Lancaster public hearings of July 1, 2013

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster public hearings of July 1, 2013

A packed Lancaster Opera House crowd spoke for over three hours on two scheduled public hearings Monday evening. The first hearing concerned a proposed text change to amend Local Law 2013 of the Light Industrial District zoning code. Two amendments to the code were to be considered; the one is for a code change language addition requested by a manufacturing company purchasing the Colecraft Building, the second is on a proposed amended language change requested by Buffalo-Lancaster Airport, Inc. (BLA), and changes the code to read from current “commercial recreation activity [Special Use Permit required]” to “commercial recreation activity, including but not limited to, private commercial airport [Special Use Permit required].”

When first speaker Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) spokesperson David Hangauer announced he was in favor of the Colecraft text change but against the airport code text change, he was immediately advised that as the amendments had to do with the same Local Law, they were to be considered as one (combined) and where the speakers had to voice they either were a proponent or opponent of both. They were not to be considered separately. That immediately placed SACL and their supporters in a position of deciding whether they were willing to approve an airport code text change that would open the door to further airport expansion to support the Colecraft text change. SACL and their supporters were of the mind that there was enough meat in the current code language to allow for the Colecraft Building purchasers to move forward with their manufacturing business venture.

SACL was also of the mind that if the town board insisted on combining a ‘no brainer’ Colecraft Building text change with a very controversial airport text change, and if they did not split the two to make separate determinations in the future, the fate of the Colecraft Building purchase taking place in October was in their hands. The one had absolutely nothing to do with the other. SACL and every one of their supporters spoke as opponents to the Local Law 2013 amended language change. From then on the speakers voiced support or opposition to the amendment as one proposal.

“The town has colluded with the airport to in the past to bring the expansion that is already here,” claimed one SACL supporter. “The Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA) Special Use Permit documentation attests to that in their recent application. Using a backdoor approach two board members blindsided the Planning Board and got them to recommend piggybacking the airport text change in the code language along with the Colecraft Building code test change to make this airport a conforming use and where there is every indication that such expansion favors airport owner best interests over that of the community.”

“Holding both hearings at once and making but one determination in the future eases he path for the board to either approve or deny both and walk away scot-free from any blame for approving the airport text change, the controversial proposal, with nothing more to say then, “We we forced into approving both code text change proposals to salvage the sale of the Colecraft Building. And why should we not believe this was nothing more than a ploy to box Supervisor Fudoli into a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' voting position. This would once again put board in a position of bad governance and wasted tax dollars as was the case with the Colecraft Building purchase for a police/courts building.”

Supervisor Dino Fudoli declared he would call for the two proposals to be considered separately for determination when the time comes. SACL and their supporters could not have been any clearer why the two proposals should be split for consideration.

Should the four Democratic board members not second the motion and/or vote in the majority to consider the merits of the proposals separately, one can only look at this as further collusion with the airport to make a language change that could open the door for further expansion. Such attempt would not be looked kindly at by the Lancaster residents who attended the public hearing, who by far outnumbered the non-resident airport pilot resolution supporters, and where at least 80% of the pilots have no Lancaster voting rights.

In fact, there is no reason the board could not split the two before the next board meeting and put the Colecraft Building code change up for resolution consideration and approval at the July 15th meeting.

BLA attorney Adam Walters declared that the airport was not seeking an airport language change to foster further expansion but to recover the $10,000 of outstanding state grant money due to the airport. He recommended language be inserted that conditioned further expansion not take place; this coming from a man representing an airport that has been in violation of the previous code agreements.

More on the meeting he said she said to come.

[shortstuff]

It just hit me when I got to the third paragraph, something struck me odd. I think I'll play "devils advocate" on this one. In Lee's third paragraph it mentions "The one had absolutely nothing to do with the other. SACL and every one of their supporters spoke as opponents to the Local Law 2013 amended language change. From then on the speakers voiced support or opposition to the amendment as one proposal." Quote from Lee.

What struck me odd was in my first question/thought who spearheaded the Colecraft sale? Am I correct to assume that Dino Fudoli our Supervisor was the main driver in the sale? Here is where my mind is going, since Donna Stempniak as the Liaison to Planning Board also played a key role in co-mingling the propositions; is this a way to make this one vote and if the voters in Lancaster opposed the Lancaster Airport so much then voting NO on the Text Change would possibly jeopardize the Colecraft sale???? Is there more to this than meets the eye?

[ichingtheory]

I attended and was surprised to see the turn out. My neighbors and I were very concerned about any additional expansion plans due of quality of life issues. I was shocked to hear that some pilots were under the assumption that SACL was only interested in closing the airport. The speakers did an amazing job as usual. I did, however, leave early as the meeting was longer than I anticipated.
There was also an issue with sign up sheets being passed around instead of being left on the table. As a result, many residents did not sign the sheets.

[Lancaster Resident]

I attended and was surprised to see the turn out. My neighbors and I were very concerned about any additional expansion plans due of quality of life issues. I was shocked to hear that some pilots were under the assumption that SACL was only interested in closing the airport. The speakers did an amazing job as usual. I did, however, leave early as the meeting was longer than I anticipated.
There was also an issue with sign up sheets being passed around instead of being left on the table. As a result, many residents did not sign the sheets.

With the sign up sheet not being available to many of the residents we are then left to estimate how many were actually there. On the Lancaster Opera web site they state that the main floor is 52 feet X 57 feet. If we assume each chair is about 2 feet wide and there are 4 feet from the back of one chair to the back of the one in front of it, and also block out two walking isles of 5 ft wide each, and carve out 10 feet in the front for the Town Board table, and also 10 feet in the back for the entry, then we can calculate the main floor would hold about 210 seated people (it seemed full). There was also about 15 residents in the balcony. If we assume the pilots and their relatives add up to about 50 people then we come up with about 175 residents and 50 airport folks in attendance. If these rough guess calculations are correct then there were about 3 times as many residents as airport people in attendance, many of whom did not get a chance to express their stand due to the sign up sheet walking of for a while (who did that?). Of the approximately 50 airport folks I would guess that at most 10 of them live in Lancaster. So if you do the stats by Lancaster Residents only, then there was probably at least 15 times as many residents opposed to the text change that could open the door for expansion, as compared to those for it. Just some rough numbers to get an idea of the balance of for and against within Lancaster Residents to consider----clearly seems overwhelmingly against to me.

[4achange]

With the sign up sheet not being available to many of the residents we are then left to estimate how many were actually there. On the Lancaster Opera web site they state that the main floor is 52 feet X 57 feet. If we assume each chair is about 2 feet wide and there are 4 feet from the back of one chair to the back of the one in front of it, and also block out two walking isles of 5 ft wide each, and carve out 10 feet in the front for the Town Board table, and also 10 feet in the back for the entry, then we can calculate the main floor would hold about 210 seated people (it seemed full). There was also about 15 residents in the balcony. If we assume the pilots and their relatives add up to about 50 people then we come up with about 175 residents and 50 airport folks in attendance. If these rough guess calculations are correct then there were about 3 times as many residents as airport people in attendance, many of whom did not get a chance to express their stand due to the sign up sheet walking of for a while (who did that?). Of the approximately 50 airport folks I would guess that at most 10 of them live in Lancaster. So if you do the stats by Lancaster Residents only, then there was probably at least 15 times as many residents opposed to the text change that could open the door for expansion, as compared to those for it. Just some rough numbers to get an idea of the balance of for and against within Lancaster Residents to consider----clearly seems overwhelmingly against to me.

Heres the way i see it. The ground rules should have been laid from the beginning of the meeting. This issue is only a concern of Lancaster residents and business owners. It has absolutly nothing to do at all with residents from other communities who voiced their opinions, evey one being in favor of the airport. The majority of these people could not even comprehend this was a code language change issue, and could not understand that this was not about shutting down the airport. It is apparent they were completly misled. No one who was not a resident of this town should have been allowed to offer an opinion, including the pilots who do not reside here, As far as i can tell, they (the pilots) are users of the airport provided to them. Unless they can show any type of ownership or vested intrest in the owning and management of the airport, their opinions and comments should also hold no merit when it comes to issues concerning the residents of the town of Lancaster.
It was amazing to see how many of these pilots and their shills tried to play the heartstrings and the touchy feely good comments and representations. The would have everyone believe they are this great bunch of guys who do nothing to adversely influence the quality of life we have out here. As noted in my earlier post, it is apparent the FAA and BNIA are aware of the noise sensitive residential areas out here. They just yesterday put into effect a voluntary plan to solve such issues.
If these guys and gals want to be such great neighbors, lets see them follow it.

[ichingtheory]

If these guys and gals want to be such great neighbors, lets see them follow it.[/QUOTE]

I agree! Time will tell.
There are also pilots that do not have any interest in extending the runway and/or expanding. They are happy with the airport as it is.

[shortstuff]

Heres the way i see it. The ground rules should have been laid from the beginning of the meeting. This issue is only a concern of Lancaster residents and business owners. It has absolutly nothing to do at all with residents from other communities who voiced their opinions, evey one being in favor of the airport. The majority of these people could not even comprehend this was a code language change issue, and could not understand that this was not about shutting down the airport. It is apparent they were completly misled. No one who was not a resident of this town should have been allowed to offer an opinion, including the pilots who do not reside here, As far as i can tell, they (the pilots) are users of the airport provided to them. Unless they can show any type of ownership or vested intrest in the owning and management of the airport, their opinions and comments should also hold no merit when it comes to issues concerning the residents of the town of Lancaster.
It was amazing to see how many of these pilots and their shills tried to play the heartstrings and the touchy feely good comments and representations. The would have everyone believe they are this great bunch of guys who do nothing to adversely influence the quality of life we have out here. As noted in my earlier post, it is apparent the FAA and BNIA are aware of the noise sensitive residential areas out here. They just yesterday put into effect a voluntary plan to solve such issues.
If these guys and gals want to be such great neighbors, lets see them follow it.

Well put 4change, and you hit the nail on the head. In fact it was quite interesting that in the corridor pilots actually admitted that the residents had very good points. What was even more interesting was that they were told the Lancaster residents wanted the airport shut down. It was a motivational tactic on the Lancaster Airports part to get the pilots there. Another very different story told by the Lancaster Airport. MISLED again.

Zoning clarification was the basis because it will lead to opening the doors down the road for further expansion.

[gorja]

Anyone read Lancaster Bee editor's editorial? - "Respect is not optional in public forums"

A portion of that editorial-

As the first handful were called forward and stated their towns of residence, such places as Hamburg and Amherst were mentioned. This prompted many opponents, especially some sitting toward the front of the room, to slap their palms to their foreheads or simply laugh out loud at the notion that a nonresident might offer an opinion on the matter.

This behavior continued and was nothing short of appalling. Lancaster is not an isolated community, and the money brought to local businesses by residents of other communities is just as green as the dollars in the pockets of those who live within town lines.

Doesn't this girl understand that these nonresidents don't pay Lancaster taxes? When these nonresident pilots fly into Lancaster airport, where are they spending all this money the reporter is speaking of? Are they taking a cab to our restaurants and shopping centers?

[ichingtheory]

Anyone read Lancaster Bee editor's editorial? - "Respect is not optional in public forums"

A portion of that editorial-


Doesn't this girl understand that these nonresidents don't pay Lancaster taxes? When these nonresident pilots fly into Lancaster airport, where are they spending all this money the reporter is speaking of? Are they taking a cab to our restaurants and shopping centers?

First of all, I agree that everyone should have kept their composure. That being said, I agree that our Lancaster Bee Reporter obviously does not understand who pays taxes in Lancaster. In addition, she should understand that if not for FAA grants, State reimbursements and IDA's the airport enjoys, BQR would not be able to attract the pilots because of cheap gas and hanger rates. Who does she think pays for that? The pilots themselves admit they would never be able to fly out of places like Prior Aviation who runs their own successful business and does not rely on taxpayer money. I am not very thrilled with new Lancaster Bee reporter.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster public hearings of July 1, 2013 (2)

Public participation

It is estimated that from 225 to 250 people attended Monday evening’s town board public hearings held at the Lancaster Opera House. Approximately 50 Lancaster residents spoke against the text change and 11 for the text change (some pilots). Approximately 50 non residents spoke in favor of the text change and the great majority of those were pilots using the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport facility.

Despite those voting in favor of the text change outnumbered SACL and its supporters, SACL was better organized and had but a handful of spokespeople addressing the town board and focusing on why the text language should not be approved by the town board. It was also obvious that the Lancaster resident attendees far outnumbered the airport supporters.

SACL and supporter public hearing comments - opponents to code change

It should again be mentioned that while SACL favored the Colecraft Building code text change, it took exception to the airport text language being bundled with the Colecraft Building code text change which would make the airport a conforming use and eligible for further expansion and determined to become opponents of the code text change.

SACL was well organized and had a handful of spokespeople addressing the town board on the following:

• Requested the Section 1 and section 2 proposed text changes be split up at board determination time as In stark contrast to the proposed Section 1 text change the Section 2 change brings with it VERY serious consequences for the residents and Town of Lancaster; namely further airport expansion.

• The Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA) became a non conforming use in 1989 when the code was changed to reflect that the area where the airport is situated was then changed from a zoning of AGR to LI (Light Industrial District).

• If the Section 2 text change were adopted it would change the airports zoning status from the current “nonconforming use” to a “conforming use” and that is a very serious change because the intent and legal limitations of a nonconforming use would no longer apply to the airport. It would become a conforming (permitted) use.

• Nonconforming use may be enlarged up to 25%, provided that no enlargement shall exceed 25% of the size of the use at the date the use was rendered nonconforming. The airport has ten times over exceeded that expansion condition and has been in violation of the 1989 code since then.

• Requested the Town Building Inspector determine that a use not specifically listed is a similar use to others enumerated in that district. In making a determination that a use is similar, he shall first determine several criteria. This authority is granted under Section 50-44e (Administrative Procedures) of the Town Code that states that the Zoning Ordinance shall be administered by the Building Inspector and Enforced by the Building Inspector. Should the Building Inspector make a determination that an airport is a use as defined in ‘commercial activity’ then SACL can pay a $150 fee and appeal to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals for relief.

• Airport attorney Adam Walters claims the Town Board approved the airport’s 2006 Master Plan and even provides the relevant Resolution as Exhibit G. in their recent Special Use Permit application. The following issues are not mentioned in Mr. Walters’ letter:

• The Town has never been in possession of the 2006 Master Plan (until Mr. Walters appended it to his recent letter), even though the May 2007 Resolution erroneously states that it has been submitted. So how could the Town Board execute a valid approval of a Master Plan they never had? And, The Resolution does not actually approve the whole 2006 Master Plan, including a runway extension and the ability to handle corporate jet traffic, contrary to what Mr. Walters implies in his letter. Rather it separates out one building, some utility improvements, and a taxiway connection for approval from the Master Plan.

• Detailed analysis on questionable land transfers profiting.

• Once again, the airport wants taxpayers to foot the bill for their legal challenge against town residents.

• The Town of Lancaster did not sign any agreements that we can locate with the FAA. BQR was the only participant that agreed to terms of the FAA. The town does not have authority to make decisions for BQR or any other company. BQR chose to accept terms of grant completely and wholly on their own. Non-conforming issue, special use permits and whom they chose to borrow money from were all decisions made by BQR. The town cannot be held accountable for any agreements BQR chose to make with an outside concern. The town does, however, have the right to deny use of excess property over original 25 acres for aviation use.

• The airport now has:

 One 10 bay hanger
 One 16 bay hanger
 One 24 bay hanger
 One 18,000 square foot bulk hanger
 Approximately 10 tie downs

Airport plans to add:

 Four more 10 bay hangers
 59 tie downs
 4 JET tie downs
 Six 5600 square foot bulk hangers
 One 18,000 conventional hanger
 One 12,000 square foot storage building
 Support equipment for turbine powered aircraft

If they succeed, total aircraft housed at this facility could reach 180 plus.

• SACL questioned why the public should not believe that combining the two sections into one hearing and then having but one determination is nothing more than a clever ploy to get airport approval for further expansion; and/or political posturing to coerce Supervisor Fudoli in voting approval for an expansion he does not favor in order to not jeopardize the sale of the Colecraft Building?

• Debunked the ‘snarky’ remarks made by people referring to SACL as whiners, obstructionists, NIMBYS and worse and that they should have known better when the town was approving development site plans knowing full well that a near defunct airport was in the process of becoming a FAA reliever airport and as such entitled to millions of dollars of grants to expand the airport. Commended the Hangauer and Lemaster families for bringing the size and scope of the operation to the public and the resulting adverse impacts to residents and the communities well being.

• The airport purchased and took off the tax rolls over 100 acres of industrial zoned property. They received $14 million (their number) in federal and state grants money and pay only $36,600 in total property taxes. They were earlier assessed at $4.2 million, had it reduced to $3.2 million, reduced to $2.2, then threatened to take the town to court and had it lowered to $1.8 million because the town did not want to pay the legal costs involved.

• On top of getting $14 million in federal and state grant funds (taxpayer funds), BLA also received three LIDA’s that included at least one PILOT. The previous LIDA Board granted those IDA’s with no job creation listed on the applications but that it would allow the airport to sell gas cheaper than its competition.

• Reaffirmed to the pilots that the opposition to the airport text change was to derail further expansion, not to close down the airport or to diminish its current operation. The public hearing on the airport code text change had nothing to do with the current airport operation. If they have been receiving information from BLA management or their attorney that this was about shutting down the operation they were being misled and manipulated. They well respected what the pilots contribute to Lancaster’s well being and assured them their participation was not to shut the airport down.

Next: (3) Proponents have their say.

[shortstuff]

Thank you Lee for your editorial, as always well done!

In reflecting on the Public Hearing meeting this past Monday night, then reading the editorial in the Lancaster Bee by Julie Halm, I found myself reading stark contrasts by two writers with different styles of reporting. Lee's editorial reported the facts without biases, where as Julie Halm reported the news with biases and unseasoned writing skills. For a young journalist I was disappointed in content and style.

As always, each person has their own perception as to how they perceive what is actually going on. Our own perception is our own reality. That said, in my own opinion I found what Julie Halm reported {I will quote}.

"This behavior continued and was nothing short of appalling. Lancaster is not an isolated community and the money brought to local businesses by residents of other communities is just as green as the dollars in the pockets of those who live within town lines. These nonresidents, who apparently commanded little to no respect from a select number of the opposition, also contributed greatly to Lancaster in other ways, as they teach lessons to youths or shuttle the sick to out-of-area hospitals."

May I make myself very clear on my position regarding the above quote. Numerously our Supervisor Dino Fudoli asked the non-resident/pilots to NOT clap after each non-resident/ pilot's speaking points. These non-residents did not adhere to our Supervisor's request. The non-residents continued to clap. The non-residents/pilots were arrogant and angry when they spoke at the microphone. The Lancaster residents when speaking at the microphone were factual and respectful. I found in my opinion as well as questioned why these non-residents came into our Town Hall with such anger when the Public Hearing's language was about the Text Change Amendment and zoning issues. Until I found out by NON-RESIDENTS/PILOTS themselves that they were urgently summoned to attend because these Lancaster residents want to SHUT THE AIRPORT DOWN! Please explain to me why such a malicious intent on the airports part was done when the airport has violated OUR TOWN CODE, came into our TOWN HALL and was disruptive?

Green money is universal, it is accepted everywhere. Let's draw a comparison here which was drawn actually by a Lancaster resident; if I were to go to the Eastern Hills Mall in Clarence and patronized that establishment, then went to Red Lobster for dinner, then went to the Sunoco gas station for gas & milk, I am spending my "green" money in the Town of Clarence. Then on a Monday night Public Hearing in Clarence,as a resident in a neighboring town-- I went in with all of my neighbors in "other" neighboring towns voicing our opinion on the car dealership that is being built on Main Street in Clarence who is receiving numerous IDA incentives that invariably affects all of Erie County and was boisterous, finger pointing, accusatory towards the Clarence residents who are in favor of handing out these incentives which will cost all taxpayers throughout the county--which would have an economic impact on us all --- I do not think that the Clarence residents would appreciate that. The Clarence Supervisor would command proper respect from NON-RESIDENTS!

I realize the above paragraph was lengthy in nature but I wanted to make my point.

I recall a statement a Lancaster resident made at the end of the Public Hearing forum, " This is UNAMERICAN!" The statement referred to how the Lancaster residents are subsidizing this Private/Public airport through town, county, school and Federal tax dollars as they pay $37,600.00 in total taxes and have received close to $14 million in tax dollar subsidized grant money, violated zoning laws in "our town" and affect our quality of life issues over a burger? Come on--like a said--OUR PERCEPTION IS OUR OWN REALITY!

[ichingtheory]

As a reporter, Julie seems to be very biased. Julie, have you ever attended a public hearing where things were out of control? I doubt it if you really believe that Lancaster residents were out of line. I was there and was impressed with the way Supervisor Fudoli handled the hearing. Emotions were slightly high on both ends but for good reason. If you really want to write about something relating to the airport, all would be better served if you did your homework and wrote about shady airport land deals that allowed airport owners to pocket over $900,000.00.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster public hearings of July 1, 2013 (3)

Public participation

Approximately 11 Lancaster residents and 50 non residents spoke in favor of an airport text change. The language in the current Light Industrial District code Section 50-24(B)(1)(f) of the Town of Lancaster Town Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: (f) Any commercial recreation activity including, but not limited to, private commercial airports (special use permit required). The current code instated in 1989 and reaffirmed in 2007 reads: “Any commercial recreation activity [Special Use Permit Required].

Of the 61 code change proponents, approximately half of them provided oral comments and the remainder just rendered a, “I am in favor of the airport” response. The great majority of the proponents were non-resident pilots.

Their comments were well received by the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) and their supporters. It was a 101 presentation on the positive things that take place at the airport.

It is unfortunate that it was lost on their supporters that the language change had no bearing on affecting the current operation of the airport. The opponents (SACL) to the text change were not proposing to change anything of the current airport operation, but do not want to see further expansion take place; expansion that would allow for jets, long wing span aircraft and even helicopters. The text change has the potential of making that happen.

Text code change proponents comments

Numerous proponents of the text change commented on the following:

• Spoke on programs like the Young Eagles, which exposes youths to the experience of flying.

• Spoke on the Angel Flight program where a pro-bono group of pilots fly transplant patients and others needing medical emergency to non-local hospitals; sometimes hundreds of miles and at costly expense to the pilot.

• Pilots spoke on using the airport for personal business purposes.

• Non-resident pilots spoke on the revenue they bring into the town by gas at the airport and visiting local businesses.

• “The Lancaster Airport also supports programs like Mercy Flight, Erie County Sheriff’s Aviation Unit, Wings Flights of Hope and Angel Flight,” said James Cavanaugh of Tonawanda.

• A pilot spoke on using the airport to conduct his aerial flight photography business.

• Spoke on the potential businesses that could be generated should the airport expand and bring in corporate jets.

• Spoke on the joys of flying and that others should attempt to learn how.

• Several commented that trains and lawn mowers are noisier than aircraft.

• Spoke on how pilots come to the airport to get gas at a lesser expense than elsewhere by 25 cents a gallon.

• It’s a nice airport and should be kept in operation.

• BLA spokesperson attorney Adam Walters declared the airport is already approved to do what it already does, that it was once a conforming use, but that an oversight in a code change decades ago caused its status to change. “There are no expansion plans in place,” said Walters.

Next: Special Use Permit public hearing requested by BLA

[KevinL]

I am still amazed how some people still do not understand that when government gets involved in private industry it never works out. If airports/Mr. Walters claim that this is a profitable/viable business, why did it take 14 million in taxpayer dollars to get where they are today? If the need is so great for hanger space, they should charge enough to be able to build on their own. The State & Federal Governments should be focused on regulations and enforcement only.

Now I see Bob Miller closing his business over pennies when you compare what Lancaster received. His comments go against everything the airport supporters were saying at the public hearing. If they are putting so much money in the airport, they should be able to be self sufficient. They have had 50 years to show their worth but instead they chose to pocket over $900,000 of tax payer money. Now they claim they need more!

Its a shame Yahoo did not build in Lancaster (Eastport) because of this airport and possibly because of pilot Cavanagh and his aerial photography business.
Yahoo is now expanding with good paying jobs compared to Lancaster Airport "0".

Regarding Mr. Walters statement that this is not about expansion: Why did Mr. Blakeley discuss jet signatures compared to prop aircraft? There is no need to discuss if there are no plans to allow jets. I have to believe Mr. Blakeley pulled the curtain back a tad too far.

As for the retired air traffic controller from BNIA, its amazing she came forward without one correct fact. SACL has paperwork to back up all our claims where I guarantee she does not.
Regarding her claim that the runway would never expand because of wetlands and other criteria, all she has to do is review 2006 master plan. The plan they submitted was to go from a ARC B1 to ARC B2. This means that the aircraft would have a wingspan of up to 79' and a landing speed of under 121 knots.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The second public hearing of July 1, 2013 is a request by Buffalo-Lancaster Airport for a Special Use Permit according to requirements set in Article VI for Light Industrial District zoning; 50-24(b)f (permitted uses).

Buffalo- Lancaster Airport attorney addresses board first.

As BLA attorney Adam Walters declared his earlier remarks at the first public hearing on the code text language change were equally important in bearing out his Special Use Permit public hearing comments they will be published here as well.

Adam Walters commented at the first public hearing on favoring local law amendment to change text code from, “Any commercial recreation activity [Special Use Permit Required] to Any commercial recreation activity including, but not limited to, private commercial airports [Special Use Permit required].”

Walters’ position was that the code language change would aid the airport in getting the $10,000 owed it from a NYS grant not yet paid and that there were no plans to expand the airport.

Walters declared at the code text change public hearing, “To be clear, there is no proposed expansion to the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport. So for all those who says there will be, that is not true. In the 90’s we did master planning and there was a lot of dialogue with the town. The upshot is that we don’t need a text amendment. How do we know that, do we need to have a specific resolution, we do not. What do we know? We know for twelve years this (town) board issued numerous approvals to the airport; at every step of the process. The airport has never built a hangar without coming in for a permit. We did not build the runway without coming in for a permit. The airport has not added any buildings without coming in for permits, approvals, site plan review, and public hearings.”

“Two master plans were approved by this board; submitted, reviewed and approved. Why is that necessary, because the federal government will not give FAA dollars without involvement by the local board; its elected officials. That is why this resolution is on tonight. In 2010, the Lemasters did bring an action before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Nothing has been cleared up for three years. The airport is entitled to some reimbursement. The airport cannot get those reimbursements. The money is already spent on improvements from federal and state grants until this board says we approve this (code text change). The board has been hesitant to do so. The whole point of this text amendment is to clarify the zoning status for the airport once and for all. It is not to authorize expansion. This is not about expansion. The airport does not get to expand as result of this text change. It simply clarifies the zoning status. So we strongly support the text change based on this.”

Special Use Permit comments

Adam Walters addresses board first

“We are here to talk about the Special Use Permit application. It does go hand-in-hand with the text message change. The amended (text) message clarifies that the airport is a permitted use. It goes back to the prior town board and makes it clear that the airport is a permitted use and that the airport is allowed to do what it does. We have heard a lot of speculation on what it would allow the airport to do. Anything the airport would want to do; it would have to come to the (town) board for approval.”

“I will make things brief because other things have already been covered (in the first public hearing). The town did give us a lot of approvals over the years. The town approved the 2006 airport master plan. They did a negative declaration on the SEQR. There a couple of things in the master plan that have not been done. This special use permit will not allow those things to happen. It is not authorized; the runway extension and the construction of a parallel taxiway are not authorized uses. Issuing this special use permit will not alter things at the airport. The special reason for the (code text) clarification is strictly for reimbursement.”

“The airport has a long and valued history. It is not a lot of money we are asking for, but it is money. We would not object if there were special conditions in the Special Use Permit that says we have to come back for further approvals/permits.”

SACL spokesperson Dave Hangauer

I am strongly against this as the airport is not a conforming use and that makes it ineligible for a special use permit. If the airport were a conforming use it has to meet certain criteria of the town code Section 50-46 to be granted a Special Use Permit:

“No special permit or renewal thereof or modification of the provisions of this ordinance shall be authorized by the Board unless, in addition to other findings specified in this ordinance, it finds that such special permit or modification meets the following five criteria:

(1) Will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; The 1989 Zoning Ordinance states that this district is for light manufacturing activities. An airport does not manufacture anything and therefore does not meet this criteria

(2) Will not tend to depreciate the value of adjacent property: A lot of people don’t like loud and frequent aircraft noise right over their homes and so the value of the surrounding area resident’s properties will be reduced if the airport expands – through the text change.

(3) Will not create a hazard to health, safety or the general welfare; Having more, and larger, aircraft take off, land, and fly at low altitude over the residents involuntarily increase their risk of a crash into their property.

(4) Will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor be detrimental to the residents thereof; Taking an otherwise rather quiet suburban neighborhood and having a lot of aircraft taking off, landing, and flying at low altitude over it certainly changes the character for the neighborhood and is detrimental to the residents thereof.

(5) Will not otherwise be detrimental to the public convenience and welfare. ” When frequent flights get so annoying that you have to leave your home to get some peace then one can certainly say that is detrimental to the public convenience and welfare!

So the airport does not meet the above criteria and so would not be eligible for a special use permit, even if they were a conforming use, which they are not.

The bottom line in all of this is that the airport should have faded out of existence when the 1989 facility came to the end of its useful life because it was a nonconforming use. They were resurrected by FAA and NYS taxpayer money while they were in violation of the Town’s zoning laws, and they did not provide certain critical information (e.g. 2006 flight pattern change and the effect on nearby residential areas, zoning laws violations, etc) to the Town when asking for approvals so that a more correct decision could be made.

Now it is time for the Town to put a permanent, and iron clad, lid on any airport expansions and let it live out its nonconforming lifespan while taking vigorous measures to minimizing the deleterious effect it is already having at its current size on the residents.

Resident Lee Chowaniec

I am opposed to the BLA Special Use Permit request. I heard a lot of things said by the airport people supporting the code text change during the first public hearing saying only that they were for the airport. This is not about stopping the airport operation that is taking place. It is about code text change that could open the door for further airport expansion. Mr. Walters said this is not about expansion – that there would be no expansion. He said they would support putting in conditions. Conditions where, in the language of the code text change, that would now make the airport a conforming use? Since 1989, the town code has recognized this airport as a non-conforming.

Put in conditions that the airport could not expand into perpetuity and see how that lets with the airport. That would satisfy the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster and their supporters that are here today.

The pilots speaking here tonight have been under the impression that this is about shutting the airport operation down; that SACL wants to see that happen. They and their supporters appreciate everything you do, all that you spoke on this evening. No one from SACL has declared that the airport can’t continue operating the way it now does. The issue here is on airport expansion.

If the airport does expand, it will have an adverse impact on other current residential and developing communities and future town boards will have far more people coming in with complaints and asking why the town allowed this to happen when it was not in the best interests of the community.

The point is SACL, their supporters and the resident here tonight are not saying they want to see the airport shut down and/or diminished in operation in any way, but to not experience quality of life impacts that would increase from an airport expansion that would bring in small jets, aircraft with 78 foot wingspans and helicopters. The town board and pilots should not let Mr. Walters mislead them into thinking that this has nothing to do with expansion.

Lastly, it would be shameful of this board to not separate the ‘no brainer’ Colecraft Building proposal from the controversial airport code text change when determination time came. The Colecraft Building text change could be approved as early as the next town board meeting. The town board should take the proverbial ‘hard look’ before deciding on the airport code text change.

Follow-up Comments

Going back to December of 2012, the airport came to a town board work session and requested a resolution be put on the agenda in such language that would allow them to recoup $6,000 in state grant money owed them. They again declared the language change was not for expansion purpose but to claim money owed them. Supervisor Fudoli asked the airport representatives if they would be willing to conserve to the town a number of acres east of the runway that would ensure expansion would never take place. The airport walked away and is using another backdoor approach to not only get the money owed it but to becoming a conforming (permitted) use. Mr. Walters says this is not about expanding, but it is definitely about airport expansion.

By the airport becoming a conforming use, why would it need a required special use permit? If the code text change is approved, making the airport a conforming use, by what authority could the town stop them from issuing permits for further airport expansion?

The airport’s own Special Use Permit application states they want to put in a parallel taxiway and extend the runway to 5,200 feet in length. Do you seriously believe the airport will pay for this improvement with their own funds? As a permitted use they will be eligible for more federal and state grant money (taxpayer money) to pay for further expansion costs.

SACL has already compromised by not pursuing legal action to mediate the illegal expansion that has already taken place. SACL simply does not want to see further airport expansion taking place and presented numerous facts to back up their pursuit.

The pilots spoke at the public hearings in a manner that said they were for the airport. They spoke as one concerned that the hearings were about shutting the airport down. That is not true.

The town has been put in a difficult position; obligated to seriously consider what is being asked here, what has been presented by the public, and who will be best served with their determination. In listening to the detailed facts presented by SACL on the consequences of airport expansion to the public, believing the great majority of the pilots left the hearings calmed and happy to hear the airport will be conducting operations as usual, it is my opinion the community would be best served if the town provided language that would prevent airport expansion from taking place.