Grand Island advisory committee to draft consistency‑review checklist to link projects to Master Plan

Speaker 1 opened the discussion by saying the committee will develop a single checklist to make sure projects are evaluated against the Master Plan before they proceed: "I've been named a commissioner for the Niagara River Greenway Commission. I'm commissioner now," and added that a consistency review would show whether a proposal "fits within the comprehensive plan." The proposed checklist would be a simple, department‑by‑department form to be completed early so highway, traffic, conservation, parks and other relevant staff and advisory boards see the same information at the same time.

Members said the checklist aims to fix recurring procedural gaps. Several members cited recent projects that moved through the pipeline without broad advisory review and urged that the town restore an earlier practice in which proposals were circulated simultaneously to all advisory boards so everyone had 30 days to respond. Speaker 5 argued that centralized circulation would let boards quickly say "this does not apply to us" or flag historic, traffic or infrastructure concerns for immediate attention.

The group discussed using clear trigger points to decide when the checklist is required. Speaker 3 reviewed existing thresholds the committee previously adopted: commercial building or expansions of roughly 5,000 square feet, developments larger than about 10 acres and requested zoning changes or major subdivisions. Members agreed the thresholds might be fine‑tuned to distinguish small routine projects from major developments that require cross‑board review.

Next steps: the chair said they will draft a consistency‑review form and circulate it to committee members and department heads for edits; the committee will use Teams to collect documents and expects to forward the agreed template and recommendations to the town board for implementation.