Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Developer objects to town resolution language

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921

    Developer objects to town resolution language

    In July of 2009, the Lancaster Town Board approved a site plan for the proposed construction of a 10,600 sq. ft. Medical Office Building located at 5007-5009 Transit Road. The site plan approval was conditioned on the installation of a driveway access road to the south interconnecting with roads that ultimately led to the signalized Gateway Center (Wal-Mart) driveway In accordance with the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance.

    In a June 5, 2012 letter submitted to the Lancaster Building Department, the Medical Office property owner stated he contacted Joseph Cipolla (president Bella Vista), owner of the adjacent property and whose driveway the Medical Office property would have to connect to. He stated in the letter: “I was shocked by Joe Spinola’s (Cipolla’s) request to pay $45,000 to $50,000, or monthly payments of $500 for the duration of the least which totals somewhere around $78,000 to make a road connection and satisfy the final condition of the July 2009 resolution. This seems unfair and outrageous. Satisfaction of the remaining condition will impose significant financial costs that, if I passed on to tenants will threaten business operations and is likely to disrupt operations for our principal tenant (Gentle Dentistry)."

    On July 12, 2012, the Lancaster Town Board granted Gentle Dentistry (5007 property manager) a temporary waiver to the ordinance. The language in the resolution states, “The property manager of 5007 Transit Road has made every attempt honor this condition, including attempting to connect their driveway with the property owner to the south who has refused to cooperate with a mutually acceptable agreement.”

    Cipolla addresses Town Board at work session

    At the recent Lancaster town board work session, Gateway Apartment property manager Joseph Cipolla addressed the claims made by the property manager of 5007-09 Transit Road and requested the board change the language of their resolution.

    Cipolla declared he took issue with language of the resolution and that it so appeared in the minutes of the meeting. “The issue is not with the decision of the board. I could care less how you vote on whether this business does or does need a connecting driveway. It is about language in the resolution stating we were not cooperative in negotiating with business at 5007-09 Transit Road.”

    Cipolla claimed that prior to the town vote he had mailed a correspondence to the town stating his position as to why he was not being uncooperative, unfair and why his price was not outrageous. Supervisor Dino Fudoli interjected that it was his fault that the letter did not get forwarded to the board as it was mailed to him and he did not distribute it. “It was a letter that basically stated that only one contact was made between Cipolla and the owner of the Gentle Dentistry Building. There was only a 30 second conversation and nothing was accomplished. I don’t know where the word uncooperative came from."

    Town Attorney John Dudziak interjected that he had drafted the resolution. “I spoke with the Benchley’s attorney. In fairness, you (Cipolla) are not one to hold back or mince words; certainly not to be silent on issues. If you had a conversation with them, they forwarded a letter to the board which we all read. They said they had a conversation with you and that there was an outrageous financial offer proposed to cross your easement.”

    Supervisor Fudoli interjected that as businessman he did not find the Cipolla’s $50,000 request outrageous as he has had like instances where he paid $75,000. “What you are paying for is not to just put the improvements in you are paying for lifetime use of area. Anything that has to be done with that particular section, Bella Vista has to pick up the tab.”

    Cipolla then stated that he didn’t know if that $50,000 request would have been the number. “These people have had a condition in their site plan approval for literally two years. We didn’t know about it. But these people in two years have never called us. They watched our road get designed; storm water, topped with pavement, topped with stone and they never mentioned anything about a driveway. And then they show up after everything was done… literally this is what happened, a 30 second phone call from a person I had never spoken to, asking what would it cost to connect to your driveway.”

    Cipolla: “It could cost as much as $75,000; between maintenance, insurance and considering our driveway is already done and we would have to redo it; tear it out….a one-time payment for life, probably $50,000; or you could pay monthly on whatever the maintenance and insurance costs come out to be. That was what the conservation was about. That’s not a discussion, but a 30 second conversation from the individual’s car to me; from a person I never spoke to in my life.”

    "I don’t care about the driveway. If you had told me that I would have had to allow them to connect it would have happened even though that would have created a major traffic conflict point for my apartment complex driveway. That’s not my issue. My issue is that only a 30 second phone call over two years does not constitute us taking a position that we refused to cooperate n a mutually acceptable arrangement. We were not given an opportunity to cooperate.”

    Attorney Dudziak: “I disagree. We have a correspondence from the individual that owns the property next to you. I used the language he used to describe the status of the negotiations.”

    Council member Donna Stempniak: “The Planning Board knew about this because they were the ones that presented this.”

    Cipolla: “The planning board knew about this, the town board knew about this, but the people didn’t for two years? Two years and they don’t say a word to us?

    Dudziak: “You are misrepresenting this. This has just come up in the past few months.

    Cipolla: “They knew two years that they needed to connect to our driveway. They waited until our road (apartment complex driveway) was built before they came to us. They should have talked to us before our driveway was designed because the pavement where the connection was to go, the curb design and the storm water drain have to be incorporated into the design. The depth of the stone, the depth of pavement, the radius to prevent flooding, etc. have to be incorporated into the design. This most likely came up because someone said hey it was conditioned that you have to connect with the driveway according to the condition imposed by the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance. Then they come to us in a 30 second phone call and say, “hey how much will it cost us to connect to your driveway?” The point is we don’t want them to connect to our driveway. What we don’t want is to be portrayed in a resolution that we refused to cooperate.”

    Dudziak: “Have you had a conversation with them since this resolution was passed?”

    Cipolla: “No, they never called back after that 30 second cell phone conversation. I will get back to you she said, and never did."

    Stempniak: “What would be the best way to amend this resolution?”

    Town Clerk Coleman: “To amend it the board should adopt another resolution and make the language change. The problem is that his has already gone out on the website and it’s hard to make a notation that a change was made. But it would be noted in a future resolution."

    The original resolution will be amended and the resolution language will be changed - the “refused to cooperate” words will be expunged.

    Fudoli suggested adding language “like the two property owners were unable to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement.”

    Comments

    Although having major disagreements with Joseph Cipolla in the past, I agree that he is spot on in presenting his request to have the resolution language changed. Gentle Dentistry has been in operation for some time and no attempt was made by the property owner to fulfill the Transit Road Access Management Plan condition. It was not Cipolla’s obligation to get them to conform, it was the town’s responsibility, and they dropped the ball. It was most likely the McDonald’s site plan application that triggered this response.

    The town planning board recommended to the town board approval of the McDonald’s site plan with the condition they get a waiver from the Transit Road Access Management Plan. And who owns a one foot perimeter around the sides and back of the McDonald’s property that could stop rear ingress/egress accesses to the McDonald’s, and on to signalization at the Wal-Mart driveway? Yep, Mr. Cipolla. Stay tuned for further developments.

    It should also be noted that in his letter to the town the 5007 property owner stated that “Dr. Glassbrenner (Gentle Dentistry) is established with her opening and we are putting additional parking in the back but would like to be exempt from connecting to the opening.” This sounds like the property operation is much busier with traffic than that indicated by the resolution sponsor.

    Since the access management waiver was temporary and need of review in two years for re-approval, and if the McDonald’s brings the traffic volume as expected (next door to the 5007-09 business operation, it will be interesting to see if that operation gets another waiver. And if not, then what?

    Hey, this is a commercial corridor, screw the safety concerns. We always have that access management ordinance waiver clause to fall back on. Inner road connections leading to signalization looks good on paper, eh?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    so let me get this straight, planning, town board and perhaps the zoning had responsibility--
    so what i am curious about is two things:
    isn't donna stempniak the liaison to the planning/zoning and is responsible by updating and keeping the board in tune to this issue?
    also, when did this open up (dentistry) prior to dino fudoli or during giza's rein?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    reformthi$;972708]so let me get this straight, planning, town board and perhaps the zoning had responsibility--
    so what i am curious about is two things:

    isn't donna stempniak the liaison to the planning/zoning and is responsible by updating and keeping the board in tune to this issue?
    Yes.

    also, when did this open up (dentistry) prior to dino fudoli or during giza's rein
    Under Giza's reign - at least 1-1/2 years ago.

  4. #4
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    It seems the town board has a problem with following up on conditions stipulated by same board. Didn't they also have an issue with new homes being built without sidewalks? Maybe in these resolutions there should be a stipulation that the condition will be followed up by the code enforcement officer or other specifically mentioned town employee in a stipulated time frame. There would be someone made accountable to the taxpayers.

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    agree, it appears that there is no follow-up or maybe they have this issue where
    "it's not in my job description" mentality

    it seems ridiculous that cipolla has to come to the board to challenge the "language" of a resolution
    i mean this sounds kind of child-like

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    I don't know - maybe I misread what Mr.Cipola stated, ""I don’t care about the driveway. If you had told me that I would have had to allow them to connect it would have happened."

    So if he is willing to let them connect - he stated if the Town Board said he should he would - then whats stopping them? You cant actually blame Mr.Cipola for thinking ahead and retaining valuable limited portions of property's in order to demand large sums of money for access. Just because he himself has had his fingers in most if not all of the developments mentioned.

    Slick - but don't worry - I think anyone who knows Mr.Cipola would call him uncooperative - demanding - pompous - greedy might be better words.

    He's worried about being called, "Uncooperative"
    Last edited by 4248; July 31st, 2012 at 01:23 AM.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921

    Are we being gamed; again

    From past experiences I know Joe Cipolla to be a very savvy business man. Even when the deck is stacked against him he finds a way to prevail. I would have to believe that Cipolla knew from day one that the Lancaster town board approved the site plan for 5707-09 Transit Road (Medical office building) property with a stipulation that they connect their driveway to his.

    I would have to believe that Cipolla was not interested in having the 5707-09 connect to his driveway (as he claimed) thereby resulting in his apartment complex clients having a traffic conflict point at the intersection of the driveways and an equal conflict point when exiting his driveway onto Transit Road – and especially when the McDonald’s comes into operation.

    I would also have to believe that the 5007-09 property owner sat back and waited for Cipolla to construct his apartment complex driveway to strengthen their position to get a waiver from making the connection and spending money. Because the McDonald’s project is conditioned on a Transit Road Access Management Ordinance waiver someone must have said “hey, Gentle Dentistry (5707 Transit Road) didn’t have to connect to the inner ingress/egress road that leads to a signalized Transit Road driveway.
    Well, Gentle Dentistry got a temporary waiver based on their correspondence letter to the town which stated:

    1) Satisfying the condition of connecting to the driveway to the south will impose significant financial costs that if passed onto tenants will threaten business operations and is likely to disrupt operations for our principle tenant. The main entrance from Transit Road has significantly with access for Dr. Glassbrenners “walk in” patients.

    There are no known reports of accidents from patients or staff accessing the entrance and we have no reports of any traffic-related issues resulting from this entrance (Transit Road).

    2) Despite our efforts to honor the Board’s conditions, I am respectfully requesting that special consideration be granted to 5007 Transit Road and that the board waive its condition in regard to the “connection of the driveway to the neighboring property. Dr. Glassbrenner is established with her opening. We are putting in additional parking in the back but would like to be exempt from connecting to the opening.

    Additionally, the Board’s original concerns about traffic patterns and accidents relating to our Transit Road driveway have not been realized over the past two years.

    Comment:

    • Joe Cipolla is spot on in saying the business has been open for two years and no action took place regarding the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance.

    • The traffic into the business area poses no problem now, so they state in their letter to the board. Yet the parking lot in front is full every day and additional parking is being constructed in the back of the building. What will this additional client business do to the traffic pattern; especially when the other building tenant goes into operation?

    • How will the future McDonald’s traffic volume impact the neighboring driveway accesses onto Transit Road?

    • Gentle Dentistry received a temporary waiver (two years). What traffic nightmare will be created if the McDonald’s gets a Transit Road Access Management Ordinance waiver as well?

    • In the past the town has been known to hand out variances, special use permits, rezones, rezones of rezones, etc. like candy. The town master plan has been manipulated so often that no one ever mentions its existence

    • Are residents being gamed once again?

    Are you listening Supervisor Fudoli? We need the change you promised us.

  8. #8
    Here we go again.

    The number of driveways on Transit in Lancaster and Amherst/Clarence is ridiculous.

    It seems the state DOT put us in this predicament with the interior road on Transit. Maybe they should be forced to buy the land. Problem is, that means we pay for it.

    The town laid the conditions down, maybe they should pay for the driveways. Oh, sorry, that means we pay for it.

    If the businesses must buy/lease the property, maybe they should pay for it. Damn, that means we pay for it in increased service costs.

    Enough. I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but, my opinion is that there isn't a square inch of property in Lancaster that is worth the price people are asking for it. Forty to fifty thousand for enough land to build a driveway? Are you fricken kidding me. I don't care what improvement/changes have to be made, the asking price is outrageous.

    Punchline, the state says this has to be done, the town says this has to be done, the property owner knows it's going to be required so they can ask for whatever they want for the property. Even if they don't get their asking price, they still get more than the property's worth. And no matter what the circumstances, taxpayers/consumers pay the bill.

    Take your best shot, you're not going to convince me the property is worth the asking price.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by gshowell View Post
    Here we go again.

    The number of driveways on Transit in Lancaster and Amherst/Clarence is ridiculous.

    It seems the state DOT put us in this predicament with the interior road on Transit. Maybe they should be forced to buy the land. Problem is, that means we pay for it.

    The town laid the conditions down, maybe they should pay for the driveways. Oh, sorry, that means we pay for it.

    If the businesses must buy/lease the property, maybe they should pay for it. Damn, that means we pay for it in increased service costs.

    Enough. I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but, my opinion is that there isn't a square inch of property in Lancaster that is worth the price people are asking for it. Forty to fifty thousand for enough land to build a driveway? Are you fricken kidding me. I don't care what improvement/changes have to be made, the asking price is outrageous.

    Punchline, the state says this has to be done, the town says this has to be done, the property owner knows it's going to be required so they can ask for whatever they want for the property. Even if they don't get their asking price, they still get more than the property's worth. And no matter what the circumstances, taxpayers/consumers pay the bill.

    Take your best shot, you're not going to convince me the property is worth the asking price.
    i agree....

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    179
    More like "Here we go again with Developers running Town government".

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by gshowell View Post
    Here we go again.

    The number of driveways on Transit in Lancaster and Amherst/Clarence is ridiculous.

    It seems the state DOT put us in this predicament with the interior road on Transit. Maybe they should be forced to buy the land. Problem is, that means we pay for it.

    The town laid the conditions down, maybe they should pay for the driveways. Oh, sorry, that means we pay for it.

    If the businesses must buy/lease the property, maybe they should pay for it. Damn, that means we pay for it in increased service costs.

    Enough. I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but, my opinion is that there isn't a square inch of property in Lancaster that is worth the price people are asking for it. Forty to fifty thousand for enough land to build a driveway? Are you fricken kidding me. I don't care what improvement/changes have to be made, the asking price is outrageous.

    Punchline, the state says this has to be done, the town says this has to be done, the property owner knows it's going to be required so they can ask for whatever they want for the property. Even if they don't get their asking price, they still get more than the property's worth. And no matter what the circumstances, taxpayers/consumers pay the bill.

    Take your best shot, you're not going to convince me the property is worth the asking price.
    Gary,

    As a business owner/property owner, I strongly feel that a property is worth what someone is willing to pay. Let's say you had a landlocked piece of property with 1 adjacent property owner. If I am not the adjacent owner and you asked me what I would pay for it, I would probably say nearly $0. However, if I am the adjacent owner and this was a 30' sliver of property where my wife wants her dream greenhouse and garden, I would probably say $5,000. There is no where else on the planet where I can buy that adjacent 30' strip of land. The value depends on the buyer.

    In another scenario... Let's say a subdivision is going to be built and you have the only vacant lot that would provide the required road access for the subdivision. Would you sell this for the $39k that residential building lots go for in this area? Or would you realize that you have the only vacant lot that will allow access to the developers, and ask a premium? Their only other option is to buy a house for $130k and knock it down (another $10k). You should know that your lot (which would be worth $39k to someone building a single family home) is worth somewhere between $39k and $140k. You can probably extract $80k - $100k from the builder/developer. At that price he is still saving $40k-$60k. The value depends on the buyer.

    Don't get me wrong, I think it is INSANE that the town board would approve a project with the following condition: "the approval was conditioned with the installation of a driveway access road south of the site in accordance with the TRAMO". That condition is absolutely absurd. That is like handing a pile of money to the property owner that holds the property that you have to reach an agreement with. If this doesn't benefit his project he should hold out. The fact that this received an approval with a condition that 2 private parties agree to something is NUTS.

    Cipolla is well within his rights to ask what he is asking. The property owner who isn't willing to pay it is naive for thinking they could get it for market rate. This is not a competitive situation. There is only 1 place where they can find what they need. Because of that, they will have to pay a premium. My hunch is that they will say no to just about any number and beg for another temporary rescission when 2014 comes around. What is the town board going to do at that point? Make an employer in town close its doors? I don't think so. Guess what? The price won't be 40k-50k in 2 years.

    I wonder if any town board members discussed ballpark figures with both parties prior to making a condition that they agree. I would have made a phone call to each asking what number they had in their head. If one said $2k-$5k and the other said $30k-$50k then I would have required an agreement prior to approving the project and allowing for construction to take place. They are too far apart for a reasonable agreement to be reached.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    GSHowell wrote:

    Here we go again.

    The number of driveways on Transit in Lancaster and Amherst/Clarence is ridiculous.
    That is true in Lancaster. There are thirty business driveways in a one mile stretch between French Road and William/Losson Roads – and no signalization between the two roads.

    It seems the state DOT put us in this predicament with the interior road on Transit. Maybe they should be forced to buy the land. Problem is, that means we pay for it.
    How did the DOT put us in this predicament with interior roads on Transit Road? The DOT had nothing to do with the creation of the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance.

    And what inner road are you referring to? There are several inner roads on Transit Road. And, how do we directly pay for it?


    The town laid the conditions down, maybe they should pay for the driveways. Oh, sorry, that means we pay for it.
    What is your reasoning for saying the town should pay for the driveways? The town passed an ordinance to control traffic conflict areas and improve traffic safety. It was a well intended ordinance and the new businesses had no issue complying with inter-road connectivity. However it is an ordinance without teeth when no enforcement is had and when waivers are being issued.

    The Town of Lancaster, along with the Town of Cheektowaga, created the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance in an attempt to reduce the number of cur cuts/driveways, thereby reducing the number of traffic conflict points and thereby reducing the potential for vehicular accidents – especially when left turns are attempted to access Transit Road. There are presently 30 driveways along Transit Road from French Road to the William/Losson intersection.

    If the businesses must buy/lease the property, maybe they should pay for it. Damn, that means we pay for it in increased service costs.
    That also implies that you do not have to do business with someone providing services that up-charge their costs and pass them on to the customer.

    Enough. I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but, my opinion is that there isn't a square inch of property in Lancaster that is worth the price people are asking for it. Forty to fifty thousand for enough land to build a driveway? Are you fricken kidding me. I don't care what improvement/changes have to be made, the asking price is outrageous.
    The owner of the medical office building is not buying land. He is leasing the rights to connect a driveway that he was site plan conditioned to connect to Cipolla’s driveway. If you believe the $50,000 charge to do so now is outrageous then you are missing the point that this connection could have be made before the design and construction of Cipolla’s driveway was constructed.

    Is $50,000 outrageous? I have no idea, but I do believe we are being gamed here, that the businesses deserve each other considering the two year time span, and my main concern is related to traffic safety. The Gentle Dentistry Cipolla apartment complex/future McDonald’s/ Wal-Mart driveways are all within 400-500 feet of each other.

    Punchline, the state says this has to be done, the town says this has to be done, the property owner knows it's going to be required so they can ask for whatever they want for the property. Even if they don't get their asking price, they still get more than the property's worth. And no matter what the circumstances, taxpayers/consumers pay the bill.
    • To my knowledge the state did not mandate this ordinance.
    • As I stated earlier, business is business and the two parties deserve each other.
    • In my mind, and from the involvement I had in the process, the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance brings no cost to the taxpayer. On paper It is a good ordinance. It is being mismanaged and manipulated; in my opinion.



    Take your best shot, you're not going to convince me the propernty is worth the asking price.
    I am not trying to convince you of anything, just stating my opinion based on attending several meetings on the creation of the ordinance. Please respond by telling me what I have stated is incorrect. The truth is all you and I ever wanted; and it is something that is owed to Lancaster taxpayers.

    Again, please respond as this kind of stuff never makes it in the ‘professional’ media. And as you know, I respect your opinion.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by roblaw View Post
    Gary,

    As a business owner/property owner, I strongly feel that a property is worth what someone is willing to pay. Let's say you had a landlocked piece of property with 1 adjacent property owner. If I am not the adjacent owner and you asked me what I would pay for it, I would probably say nearly $0. However, if I am the adjacent owner and this was a 30' sliver of property where my wife wants her dream greenhouse and garden, I would probably say $5,000. There is no where else on the planet where I can buy that adjacent 30' strip of land. The value depends on the buyer.

    In another scenario... Let's say a subdivision is going to be built and you have the only vacant lot that would provide the required road access for the subdivision. Would you sell this for the $39k that residential building lots go for in this area? Or would you realize that you have the only vacant lot that will allow access to the developers, and ask a premium? Their only other option is to buy a house for $130k and knock it down (another $10k). You should know that your lot (which would be worth $39k to someone building a single family home) is worth somewhere between $39k and $140k. You can probably extract $80k - $100k from the builder/developer. At that price he is still saving $40k-$60k. The value depends on the buyer.

    Don't get me wrong, I think it is INSANE that the town board would approve a project with the following condition: "the approval was conditioned with the installation of a driveway access road south of the site in accordance with the TRAMO". That condition is absolutely absurd. That is like handing a pile of money to the property owner that holds the property that you have to reach an agreement with. If this doesn't benefit his project he should hold out. The fact that this received an approval with a condition that 2 private parties agree to something is NUTS.

    Cipolla is well within his rights to ask what he is asking. The property owner who isn't willing to pay it is naive for thinking they could get it for market rate. This is not a competitive situation. There is only 1 place where they can find what they need. Because of that, they will have to pay a premium. My hunch is that they will say no to just about any number and beg for another temporary rescission when 2014 comes around. What is the town board going to do at that point? Make an employer in town close its doors? I don't think so. Guess what? The price won't be 40k-50k in 2 years.

    I wonder if any town board members discussed ballpark figures with both parties prior to making a condition that they agree. I would have made a phone call to each asking what number they had in their head. If one said $2k-$5k and the other said $30k-$50k then I would have required an agreement prior to approving the project and allowing for construction to take place. They are too far apart for a reasonable agreement to be reached.

    An excellent post. When I asked the town board the question as to what recourse it had should the operating business refuse to grant connectivity (as happened when Aldi wanted to share the Lancaster Bowling Alley driveway) the answer given was that nothing could be done at the moment, but when the Lancaster Bowling establishment came before the town for site plan modification (expansion, etc.) the town could deny them approval. Ya think?

    In order to get site plan approvals in the Gateway Center business complex, the businesses had to agree to allow connectivity to roads that would lead to the main Wal-Mart signalized driveway. Keep in mind that Cipolla was the original owner of the 41 acre site. When he sold the property to Wal-Mart for their operation, he still maintained property in the Gateway Center complex - property he used to develop his Gateway Apartment complex and a strip of land (one foot) that surrounds three sides of the McDonald's property - formerly Martino's Restaurant. The Martino's property was not part of the Gateway Center complex.

    Unless Cipolla sells the one foot piece of property to McDonald's or comes to an agreement with McDonald's to lease the property to allow for an ingress and egress driveway, McDonald's will have no back lot access and all traffic will flow from Transit Road. Perhaps this is why the planning board conditioned its recommendation to the town board for site plan approval on McDonald’s getting a TRAMO waiver.

    There is a lot going on here, roblaw. When site plan approvals were given to businesses with the understanding that they had to allow inner road connectivity, a letter had to be produced by the applicant that stated that the business already in operation and they had come to an agreement on the connectivity and use of their road.

    As neither the medical office building nor the McDonalds’ properties are part of the Gateway Center complex, the situation becomes complex and may be the reason waivers are being granted. How far north is development going to be required to follow TRAMO?

    But when the McDonald’s goes into operation there will be four driveways within 300-400 feet, and only one with signalization. Traffic conflict points, naw!

    As both business owners (along with the town) knew about this condition two years ago and no one did anything about it, they all should accept blame for what took place. But you are right in saying Cipolla is in the right to take the course of action he did. And as I can see no way in which the taxpayer is adversely impacted, I don't care. What is of primary concern is traffic flow and traffic safety and that could very well be compromised by what is taking place.

    As far as the upcharge in services or product caused by the SNAFU, I have no intention of being a client of either business.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewGuy View Post
    More like "Here we go again with Developers running Town government".
    My apologies, I'm getting old and my eyes aren't what they used to be. Did you say running, or ruining?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    How did the DOT put us in this predicament with interior roads on Transit Road? The DOT had nothing to do with the creation of the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance.

    And what inner road are you referring to? There are several inner roads on Transit Road. And, how do we directly pay for it?
    Due to time constraints I can only answer one question at a time, but I will try to get to all your points. (Probably the same with Roblaw. Just give me time.)

    How is the DOT involved? Aren't they the ones promoting the creation of internal roadways to lessen the number of unsafe entrances and exits to major roadways? If the state (DOT) is promoting it, why should someone else pay for it? Weren't they the ones that had a major impact on the development of Transit between the thruway and Main Street? Weren't they the ones that made the town/developers create the inner road between Russell's Steaks, Chops, and more, and the other restaurants, shops, and movies?

    I'm referring to all the inner roads, not just the ones on Transit in Lancaster.

    The DOT had nothing to do with the Transit Road Management Ordinance. That was created by the NFTA, Town of Cheektowaga, and the Town of Lancaster, correct? I don't think I said the DOT had anything to do with the Transit Road Plan.

    Tell me if I have this wrong. The Lancaster Town Board did not approve, or sign on to the Transit Road plan, did they? I know Amatura wanted to, but I thought it went nowhere.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Alaska state rep objects to airport search demand
    By mesue in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 21st, 2011, 09:26 PM
  2. No action taken by Lancaster Town Board on resolution to deny rezone of a rezone
    By speakup in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 09:09 PM
  3. Resolution to prohibit town elected officials from receiving health insurance buyouts
    By WNYresident in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 5th, 2008, 01:17 PM
  4. Transit & William St.Developer & Town Board Guilty!
    By 4248 in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 9th, 2006, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •