suit. Take a look.
At the very least, you would think that someone would clean up the look of the phony document to make it appear like it might be the real thing. I guess they know that even if they did, it would still be phony.
It’s now JULY, 2008 (10 months later), and the phony document still has to be “prioritized” or “implemented”. In fact a committee has yet to be formed to do this. I wonder if this is by design.
Not that it would matter. After all, it’s phony.
I believe our “plan” could have been completed sooner and would had looked and read much different (you know, like a real Comprehensive Plan, not phony) had Ms. Ackerman and the Town Board allowed some willing and talented residents to help her, such as suggested by the Supervisor. But that’s not the way things are done in OP. It was Nan’s phony “baby” (for these many years), despite powerless community objections and suggestions.
I’m sure the fact that a phony “Comprehensive Plan” that she worked so hard on for so many years was finally approved (regardless if it’s phony, or how it looks, reads, it’s usefulness, or it’s overall value), it will be a monument to her legacy. A phony one at that.
While a number of serious first-round suggestions and recommendations submitted by citizens for consideration were added to the phony second draft, don’t count on any of them ever being implemented or seriously considered by our development approval boards.
A safe prediction is that our elected and appointed officials, our the town attorney, and our various Town Boards will not bother to consider this phony document or any other document labeled as a “Comprehensive Plan” when making current or future development decisions.
They don’t need one. They already have made “plans”. They will do what they want.
Needless to say, it was a forgone conclusion that the second phony draft document would be approved by the board’s majority members regardless of further public input received in the final public hearing of September 5, 2007.
Some additional written comments and recommendations for the phony draft plan were foolishly submitted at that hearing for the Board’s consideration.
Also needless to say, none were considered.
But here they are (below) just for laughs for your review and reference.
Even if these comments made the final phony document, not much would change, nor would it matter.
You know - once a phony, always a phony.
COMMENTS OFFERED FOR THE SECOND (PHONY) “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”:
- Consider amending the “Appendix” and list by name what is contained in the appendix.
- Specifically append to this plan, in their entirety, the 2002 Land Use Study (prepared by Wendel Duchscherer), and the Open Space Master Plan (prepared by the Conservation Board).
- Consider renaming Section IV, “Goals and Objectives” to read “Vision: Goals and Objectives”.
- Consider updating the maps and figures to reflect the most current information available.
- Consider the creation of a comprehensive “Vision Map” as an important future function of the proposed “Prioritization and Implementation Committee”.
- In the 1st paragraph of the “Policy Statement”, I suggest that it be amended to read:
“As defined in Section 272-2a of New York State Town Law, entitled “Comprehensive Plans”, the Comprehensive Plan…..”
- In the 3rd paragraph of the “Policy Statement”, I suggest that it be amended to read:
“It is the intent of the The Town Board to shall conduct continual updates of this Plan to insure that this Plan will remain pertinent and appropriate. The Town Board will refer to applicable sections of this Comprehensive Plan when reviewing the Capital Projects and Priorities List and any and all new and pending industrial, commercial, and residential development projects. Any actions taken and/or new laws and regulations passed will be incorporated into the Plan.”
- Also in the 3rd paragraph of the “Policy Statement”, I suggest adding appropriate language describing that “continual updates” of the plan will include a formal, scheduled annual review (perhaps each Fall), to include a public hearing to gather on-going community input.
- In Section I, “Introduction: History and Background”, I suggest adding a paragraph or two describing our Town’s recent boom in residential, commercial and retail growth, to include a summary of the many new residential subdivisions that now exist, the Southwestern Blvd auto dealerships, the Tops/Lowes Plaza at the 5 corners, and, of course, Quaker Crossing. The discussion should include a brief history of the difficult decisions that had to be made (such as rezoning), and include a review of both the positive and negative impacts these projects have had on our Town.
- In the middle of the last paragraph of Section II, “Public Concerns”, I suggest that a sentence be amended to read: “It is, therefore, the intent of the authors that this document should shall be a continuation of the development of public policy, rules, and regulations.”
- In Section VI, “Recommendations”, the word “should” is used some 24 times, and lends itself to the idea that we may or may not pursue the recommendation. I would like to suggest that use of the word “shall” rather than “should” would be more appropriate in most cases.
- Also in Section VI, “Recommendations”, there are three (3) new paragraphs which describe recommendations to revise our Town Code to establish and/or amend architectural, signage, and lighting standards. These are excellent recommendations. I would like to suggest a means to implement our future new codes and standards. Consider 2 new recommendations that may read:
- “Create a new “Architectural and Landscaping Review Board” to review and approve building architecture design, landscaping, green space requirements, signage, lighting standards, and buffering for all new commercial and residential development projects”, and
- - “Re-establish and restructure the duties and tasks of the Conservation Board in order to refocus and fulfill the responsibilities set forth in Chapter 7 of the OP Town Code and Article 12F, Section 239-y of the New York State General Municipal Law”.
- In Section VII, “Strategies and Tools (Measures, Programs, Devices, and Instruments to Accomplish Goals)”, entry #9, “Cumulative Impact Analysis”, I suggest that the language be amended to read:
” In conducting an environmental review of a proposed project, its negative impacts on the environment may must be considered in conjunction with all existing development and those of nearby or related projects to determine whether, cumulatively, their adverse impacts are significant and require a positive SEQR declaration and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. If the findings demonstrate a negative significant adverse cumulative impact, a project my must be curtailed unless modified to mitigate or eliminate the cumulative impact.”
