Town approves Rachel’s Mediterranean Eatery SEQR & Amended Site Plan

[Lee Chowaniec]

Monday evening by a 3-1 vote the Lancaster town board approved the development of an existing vacant tenant space with an 80-seat Rachel’s Mediterranean Eatery with an addition of 26 parking spaces located at 4931 Transit Road – on 3.23 acres of land.

Council member Dawn Gaczewski voted ‘no’ on the SEQR resolution and the amended site plan resolution as well. While paying respect to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to grant a 35 parking space variance, and the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board for site plan approval, she differed with both based on the increase in traffic and traffic safety issues within the Benderson / Aldi complex site and onto Transit Road and William Street. Gaczewski remarked that the town’s number one priority was to protect the public’s safety.

Council member Matt Walter was absent, Supervisor Johanna Coleman, council members Ron Ruffino and Adam Dickman voted to approve the project.

I was hoping that somewhere, somehow, an explanation would be coming to clarify the language of the resolution. The Lancaster Bee choose to not feature a development resolution that warranted reporting (IMHO).

The language of the resolution reads:

WHEREAS, Matthew J. Oates, on behalf of Benderson Development Company LLC, has prepared and submitted an amended site plan, dated July 2, 2019 and received July 16, 2019 for the addition of 26 parking spaces to accommodate all occupancies on site, on a +/- 3.23 acre parcel, located at 4931 Transit Road, SBL No. 115.03-1-34.121 in the Town of Lancaster.

I am confused on when and why the added 26 parking spaces came into existence (certainly not July 16, 2019) considering the following:

On August 8, 2019, Benderson Development appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for and received a 35-paring space variance. The General Business (GB) code requirement for this tenant buildout space is 193 parking spaces. The petitioner, therefore, requested a variance to reduce the required parking spaces by 35 spaces to 158 parking spaces; claiming the site plan in 2016 was approved as a ‘shopping center’. Lancaster has no shopping center district code classification.

On September 4, 2019, the Planning Board recommended to the Town Board approval of the Benderson amended site plan based on the ZBA granting the 35-parking space deficiency variance. It was noted by the Planning Board: A change in the interpretation of the code and the fact that the property is zoned GB (General Business) and not a shopping center (as the Benderson attorney claimed) resulted in the deficiency of parking spaces, Shopping center should not be used and individual occupancy is used for parking requirements. The parking space calculation was based on retail occupants and not public assembly.

Although having received recommended Planning Board amended site plan approval on September 4th, on August 5, 2019 Benderson submits an application to the Town Supervisor requesting approval to add 26 parking spaces to the property in connection with the addition of Rachel’s as a tenant in the existing business complex. The submittal letter claims the Planning Board recommended the approval of the application to the town board. There is nothing in writing that establishes that request.

So, on September 4th the Planning Board recommends amended site plan approval for 158 parking spaces based on the ZBA variance. The following day the developer once again wants to amend the site plan and add 26 parking spaces – despite his claim that clients of the Benderson complex would be well served with 158 spaces the prior day.

• It appears the ZBA misinterpreted the code on parking space requirements in a General Business zoned location.
• The Planning Board approves the site plan because of the ZBA variance but notes the misinterpretation of the code.
• The developer has his ZBA variance, Planning Board recommended site plan approval for 158 parking spaces, but then files an application to add 26 spaces. Why?
• Lastly, even with the addition of the 26 spaces to the existing 158 spaces, that still leaves a shortage of 9 spaces for the required 193 for GB zoned development.

What is going on? Are developer best interests once again favored over that of the residents?

The individuals who voted ‘no’ on the ZBA, Planning and Town Boards were the ones who understood the traffic and traffic safety issues involved in approving a development project that exceeds its original site plan building scope.

How many ‘little to moderate’ SEQR impacts add to one significant impact that threatens public safety. Does anyone in the town really care about adding more traffic to the already overburdened Transit Road / William Street intersection where traffic backups onto Transit Road have become a common occurrence – and a Chick-fil-A scheduled to open soon at the Transit Road / Losson Road intersection.

Wasn't this building's site plan approved to house retail businesses, not a restaurant or fitness center?

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
I am confused on when and why the added 26 parking spaces came into existence (certainly not July 16, 2019) considering the following

In the August 7 Planning board minutes, it states that it was tabled.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Thank you for the post, Gorga.

The 26 added parking spaces was ‘discussed’ at the August 7th Planning Board (PB) meeting – a review where the matter was tabled and no decision rendered.
The very next day the project sponsor receives a 35-parking space deficiency variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). On September 4th the Planning Board recommends amended site plan approval for 158 parking spaces based on the ZBA variance.

The project sponsor (Benderson Development) gets a variance while declaring complex customers will not be underserved in having parking source availability. The very next day Benderson applies for approval to add 26 parking spaces and claims the PB recommended application approval at the September 4th meeting – the same meeting the PB approved the 158- parking space amended site plan.

Am I the only one that thinks it strange that the project sponsor gets a variance declaring there will still be enough parking spaces available (158), then later requests the addition of 26 spaces so that clients will be better served - and gets town approval.

Consider also that there was signage in the window of the vacant tenant store declaring “Coming soon – Rachel’s Mediterranean Restaurant,” before site plan approval and or the variance granting. That the Rachel name appeared on the Orville signage before site plan approval. Confidence?

Lastly, does the 184-parking space total now meet town code requirement for a General Business District zoned property?

More importantly, for the town to declare on the SEQR application that the proposed action did not create a conflict with the adopted land use or zoning regulations because a parking variance was granted by the ZBA is appalling. A variance should not have been granted!

SEQR also questions whether the proposed action (Rachel’s) result in the use or intensity of use of land. The town answered: No to small impact. Really? An 80-seat sit-down restaurant with take out service in a location intended for retail. 26 added parking spaces distant from the restaurant.

SEQR also questions whether the proposed action results in an adverse change in the level of traffic. Town answer: ‘small impact’. Not even a ‘small-to-moderate’ impact to an already overburdened Transit – William intersection.

I commend ZBA member Beutler, PB member Korzeniewski and Town Board member Gaczewski for their diligence and effort in presenting the traffic and traffic safety issues that exist with this project.

[mark blazejewski]

SEQR also questions whether the proposed action results in an adverse change in the level of traffic. Town answer: ‘small impact’. Not even a ‘small-to-moderate’ impact to an already overburdened Transit – William intersection.

I commend ZBA member Beutler, PB member Korzeniewski and Town Board member Gaczewski for their diligence and effort in presenting the traffic and traffic safety issues that exist with this project.

Lee, may I add my "ME TOO" to your comments.

Twenty years ago, I frequented that part of Lancaster at least three times a week. More recently, because of the traffic conditions, I will jump through hoops to avoid it.

I believe that Beutler and Korzeniewski truly understand the safety issues resultant from the traffic flow, and that safety was uppermost in Council member Gaczewski's consideration.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Ten years ago when the Wal-Mart and Aldi projects were approved, then council member Donna Stempniak when casting a ‘no vote’ for the Wal-Mart site plan resolution declared: “50 years from now people passing by this area are going to say, ‘What the hell were they (town) thinking’?

Well, it certainly didn’t take 50 years, did it.

Thirteen businesses having ingress / egress driveways on William Street; five driveways on William Street within a stretch of 500 feet from Transit Road (only two with signalization). Only one lane going east from Transit Road. Conflict points, backups onto Transit Road and more town development along the two-lane county road to come. Traffic / traffic safety issues? Small-to-moderate! Developers rule.

Then the town blames the county for the increase in traffic and requests county mitigation. Accidents, numerous. But hey, no one has gotten killed yet, right?

[gorja]

Lee, I have a question for you of which I do NOT know the answer in advance of asking it.

Under what circumstances can the town be sued for disapproving a project?

With the ZBA approving the parking space variance, would that tie the hands of the planning and town boards or not?

I just found a post about the Tim Horton's denial and approval. Are they similar or not?

Lancaster to rescind prior denial resolution and approve Tim Hortons site plan
By Lee Chowaniec

Whereas the Lancaster Town Board on September 10, 2007 denied site plan approval for a Tim Hortons to be located on Transit Road, at the intersection of Michael Anthony, they will vote on resolution 11 Monday evening to rescind their prior 3-2 denial vote.

The site plan, submitted by TDL Group, 4455 Transit Road, Williamsville was for the building of a drive-through Tim Hortons Restaurant along with associated parking at 4849 Transit Road.

Public controversy ensued in the form of written correspondence, petitions and town board comments made by neighborhood residents and supporters around town that frequent this area. Such controversy most likely led to three board members voting to disapprove the site plan. Those voting for site plan denial were Council Members Donna Stempniak, Mark Montour and Ronald Ruffino.

Stempniak was quoted in the Buffalo News as saying the site plan squeezed too much onto the eight-tenths of an acre site. “Traffic was a big issue. I think that was a building that was crammed into too small a parcel. It generates an awful lot of traffic for such a tiny parcel.”

Stempniak added that she was disappointed that the NYSDOT did not conclude that traffic would be adversely impacted by the Tim Hortons operation.

Those opposed to the project voiced that they are not against commercial development taking place at this location. It should be development less intense development, especially considering the parcel of land has only a hundred foot frontage, sits between an intersection and a large apartment complex, with no signalization at the intersection.

“This project does not fit here because of the traffic and traffic safety issues involved,” declares Laurie Bracci-Hatte, Queens Way resident.

Jeffery Palumbo, Tim Hortons attorney for the proposed 4849 Transit Road operation told the Lancaster Town Board at the September 10th meeting that he expects to file lawsuit papers against the town today in response to their 3-2 vote denying site plan approval. A lawsuit was instated.

Town Attorney Richard Sherwood declared at the September meeting that if the town denies a commercial activity on a site that is commercially zoned along a major thoroughfare, that would be deemed “arbitrary and capricious” by a court of law.

“If our defense is that we don’t think it’s appropriate because it’s on Transit Road, and it’s already a busy highway, you’re not going to win that battle in court,” declared Sherwood. “The DOT widened Transit Road a few years so that it would accept the traffic then and more future traffic.”

Monday’s resolution

Whereas, the Town Board voted against approval of the site plan by a 3-2 vote on September 10, 2007 and the developer thereafter commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County seeking jurisdictional intervention to reverse the Town Board action together with damages and attorney’s fees and costs of the action, and

Whereas, the Town Attorney appeared in State Supreme Court on the return date of the Order to Show Cause pursuant to Article 78, and

Whereas, the Town Board after discussion with the Town Attorney believes it to be in the best interest of the taxpayers of the Town of Lancaster to rescind its prior denial and now approve the site plan which plan is in compliance with the Town Code;

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster hereby approves the site plan submitted by TDL Group for a Tim Hortons drive-through at 4849 Transit Road.

Comments

Note that the resolution language says, “best interest of the taxpayers.” What about the best interests of the community? The Planning Board twice voted on a motion to approve site plan recommendation to the Town Board and did not muster enough votes to do so. Their concerns on traffic and traffic safety issues were presented loud and clear, going so far as to cite like traffic issues with the Tim Hortons already in operation within Lancaster.

How did this matter get to a court hearing so fast? Isn’t the town and town board members insured against lawsuits?

The transcript from the hearing should be made public by the Freedom of information Law (FOIL). Someone should FOIL for this information.

Did the town attorney plead before the justice the traffic and traffic safety concerns associated with this project? If a community’s safety, well-being and quality of life
are trumped by the need for another coffee and donut shop, when there is a Dunking Donuts already ¼ mile down the road, the laws have been written to favor businesses and special interests.

This enterprise is an accident waiting to happen. And when one does come along, think not only of liability, but why the town allowed this intrusive project to take place in this location.

Why did Council Member Montour personally contact the Michael Anthony subdivision residents who spoke out against the project to tell them, “We lost in court.” Is the rumor credible that the three council members were being individually sued as well?

This is almost as ridiculous as when the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) did not want to grant the Transit Road Dunkin Donuts a curb cut to access Transit Road, but advised the developer to use the Flix Theater Driveway. Dunkin Donuts responded “no curb cut, no business.” The DOT relented and gave them a permit for a curb cut.

Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide

[Breezy]

Gaczewski is just pandering to the whiny anti-development crowd!

What do you want Lee?

Should an "existing vacant tenant space" (as you call it) occur, let it become unproductive and decrepit?

It say a lot that Dickman and the Dems were together on this one.

Interesting.

I go to Wegman's all the time and people just love it. Same for a lot of the other Transit Road (yes, Lee, a modern commerce thoroughfare) businesses. Seems like other people support these businesses as well.

Looks to me the majority on the board did the right thing! That's why you need adults in the room as opposed to someone who sticks her finger in air in a shady attempt to gain 'the whiny' vote.

Ha!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee, I have a question for you of which I do NOT know the answer in advance of asking it.

Under what circumstances can the town be sued for disapproving a project?

With the ZBA approving the parking space variance, would that tie the hands of the planning and town boards or not?

I just found a post about the Tim Horton's denial and approval. Are they similar or not?



Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide

If a project sponsor submits a site plan where the property is zoned correctly and the project meets all the required codes, the town can be sued for project denial.

The Tim Hortons met those criteria and the sponsor threatened to sue the town. The town’s action was considered ‘arbitrary and capricious’ even by the town’s insurance carrier and they refused to provide insurance coverage. So, the town board members were going to be personally libel. They quickly did a 180 and approved the project.

With Rachel’s, the town could have denied site plan approval for parking space deficiency – and, they were currently deficient for the buildout that already took place and the expansion of Aldi.

When Benderson appeared before the ZBA for a variance there were 132 parking spaces available. Under General Business (GB) code requirements for the site plan buildout (Aldi and the retail building to the east) 193 parking spaces are required. With the granting of the 35-parking space variance and the addition of the 26 spaces, the property comes into code requirement – 132 + 26 + 35 = 193.

The project sponsor gets site plan approval for meeting the 193-parking space code requirement; however, the site still has a 35-parking space deficiency.

By code, Rachel’s should provide 40 parking spaces for the 80-seat restaurant. The building’s four occupants will share the 16 available spaces directly abutting the building. The remaining spaces, and the 26 additional spaces, are located a distance away and where customers will have to a busy driveway to access them – a more difficult and hazardous time in the winter.

The site plan has been approved. It’s over! The project sponsor got what he needed from the town to make it happen.

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=Breezy;1891713]

Gaczewski is just pandering to the whiny anti-development crowd!

Unlike Ruffino and every other politician, eh? But Gaczewski is the target here because she is not a Democrat, right?

This is not about being anti-development, it's about overdevelopment and it's adverse impacts. Get in the game!

What do you want Lee?

Relief from the burdening traffic already present on William Street and particularly at the Transit- Willian intersection. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Should an "existing vacant tenant space" (as you call it) occur, let it become unproductive and decrepit?

Benderson received site plan approval with the condition of meeting town code. Benderson put up another retail speculation building in 2015 knowing what parking space requirements would be. There is now a fitness center and a restaurant to follow. So, did Benderson create his own ‘hardship’?

It say a lot that Dickman and the Dems were together on this one.

Dickman is beginning to act more like a Democrat every day. A RHINO, maybe?

I go to Wegman's all the time and people just love it. Same for a lot of the other Transit Road (yes, Lee, a modern commerce thoroughfare) businesses. Seems like other people support these businesses as well.

And what does this have to do with the project being discussed?

Looks to me the majority on the board did the right thing! That's why you need adults in the room as opposed to someone who sticks her finger in air in a shady attempt to gain 'the whiny' vote.

Your opinion. Others will hold that the adult on the board saw the traffic and traffic safety issues associated with this project and voted ‘no’ to both the SEQR and site plan. The site will still be deficient in 35 parking spaces because of the variance and the 26 additional parking spaces are distant from the business locations. Again, it's like trying to put 10 lbs. of **** in a 5 lb. bag.

BTW - I find it ironic that you find non Democrats so offensive and believe Dems can do no wrong, yet the town has been under Democratic Party control for all but one administration in 70 years and when appearing at a recent Town Hall meeting County Executive Mark Poloncarz referred to the town's development as 'sprawl'. Damn those Republicans and Conservative, eh?

The town currently has a moratorium on rezone applications until the new code codes re adopted - and rightfully so as previous administrations handed out rezones and even rezones of rezones without just cause. Sprawl? Indeed!

[Dan Roman]

I was at the meeting and heard the argument against allowing Rachel’s. While I agree it’s technically correct, how does one argue against any more commercial development on Transit Rd? It is after all a commercial corridor and the place for businesses like that. Just because the whole area Wally mart, flix, Orville’s , and all the other properties that can dump out onto William st is the issue? If all the William st driveways were shut off would that make this an acceptable project?

[gorja]

I do see some of your points Lee. I just could NOT understand why the ZBA allowed the variance

They fell for the BS hook line and sinker. It didn't help that the town screwed up in 2017 with the parking for the Aldi's expansion

But to me, the ***** show they approved for Aurora and William is a worse decision.

[gorja]

I was at the meeting and heard the argument against allowing Rachel’s. While I agree it’s technically correct, how does one argue against any more commercial development on Transit Rd? It is after all a commercial corridor and the place for businesses like that. Just because the whole area Wally mart, flix, Orville’s , and all the other properties that can dump out onto William st is the issue? If all the William st driveways were shut off would that make this an acceptable project?

Oh, I wish that I knew you were there. I do enjoy reading your posts

[mark blazejewski]

To this comment "Breezy"...

Gaczewski is just pandering to the whiny anti-development crowd!

...and to this babble "Breezy"...

That's why you need adults in the room as opposed to someone who sticks her finger in air in a shady attempt to gain 'the whiny' vote..

...I would simply observe that your comments reflect your usual political tommyrot.

It seems to me that over the last four years Ms. Gacziewski has not only proven herself to be a strong and able legislator, but a highly motivated student, always eager to learn more about the town that she serves so well.

While obviously respecting the roles of both the Planning and Zoning Boards, Ms. Gaczewski I understand, regularly attends meetings of both bodies, and with the knowledge she acquires, is fortified with some pretty good insights into the issues confronting both boards. As a result, she seems indeed to have a gift to be able to discern seriousness from shenanigans, and can separate the brass tacks from the bullshine.

One classic example of Ms. Gaczewski's was her input into the situation involving Leo's Pizza.

Contrast Ms. Gaczewski's approach to her office with that of the seemingly factually-challenged truant Ruffino.

Over the last four years, how many meetings of the Planning Board has the Council Member attended?

Over the last four years, how many meetings of the Zoning Board has Council Member Ruffino attended?

Over the course of his entire tenure, is it not true that Council Member Ruffino has missed voting on about one-fourth (1/4th) of the entire Town of Lancaster budgets that he was expected to vote on?

In fact, Supervisor Coleman had it right when she recently stated...

“Ron, when was the last time you were in Town Hall and observed anything that goes on here; except for coming to town board meetings?"---Johnanna Coleman, August 19, 2019

[Lee Chowaniec]

I was at the meeting and heard the argument against allowing Rachel’s. While I agree it’s technically correct, how does one argue against any more commercial development on Transit Rd? It is after all a commercial corridor and the place for businesses like that. Just because the whole area Wally mart, flix, Orville’s , and all the other properties that can dump out onto William st is the issue? If all the William st driveways were shut off would that make this an acceptable project?

Am I correct in assuming you are referring to the September 18th town board meeting where council member voiced the reasons for her ‘no’ votes to the SEQR and amended site plan approvals?

If so, this isn't about stopping Rachel’s from occupying the Benderson vacant building parcel, the traffic on Transit Road, or anything else but holding the developer accountable for meeting town code requirements. The project sponsor’s attorney was untruthful when he tried to establish that the property was zoned ‘shopping center’ when there is no such district zoning classification.

The planning and town boards were dead in the water when the zoning board granted the variance. Had other board members voted ‘no’ to the Planning Board’s SEQR findings and ensuing site plan, I have no idea where this could have gone.

The planning board is a ‘recommending board to the town board.” The town board is the authoring board. I am not sure as to the binding power of the zoning board.

Transit Road is a state road, has been designated as a ‘commercial corridor’ and improved to handle increased traffic. William Street is a two-lane county road and although improved by being widened to four lanes from Transit Road to the FLIX Theater driveway still has five driveways and where only two are signalized and opposite each other.

When the so-called Gateway to Lancaster development was taking place at the Transit Road - William intersection, when rezones were handed out like candy to developers to make the development possible, in 2008 the Towns of Lancaster & Cheektowaga conjointly established the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance. The ordinance language reads:

• Promote the efficient flow of traffic and enhance public safety by reducing conflicting traffic movement.

• The requirements set out in this ordinance shall apply to all properties with frontage on Transit Road and all properties obtaining access from or through properties on Transit Road for its entire length in the Town of Lancaster except those properties located within the Village of Depew.

• The requirements of this ordinance shall also apply to all properties obtaining access from any road intersecting Transit Road for a distance within 600 feet from the intersection with Transit Road. (That is William Street to the FLIX Theater complex.)

Inner roads and interconnectivity to reduce access points, thereby reducing conflict points and congestion was the town’s spoken plan. It never happened. Three current driveways were not supposed to be in operation. There were plans to have but one signal controlling access management - driveways with an inner road system where all traffic accessed the businesses and William Street at a signalized intersection.

It never happened and most likely never will. The area became overdeveloped and continues to be overdeveloped because of the town granting a variance to a developer that violated building a code requirement.

This is not about anti-development, but once again where the town enables developers to act in their best interests, not the communities. The current town and planning boards are paying for the sins of the fathers where rezones and variances have caused the environmental and traffic – traffic safety issues the town is now experiencing. It is disturbing to see this project come to fruition.

If a property is zoned accordingly and the project meets all code requirements development is unstoppable. That did not happen here. Someone on the town board had the chutzpah to take the position ‘enough is enough’.

[Breezy]

Accidents, numerous. But hey, no one has gotten killed yet, right?

I see a lot of compartmentalization of issues on Speak Up Western New York by Mr. Chowaniec this year.

His concern on this thread is simply not matched on the pro-Trump threads.



On this thread, there is concern not so much for over-development (his words when pressed, I doubt that, readers), but for public safety and the good health of local residents whose daily travels take them to this center of commerce in Lancaster. However, when you take a peak at other threads he participates in, you see someone hell-bent on supporting President Trump and that a 'damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead' attitude ensues for the Trump presidency and re-election of someone whose own public policies are horrible for many people - even to the point of leading to premature deaths due to these 'anti-regulation' and so-called 'job-creating' environmental roll-backs.

Kind of makes me think Lee started this thread not for public policy, rather, for an issue that demonstrates the difference between the candidates this time around in town.

Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration

"The Trump administration is also noted to have rewritten the EPA's pollution-control policies—including on chemicals known to be serious health risks—particularly benefiting the chemicals industry. A 2018 analysis reported that the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80,000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people." -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...administration

Why aren't you standing up for those lives, Lee Chowaniec?

Seems to me Lee would rather have a business like a Singer Sewing Machine Outlet take over the existing retail space, resulting in a few employees working there, while their customer base would also seem pretty sparse. Yet, with the restaurant, scores of employment opportunities will become available, sales tax revenue for the town can be helpful, and the place could be going strong for 50 years, or more!

It could be argued that a vote against is a vote against mitigating higher property taxes and fees. Could the vote against also be a vote for the resulting tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend the town against legal actions?

Probably and probably.

Could this vote by the Town Board member Lee supports for higher office, the one he is referring to with this statement: 'Someone on the town board had the chutzpah to take the position ˜enough is enough,' actually be a vote against jobs as well?

This time Lee is using the overdevelopment card a bit too much, readers.

Lancaster is NOT Amherst. And he knows it!