Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant for Muscat Court concrete plant offers no-left-turn plan, $25,000 contribution and 12-month monitoring to avoid left‑turn lane
Summary
Developers proposing a concrete plant at 9 Muscat Court told the Planning Board a left‑turn lane on Route 17M is not warranted under AASHTO guidelines; the project team offered a driver-detour policy, a 12‑month traffic monitoring program and a $25,000 fair‑share payment to the town as mitigation. The board asked for clearer monitoring scope and confirmation of crash data before final action.
John Sebelero, traffic engineer with Stonefield Engineering and Design, told the Planning Board the proposed concrete plant at 9 Muscat Court would not by itself meet AASHTO warrants for a left‑turn lane and reviewed operations, sight‑distance and crash history that shaped that conclusion. "Per AASHTO guidelines, all it takes is just 5 left turns to warrant a left turn lane," Sebelero said, and argued the project’s conservative trip generation shows delay would be comparable with or without the development.
The applicant — represented at the meeting by a company representative who identified himself as Steven — proposed several mitigation measures: a mandatory driver detour so site traffic would not make left turns from westbound Route 17M into Muscat Court; a 12‑month traffic monitoring program (TMP) to confirm compliance; and a $25,000 fair‑share contribution toward corridor improvements. "The detour plan would be as follows: continue westbound on Route 17M, make a left on County Route 12 ... then return to Route 17M," Sebelero summarized as the applicant’s preferred routing.
Board members and town consultants pressed for operational detail and enforceability. The town’s traffic reviewer and multiple board members warned that voluntary restrictions are difficult to police and asked whether monitoring should track only project‑generated trips or all left‑turn movements at the intersection. Nick Tortorella, supporting the applicant’s team, said the applicant preferred narrowing monitoring to the project’s trips (vehicles the company controls) to avoid paying for unrelated crashes involving other Muscat Court businesses.
The board discussed other possible guarantees: a bond to pay for construction of a left‑turn lane if monitoring later shows a problem, and a requirement that the applicant obtain written confirmation from the New York State Department of Transportation if any improvements would affect state right‑of‑way. Legal and traffic staff also recommended the applicant provide the town with final TMP scope and crash‑data files so reviewers can verify the project’s conclusions.
The board did not take a final vote on the site plan at the meeting; it asked the applicant to provide the TMP scope, the monitoring methodology and any crash‑history confirmation requested by the town consultant before returning for action.
