Town of Amherst Traffic-Safety Board·August 5, 2026
The Starbucks driveway developer comes back with answers · A Lenox Ave parking fight, four-to-one against · Three all-way-stop requests, all declined · Egret Road's lane reassignment moment arrives · Site plans unheard — broadcast cut
Two months after the board demanded a discussion before school resumed, the owners of the Sheridan Drive Starbucks and Mighty Taco property returned with data, slide decks, and a three-sign remediation plan — and left with a new question they couldn't answer on the spot: why does the driveway crest upward and then drop, hiding the sidewalk from drivers? The board accepted the signage plan as a first step and asked for a written explanation of the grading decision. Elsewhere, a Lenox Avenue[*] parking restriction died 6–0 after four residents turned out to oppose it; all-way-stop requests at Gresham Drive & Maynard Drive and at Bridal Path & Dogwood Road were received and filed when warrant counts fell far short (the Gresham motion for a "cross-traffic does not stop" placard split the board 3–3 and failed, the first such tie in memory); a speed-calming request on Exeter Road was received and filed with a parking-on-the-street nudge; Hopkins Road's passing zones drew a board motion to ask the county to remove them at next paving; and Egret Road surfaced as a lane-reassignment opportunity — the county is paving it next year and has invited the town to direct a restriping. Site plans were listed on the agenda but the broadcast ended just as the chair announced the move to that section; whether any were heard is unknown.
David Chayessa[*], executive vice president of the property-owner entity, and his colleague Nick Doll,[*] vice president of development, came to the August meeting under the June board's instruction: sit down with the town before school starts. They arrived with a slide presentation, two days of morning-and-afternoon observation data from the Starbucks and Mighty Taco curb cut, and a three-sign remediation package ordered from a traffic engineer. What they did not bring was an explanation for the driveway's geometry — and that turned out to be the sharpest question of the night.[1]
The developers' counts from June 17 and 18 largely confirmed what the board had described in June: improper left turns out of the right-in/right-out driveway happened routinely, nearly all before 8:15 a.m. and before crossing guards and students were present. During the 8-to-9 a.m. window, when children were crossing, no improper movements were recorded on either day. Fifty pedestrians used the sidewalk in the morning sessions; seven more cut through the parking lot rather than using the sidewalk at all. The afternoon sessions, hampered by exam-period school dismissal, drew roughly half the volume.[1]
The signage plan, drawn up by the engineer who had done the original traffic study, calls for three changes: a larger, lower-mounted pedestrian-crossing warning sign replacing the current one mounted "way up in the sky"; a stop sign placed at the right-out lane just before the sidewalk, to give drivers a second prompt to halt before nudging into the pedestrian path; and a do-not-enter sign at the left-in lane to discourage the habitual wrong-way exits. The developer said the signs had been ordered and would go up before school opens.[2]
Board members were broadly supportive of the signage as a first step but candid about its limits. "The only person I think would break their habit is a nice fine from the police department," one member said of the early-morning wrong-way drivers.[2] A proposal to extend the painted "pork chop" median to create a physical barrier against the drifting left-out maneuver drew debate: the developer's team argued the geometry was already tight and the most deliberate offenders would simply go around it, while a member countered that extending the curb would eliminate the "casual drift" even if it couldn't stop intentional violators. No motion was made on the pork chop — it sits on private property and would require a site-plan modification.[3]
The sharpest exchange came when Traffic Safety Coordinator Chris Schregel[*] raised the driveway's profile: the pavement rises to a crest, then descends to the sidewalk, so a driver sitting in the exit queue literally cannot see the sidewalk below the hood of the car. "Why is that not flat?" Schregel asked. The developers acknowledged they would have to check with their civil engineer — a question the board explicitly asked them to answer in writing.[3] A member also floated whether removing two parking spaces and nearby landscaping near the driveway apron would improve sight lines; the developers respectfully disagreed, arguing that by the time a driver's sightline matters, the parked cars aren't the binding constraint. The board noted the developer had pledged to return in mid-September, after school settles in, with fresh pedestrian and vehicle counts.[3]
At the June 10 meeting, the board voted to send a letter to the property owner — invoking a site-plan condition under which the developer had agreed to "consider contributing funding" toward a crossing guard — requesting a discussion before school started in the fall. This August appearance was the direct result of that letter. The developer said they went to the site "right away" after receiving the June minutes. The board has no enforcement power over the private driveway; its leverage is that letter and the ongoing relationship. A second session is expected after the developer's mid-September count.
A resident of Lenox Avenue[*] in the Egretsville area had asked for a one-sided parking restriction on the north side of the street — originally proposed as alternate-side parking, revised to a straight 6 p.m.-to-8 a.m. daily restriction after staff explained that alternate parking is not an option in the town. Staff's canvass of adjacent property owners came back six opposed, four in favor, one indifferent. Four of those opponents showed up in person.[4]
The opposition case was made methodically. One resident cited FHWA and ITE research showing on-street parking functions as a traffic-calming measure by creating "side friction" that depresses speeds two to three miles per hour — and argued that clearing one side of the street would create a wider, faster driving corridor. "Moving vehicles from one side of the street would create a visibly wider, more open driving corridor every evening and overnight," he told the board.[4] Another resident of forty years said he had never observed a safety issue tied to parking, and pointed out the single recorded crash on the street — back in 2019, involving an impaired driver — had nothing to do with parked cars. A third opposed the proposed hours as illogical: if parked cars block emergency access, the problem doesn't disappear at 8:01 a.m.[4]
Chair Eric Fraz[*] observed that the town's own standard practice is to restrict parking on a residential street around the clock, not for a specific time window, unless the restriction is event-driven (he cited baseball fields and the mosque on Fair Woods Drive[*] as examples of event-based restrictions). A 6 p.m.-to-8 a.m. restriction, he said, is not a pattern the town normally imposes on a residential street. The board voted unanimously to receive and file.[4]
A resident at 42 Gresham Drive,[*] corner of Gresham and Maynard, asked for a four-way stop at the intersection just east of Bailey Avenue. The numbers were nowhere near the mark: the all-way-stop warrant requires 300 vehicles per hour on the major road; the actual peak-hour count on Maynard was 38. The minor approach needs 200; Gresham produced 30. Speed data showed 31–33 mph on the uncontrolled Maynard legs.[5]
Staff noted that four reported crashes over ten years included three that a four-way stop theoretically would have corrected — right-of-way confusion — and one bicycle crash where a Gresham approach vehicle struck a southbound Maynard cyclist after stopping. The resident flagged that the speed counters went up during Fourth of July week, likely depressing volume, but acknowledged the data was what it was.[5]
Rather than a straight receive-and-file, Member Kevin Cantwell[*] moved to add a "cross-traffic does not stop" placard to the existing stop signs on Gresham, noting that the intersection's geometry — a slightly offset stop sign, an unusually wide corner radius — could create confusion about which approach was controlled. The motion was seconded. Three members voted aye, three opposed, and the motion failed 3–3 — the chair noted it was likely the board's first-ever tie. The item was then received and filed.[5]
At a T-intersection or an asymmetric cross-street, drivers stopped at the minor approach sometimes aren't sure whether the major-road traffic also has to stop. A "cross-traffic does not stop" placard, mounted below the existing stop sign, tells drivers: you are stopping; the through traffic is not. It's a clarification device, not a new restriction, and it doesn't require Town Board action the way a new stop sign does. The debate here was whether the intersection's volume is high enough to justify it — critics argued that at 38 peak-hour vehicles on the major road, the placard would be noise in a nearly empty intersection.
A resident of 43 Exeter Road asked for traffic-calming devices after a June crash in which a car hit a tree near her home — an incident she found hard to attribute to anything but speed, whatever the official record said. Staff's counter told a different story: 85th-percentile speeds of 32–33 mph on a 30 mph street, roughly 300 vehicles per day in each direction, and zero crashes at any intersection on the road over six years. No one was recorded traveling over 40 mph in any single hour.[6]
The board's first recommendation was the same one it gives nearly every residential street: park your car on the street. The resident noted that neighbors had actually been parking less since the accident, which she suspected had widened the effective travel lane. Staff mentioned Exeter Road's S-curves as a natural speed suppressant. A member noted the anomalous pattern in the speed data: the over-40-mph readings peaked in the middle of the day, not during typical rush-hour spikes — consistent with the street being emptier and more open when fewer people are home, and when children are also more likely to be outside playing. The board referred the matter to police for potential midday enforcement and received and filed the item.[6]
A resident at 146 Dogwood Road asked for an all-way stop at the T-intersection of Bridal Path and Dogwood, citing sight-distance concerns, curb overruns, and frequent pedestrian activity including children on bikes and scooters. He argued that similar three-legged always-stop intersections exist elsewhere in the Village Green neighborhood, making his intersection the anomaly.[7]
Staff's map told a more nuanced story: every other three-legged intersection in the immediate neighborhood is signed exactly the same way as this one — minor approach stops, major road flows free. The examples the petitioner cited as "always stops" were either outside the immediate neighborhood or, on review, signed the same way. The warrant counts weren't close: the major approach on Bridal Path averages 52 vehicles per hour during the peak eight hours against a 300-per-hour threshold; Dogwood's minor approach sees 19 against 200 required. Zero crashes have been reported at the intersection in ten years.[7]
The chair walked through the board's standard argument against unwarranted stop signs: on a low-volume residential street, people who drive it daily begin to ignore the stop sign because there is rarely anyone stopped there. Pedestrians then assume cars will stop; drivers assume no one is coming. The non-compliance creates a less safe intersection than the unsigned one. Staff confirmed the sight distance from the Dogwood stop sign to the curve on Bridal Path exceeds the 290-foot minimum for a 30 mph road. Received and filed, 6–0.[7]
A resident who could not attend submitted a request to lower the posted speed limit on Hopkins Road between Shelless[*] and Town of Tonawanda Creek Road, and to replace passing zones with full double-yellow barrier striping. The road is a county highway posted at 40 mph; the board has no authority over its speed limit or striping.[8]
Staff's speed counter, placed at pole 32 in front of the petitioner's house, showed an 85th-percentile speed of 44 mph in both directions on roughly 630–670 vehicles per day, with a peak of about 14 vehicles per hour exceeding 50 mph at 4 p.m. Zero crashes have been recorded in five years.[8]
The board's tools here are limited: it cannot lower the county speed limit or restripe a county road. What it can do is ask. The chair noted the board had previously pushed Erie County to eliminate passing zones on county highways within Amherst with some success, and that the county has shown a recent willingness to remove them on restriping. The board voted to refer the speeding data to the Amherst Police Department for discretionary enforcement at the 4 p.m. peak, and to send a letter to Erie County requesting that passing zones be removed on Hopkins Road the next time the county restripes it.[8]
The most consequential item at the back of the agenda wasn't a petition at all — it was a heads-up from staff. Erie County is planning to pave Egret Road next year, from the city line north of Main Street through Six Corners in Egretsville, and has invited the town to direct changes to the striping as part of that project. Staff briefed the board on a prior Greater Niagara Regional Traffic Council study, prompted by an earlier TSB item, that found the current lane configuration north of Main confusing and modeled potential benefits from a lane reassignment.[9]
The model for how to proceed is the Kensington Road road diet — a four-to-two lane conversion that members recalled as a success. The chair was careful about terminology: "We're not calling this a road diet because it may become a three-lane in some other fashion — lane reassignment is what we're using." The board agreed to bring concepts to a future regular meeting, get member input on a preferred alternative, and then open the process to public comment — either at a subsequent regular meeting or a dedicated public meeting if interest warrants it, similar to the Kensington process.[9]
As a side note, staff mentioned that state and county work had recently been completed on Route 260 at the Miller Sport / Six Corners interchange — without a roundabout, to the apparent relief of at least one member.[9]
Chair Fraz[*] flagged a pattern of recent crashes at the intersection of Main Street and Youngs Road and asked the board to consider requesting that New York State DOT review the signal timing — specifically in off-peak hours, when the signal appears to run on a fixed cycle that leaves Youngs traffic stopped for long periods with no cross traffic on Main. The result, he observed, is that drivers run yellow or red lights to avoid the wait. Staff was directed to draft a letter to NYSDOT asking for a review of off-peak signal timing and an update on crash history at that intersection, and whether the current coordination plan along Main Street constrains any adjustment.[10]
Under old business, a supplemental document submitted by a petitioner (referred to in the transcript only as "Mr. Hopkins") had arrived the day before the meeting. The board voted to hold the item to give members time to review it. A second old-business item involving outstanding traffic counts was also held; staff noted the counts had been completed but a presentation had not yet been prepared.[10]
The August 5 meeting agenda included a site-plans section. The recording ends at 2:04:16 — the chair had just said "we will move to site plans" and the broadcast cut off at that moment. Whether any site plans were presented or acted upon is unknown; if they were, they are not captured in the transcript and cannot be reported here. This brief covers only what appears in the audio on record. See the Editor's Note for additional context.
All recorded actions carried by voice vote unless otherwise noted. Chair Eric Fraz[*] presided; members present per opening introductions were Joseph Lojacono[*], Dan Rider[*], Kevin Cantwell,[*] Patricia Dunne,[*] and one additional member identified in audio as "Max" (unverified spelling[*]). Traffic Safety Coordinator Chris Schregel[*] presented. Councilmember Michael Szukala[*], the board's Town Board liaison, was absent — he was meeting with the High Road Mosque on a related traffic matter. Quorum confirmed: six members. No agenda was posted on IQM2 before the meeting; item numbers in this table follow the agenda numbering used during the meeting. Site plans (scheduled last) are not included — the broadcast ended before that section was reached.
Motion by Kevin Cantwell,[*] seconded by "Max" (name unverified[*]). One minor correction noted — a word missing in the first paragraph — and incorporated. Carried 6–0 on a roll-call vote.
Motion by Chair Fraz[*] to receive and file, seconded by Dan Rider.[*] Four residents spoke in opposition; zero in favor. Staff canvass: 6 opposed, 4 in favor, 1 indifferent. One crash on record (2019 impaired driver, unrelated to parking). Chair noted the proposed 6 p.m.–8 a.m. time window is not a restriction pattern the town normally places on residential streets — town standard is 24-hour restriction or event-driven restriction. Motion carried 6–0. No Town Board action will be sought.
Motion by Kevin Cantwell[*] to add "cross-traffic does not stop" sub-placard to the existing Gresham stop signs. Seconded. Three members voted aye, three opposed. Per the chair, a tie means the motion does not pass — the first-ever tie in the board's recent memory. The motion failed.
Following the failed placard motion, Chair Fraz[*] moved to receive and file the underlying four-way-stop request. Warrant counts: Maynard peak-hour volume 38 (threshold 300); Gresham minor approach 30 (threshold 200). 85th-percentile speed on Maynard 31–33 mph. Four reported crashes in ten years; three theoretically correctable by all-way stop. Motion carried on a voice vote.
Motion by Chair Fraz[*] to receive and file. 85th-percentile speed 32–33 mph (30 mph posted); ~300 vehicles/day each direction; zero intersection crashes in six years. No speed-bump pilot due to neighborhood noise concerns. Board recommendation: park on both sides of the street. Police (Captain Pierson[*]) already aware; midday enforcement referral noted. Carried 6–0.
Motion by Chair Fraz,[*] seconded by Kevin Cantwell.[*] Warrant counts: Bridal Path major approach peak-hour average 52 (threshold 300); Dogwood minor 19 (threshold 200). Zero reported crashes in ten years. Sight distance to curve exceeds 290-ft minimum. All other three-legged intersections in the immediate neighborhood signed identically; petitioner's cited "all-way stop" examples were either farther out or incorrectly characterized. Carried 6–0.
Developer representatives presented observation data and a three-sign remediation plan (MUTCD-compliant pedestrian warning, stop sign at sidewalk, do-not-enter at left-in lane). Board accepted the signage package as a first step. No motion; the matter remains open. Developer asked in writing to explain the driveway's mid-lane crest grade. Developer pledged mid-September return with updated counts after school resumes. Discussion of pork-chop extension and sight-line improvements left unresolved; pork chop modification would require a site-plan amendment through the Planning Board.
Motion by Chair Fraz,[*] seconded by Kevin Cantwell.[*] Hopkins Road is a county highway (40 mph posted); board has no authority over its speed limit. 85th-percentile speed 44 mph northbound and southbound; peak 14 vehicles over 50 mph at 4 p.m. hour. Zero crashes in five years. Board voted to (1) refer speed data to Amherst Police Department for potential peak-hour enforcement, and (2) send a letter to Erie County requesting removal of passing zones on Hopkins Road the next time the county restripes the road. Speed limit reduction not pursued — chair noted 44 mph 85th-percentile might arguably support raising the limit to 45, not lowering it. Carried on voice vote.
Raised by Chair Fraz[*] as new business. A recent crash (a few weeks prior) and an apparent developing crash history at Main and Youngs. Off-peak signal cycle appears to hold Youngs traffic stopped for extended periods with no Main Street traffic, leading to red-light running. Staff directed to draft letter to NYSDOT requesting review of off-peak signal timing, crash history review, and whether the Main Street signal coordination plan allows any adjustment for Youngs. No formal vote recorded on the motion itself; direction was given to staff.
Staff briefed the board on Erie County's plan to pave Egret Road (city line through Six Corners / Main Street) next year, with county openness to town-directed restriping changes — similar to what was done on Kensington Road. A prior GNTC study found the lane configuration north of Main suitable for reassignment. Board agreed to bring design concepts to a future regular meeting, reach a preferred-alternative consensus among members, then open to public comment. Fog lines (edge pavement markings) already agreed upon with the county. Item to appear on September agenda.
A supplemental document from a petitioner (referred to only as "Mr. Hopkins" in audio — may or may not be the Hopkins Road matter; unverified[*]) arrived the day before the meeting. Chair moved to hold the item to give all members time to review. Motion carried on voice vote.
Staff confirmed traffic counts had been completed but a presentation had not been prepared in time for this meeting. Item held to the September meeting.
No agenda was posted on IQM2 (Amherst's meeting-document portal) before this meeting. Item numbers and titles in this brief are drawn from the meeting audio itself, where the chair and staff referred to items by number throughout. Item descriptions, addresses, and entity names were cross-checked against the audio only — no official agenda document was available to serve as the authoritative proper-noun source. All names, addresses, and item descriptions should be verified against the official minutes when they are posted.
The broadcast ended at 2:04:16. The recording cuts off mid-sentence as Chair Fraz[*] says "we will move to site plans." The meeting agenda included a site-plans section. Whether any site plans were presented, discussed, or acted upon is unknown and cannot be reported. This brief is complete with respect to everything audible in the transcript; the site-plans section is simply absent from the record available to this publication.
Names. Proper nouns were corrected where the audio clearly diverged from spellings established in the June 10 brief (which was cross-checked against that meeting's agenda). Members and staff heard in imperfect audio are footnoted [*]: Chair Eric Fraz (audio "fraz"; spelling from June brief), Joseph Lojacono (audio "jola jacono"), Dan Rider (audio "ryder"), Kevin Cantwell (audio clear), Patricia Dunne (audio "done"), and a member referred to only as "Max" whose surname was not audible and remains unverified. Traffic Safety Coordinator Chris Schregel (audio "chris regal"). Councilmember Michael Szukala (audio "zucalla") was absent. Developer representatives David Chayessa and Nick Doll are spelled as heard in audio; verify against official records before quoting. Resident speaker spellings: Jeff Gearhart (audio clear), Kevin and Kathy Ketchum (audio "ketchum"), Duncan Black (audio clear), Kim Holland (audio clear), Susan Marco (audio "macro"), Anna Sweda (audio "swede's"; self-corrected to "sweda"), Michael Tramposh (audio "tramposh") — all residents appear only in audio and carry the [*] flag.
Streets. Lenox Avenue (audio clear; verified from June brief), Egret Road (audio clear), Fair Woods Drive (audio "fairwoods"; corrected per June brief), Shelless on Hopkins Road (audio clear; unusual local name, verify spelling against official documents[*]). "Town of Tonawanda Creek Road" is rendered as heard; verify official name. Youngs Road (audio "young's"; presumed Youngs Road, Amherst[*]). Per house practice, this note carries no ownership disclosures. Attributions and outcomes are provisional pending official minutes.