I hesitate to urge you to attend the public hearing on Sept. 8 about the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts drive-thru on Second Street.

It’s probably your last chance to register your twocents’ worth with the village government on this important issue, but I doubt that it’ll make any difference.

I hesitate to implore you to turn out because I did so in February when the Village Board of Trustees conducted a public hearing about their proposal to rescind a local ordinance prohibiting drive-thru restaurants. And how did that go? 

Residents ignored

Eight people spoke at the Feb. 29 public hearing and all but one opposed the issuance of a special permit waiving Liverpool’s prohibition of restaurant drive-thrus.

One of those who appeared was former Liverpool Mayor Jim Farrell who spoke eloquently about the need to “enhance” our village rather than further jamming it with traffic.

The trustees ignored him. They ignored all of those who objected. Instead, they voted unanimously in favor of the drive-thru permit.

That’s why I hesitate to urge you to speak up at 6 p.m. on Sept. 8, at the Village Hall. The village government appears to have no interest in protecting its residents, its existing businesses and its motorists from projects designed around vehicular traffic, long considered the biggest single problem in the village.

Master plan ignored

No wonder Farrell and so many village residents objected to the drive-thru. The Village Comprehensive Plan 2025, adopted in 2007, specifically encourages officials to nurture a “pedestrian-friendly” village by working to calm traffic. Those anti-traffic values were reiterated in 2013 in the Village of Liverpool Community Design Handbook.

So drive-thru restaurants were prohibited by ordinance until March 21 when the trustees tossed the law out the window. They may as well have tossed the whole Comprehensive Plan out the window with it.

Why in heaven’s name did we spend so much time and money to create the Comprehensive Plan if our village “leaders” weren’t going to use it to guide their decisions?

Trustees ‘compromise’

It turned out that the village politicians — all Republicans — rationalized their pro-Dunkin’ Donuts vote by claiming that the village’s drive-thru prohibition had actually been prompted by neighbor complaints about noise generated by Burger King’s microphone ordering system. The truth, however, is that the overarching theme of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on traffic, not noise.

So why did the trustees bend to the wishes of Dunkin’ Donuts?

At the Feb. 29 public hearing Mayor Gary White admitted that he had observed traffic back-ups out into the streets at three nearby Dunkin’ Donut shops, two on Route 57 and one of West Taft Road. Trustee Dennis Hebert noted that, even when Seneca Savings was still at 105 Second St., he often had difficulty turning onto and out of its parking lot.

So, if they were so well aware of the likely negative outcome, why did they approve the drive-thru?

Trustee Christina Fadden Fitch said she supported rescinding the drive-thru prohibition because she worried that the properties would otherwise remain vacant.

Shortly before the March 21 vote, then-Trustee Nick Kochan told me he was “not inclined” to support a drive-thru on Second Street. Since Kochan had almost single-handedly guided the Comprehensive Plan process when he was Planning Board chairman, I figured he’d be true to his word.

When the vote came up, however, Kochan claimed that he’d suddenly remembered that the gripe against drive-thrus was noise, not traffic, and he gave Dunkin’ Donuts what they wanted.

When I asked him why he changed his mind, Kochan said, “I’m a compromiser.”

Why Kochan and his fellow trustees felt the need to “compromise” with a drive-thru restaurant only they know.

Planners poised to
approve

So the planning board appears to be our only remaining hope.

But I hesitate to urge you to attend and speak your mind because their minds already appear made up. 

No matter how many folks turn out to oppose the drive-thru next week, the planners appear poised to approve the new restaurant. The trustees ignored those who spoke at the Feb. 29 public hearing. Why should the planning board be any different?

I hesitate to urge you to attend the Sept. 8 public hearing because I don’t want you to be as disappointed as I am that our village “leaders” refuse to lead.

The columnist can be contacted at [email protected].