Originally Posted by therising
What happens to the HUD housing, as the population declines, and the number of seniors in need of this type of housing decreases? Look at the Allenhurst Apartments in Amherst for your answer. I'm not merely thinking about today, but the long term ramifications. Something that has been lacking in WS for a long time.
Another point that has been lost here, this project will be part of sewer district 13, which, even the Sewer Authority says is in need of an upgrade. Other projects have been rejected for just that reason alone.
I'd rather be hated for who I am... than loved for who I'm not!
When will the decline in population of aging people take place? 30 years? It's not just the aging population that will decline, it's the entire population, so there would not lkely be a younger generation moving into these apartments as you predict. The sewer capacity is a lot more important issue than the demographics - there are already back-up problems in the town. Although maybe the developer would help to pay for the upgrades if he wants to use the sewer district.
I've seen that "HUD Housing" phrase thrown around a lot here. I'm not sure that I'm 100% sure that I know what it means. But, you, clearly, know, very well, what it means. Can you please elaborate for me?
As far as Allenhurst goes, I've seen that comparison thrown around here before as well. Did Allenhurst start out as Senior housing??
NIMBY 101 arguments. Keep changing the subject. It's the traffic, I mean it's the low income, I mean it's the sewers.......Another point that has been lost here, this project will be part of sewer district 13, which, even the Sewer Authority says is in need of an upgrade. Other projects have been rejected for just that reason alone.
But, you're all in favor of "building beautiful homes." Won't those homes need sewers?
Again, this whole debate is due to the inadequacies in our zoning code. As I pointed out in a similar debate of the Majeski's site that other towns have a way to handle this type of development and we need to come in to the 21st century: http://www.townofnewscotland.com/tow...008%20LL02.pdf
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Like Psycho, you clearly have actuarial skills that I don't possess. You should go to a Town Board meeting, and, tell them your findings.
If only, Town Boards throughout the Country, had your foresight back in the 70's -- they wouldn't have allowed video stores to open - knowing that, 30 years in the future, they'd be obsolete.
You think that a special zoning that restricts age is a good idea? Constitutional? Couldn't that lead to another zoning which restricts seniors from where they live? (You're 65 now, you gotta move.)
Anyway, until that time, what's your feeling on this project? Your opinion is pretty well-respected around here, so I'd like to hear what you have to say.
The zoning I cited does not restrict by age, it restricts multiple dwelling units intended for seniors to keep its use. It can also be used to limit where and to what extent the total land volume of the town to be used for such purpose and to balance the use of town resources so as to not overburden them.
Personally, I believe multiple dwellings can be an effective way to transition from commercial/industrial zones to residential areas of one and two family housing.
We also have to keep in mind that the current structures that are on the site were permitted because it was an educational structure and under zoning principles enjoyed certain presumptions. Since the new use of this property is not educational in nature it does not enjoy those presumptions. One of the purposes of the site plan review process that was enacted after the Canisius Athletic Fields is to "promote the efficient use and layout of land, and take into consideration the health, safety and general welfare of the public and of the residents and users of the proposed development. This will be accomplished through sound site planning that includes standards in the design, layout, landscaping and construction of development."
Specifically the Planning Board has to consider:
In approving the site plan the Planning board "may impose special conditions or modifications limiting the use or occupancy of the proposed land and development consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. Any conditions so imposed shall become a part of the site plan approval and must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits for development. No building or other development permit shall be issued for property that is subject to a site plan except in conformity with the approved plan for that site."The Planning Board approval or denial and any conditions thereto shall be guided by the following general standards for site development:
(1) Conformance with this chapter and other adopted Town plans, an approved development plan that includes the subject site, if one exists, and all other applicable laws;
(2) Compatibility of the proposed development with the natural features of the land and the environmental attributes of the site;
(3) The project's compliance with grading and drainage requirements of the Town;
(4) The project's compliance with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Law;
Editor's Note: See Ch. 77, Flood Damage Prevention.
(5) The general layout and design of buildings, lighting, signage, open space and development features consistent with reasonable planning principles;
(6) The location and design of vehicular entrances/exits, including emergency access and fire lanes, in relation to the street system, traffic circulation and control within the site, and coordination of access points and circulation with adjoining properties;
(7) The provision and protection of pedestrian movement on the site and coordination of pedestrian movement on adjoining properties and the street system;
(8) The location, design, layout and adequacy of parking, loading and stacking areas, including the provision of opportunities for handicapped parking;
(9) Provision of landscaping, screening and buffers to complement development and protect adjacent uses and public rights-of-way from unsightliness, noise, glare and other nuisances. Such elements shall also be used to promote the availability of green space in nonresidential development and recreation space in residential development to avoid a continuous paved or built environment;
(10)
Adequate provision of drainage and stormwater management facilities;
(11) Adequacy of sewer and water facilities, fire protection and conformance with Town regulations for the provision and construction of those services;
(12) Where appropriate and applicable, the concurrence of Town agencies, New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and other county or state agencies, as appropriate; and
(13) Meeting the requirements for a site plan, as identified in this chapter.
When the plans were first articulated it did not seem that it would materially alter the footprint of the structures on this parcel. Which I had no objections with. Now it has been drastically expanded and changed. I would be interested in seeing the EAF filed for this project to see what is actually planned. Absent this I am more skeptical of this project now than in the beginning.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I read as far as 190-102 (Limitations on Occupancy), which says "the occupancy for a Residential Senior Citizen Housing District shall be limited to persons who are 55 years of age or over ("Seniors".) Then it goes on to provide exemptions - non-senior spouse, caregiver, etc.
So...how do you figure it doesn't restrict by age?
And that's exactly what this does.
What does the footprint of the current structures have to do with anything? I don't see anything regarding that in what you posted above?Originally Posted by dtwarren
Specifically the Planning Board has to consider:
Quote:
The Planning Board approval or denial and any conditions thereto shall be guided by the following general standards for site development:
When the plans were first articulated it did not seem that it would materially alter the footprint of the structures on this parcel. Which I had no objections with. Now it has been drastically expanded and changed. I would be interested in seeing the EAF filed for this project to see what is actually planned. Absent this I am more skeptical of this project now than in the beginning.(1) Conformance with this chapter and other adopted Town plans, an approved development plan that includes the subject site, if one exists, and all other applicable laws;
(2) Compatibility of the proposed development with the natural features of the land and the environmental attributes of the site;
(3) The project's compliance with grading and drainage requirements of the Town;
(4) The project's compliance with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Law;
Editor's Note: See Ch. 77, Flood Damage Prevention.
(5) The general layout and design of buildings, lighting, signage, open space and development features consistent with reasonable planning principles;
(6) The location and design of vehicular entrances/exits, including emergency access and fire lanes, in relation to the street system, traffic circulation and control within the site, and coordination of access points and circulation with adjoining properties;
(7) The provision and protection of pedestrian movement on the site and coordination of pedestrian movement on adjoining properties and the street system;
(8) The location, design, layout and adequacy of parking, loading and stacking areas, including the provision of opportunities for handicapped parking;
(9) Provision of landscaping, screening and buffers to complement development and protect adjacent uses and public rights-of-way from unsightliness, noise, glare and other nuisances. Such elements shall also be used to promote the availability of green space in nonresidential development and recreation space in residential development to avoid a continuous paved or built environment;
(10)
Adequate provision of drainage and stormwater management facilities;
(11) Adequacy of sewer and water facilities, fire protection and conformance with Town regulations for the provision and construction of those services;
(12) Where appropriate and applicable, the concurrence of Town agencies, New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and other county or state agencies, as appropriate; and
(13) Meeting the requirements for a site plan, as identified in this chapter.
In approving the site plan the Planning board "may impose special conditions or modifications limiting the use or occupancy of the proposed land and development consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. Any conditions so imposed shall become a part of the site plan approval and must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits for development. No building or other development permit shall be issued for property that is subject to a site plan except in conformity with the approved plan for that site."
And, the residents may not want to open that can of worms -- as the footprints of the current structures certainly does not lend itself to what they claim they want -- "beautiful homes."
By the way, what's the current zoning here? Someone said R-60? I can't find that classification here:
http://www.ecode360.com/?custid=WE0417
Because people age 55 or over do not have to live there. It restricts what the structures can be used for. (btw this was in response to your question(s) "You think that a special zoning that restricts age is a good idea? Constitutional? Couldn't that lead to another zoning which restricts seniors from where they live? (You're 65 now, you gotta move.)")
We will agree to disagree on that point. I think what commercially used properties that are near there are predominantly shielded from the residential areas by the creek going down Union Road. ( http://www.westseneca.net/pdfile/existing.pdf )
And that's exactly what this does.
The footprint is related to density and the built environment of which must be considered in its totality, each item the Plannin Board must consider must take density in consideration for traffic, sewer, use of public resources, etc.
What does the footprint of the current structures have to do with anything? I don't see anything regarding that in what you posted above?
And, the residents may not want to open that can of worms -- as the footprints of the current structures certainly does not lend itself to what they claim they want -- "beautiful homes."
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Any tract or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the Town of West Seneca which is either owned or leased by the Town of West Seneca and which is designed for public use as a playground, athletic field or picnic grove.
85-2
All park facilities are for the use and benefit of residents of the Town of West Seneca. Persons not residents of the Town of West Seneca are prohibited from such facilities.
So basically, the ice rink and soccer complex are in violation?
Originally posted by therising:
By the way, what's the current zoning here? Someone said R-60? I can't find that classification here:
http://www.ecode360.com/?custid=WE0417I refers to R-50 District (§ 120-16A), which is:I found R-60A-
§ 120-18 Permitted uses in R-60A Districts.
Principal uses.
(1) As permitted in the R-50 District (§ 120-16A).
(2) Telephone exchange.
(3) Real estate or insurance offices.
(4) Mortuary.
(5) Art, dance, music or photographer studios.
(6) Optician or optometrist.
(7) Fire stations with club facilities.
(8) Meeting rooms for private club, lodge or fraternal organization.
(9) The following uses, provided that when used primarily for contagious diseases, mental patients, drug or liquor addicts or for penal or correctional purposes, a special permit authorized by the Town Board shall be required:
(a) Medical building consisting of offices or clinics for medical doctors, dentists, chiropractors, chiropodists or podiatrists.
(b) Nursing or convalescent home.
(c) Nonprofit institutions for charitable, religious, cultural or community social purposes.
(d) Hospital.
(10) College, library or historical building.
(11) Hotel or motel without restaurant facilities.
(12) Other administrative, professional or executive offices, but not including the handling, repairing, processing, keeping, displaying, selling, manufacturing, servicing or storing of any goods or merchandise upon the premises.
§ 120-16 Permitted uses in R-50 districts.
A. Principal uses.
(1) As permitted in § 120-14A.
(2) Editor's Note: Former Subsection A(2), which permitted two-family dwellings with consent of the Town Board, was repealed 8-17-1987. This ordinance also renumbered former Subsection A(3) as Subsection A(2). Group dwellings and multiple-family dwellings by special permit authorized by the Town Board.
Georgia L Schlager
Simply put, the government (taxpayer) pays a portion of a person, or family's rent, based on income levels. Started with good intent, the system has become bloated and abused
I believe so, although I'm not sure there was a specific designation at the time. Sorry, I was a kid, and didn't pay much attention. I remember my parents making references of that nature.
Not changing the subject. Just another point that seemed to get lost lost in the discussion. Hey, I admit it, I'm getting older. Sometimes I have to bring things up when I remember them, or they're lost.
Not to the extent this project will.
I'd rather be hated for who I am... than loved for who I'm not!
Yes, it doesn't say "you must live here if you're over 55," but it does say "You can't live here if you're under 55." So, what's to prevent them from making another zoning which says "you can't live here if you're under 55."
You think that would hold up in court? Regardless, is that a direction in which you want to see municipalities go? You seriously don't have a problem with that??
I still fail to see how two buildings on 37 acres can be seen as too densely populated.The footprint is related to density and the built environment of which must be considered in its totality, each item the Plannin Board must consider must take density in consideration for traffic, sewer, use of public resources, etc.
I'm still not sure I understand how you feel about this project. Is this the appropriate site for a project such as this, or no? If no, then where do you think would be an appropriate site?
I have a hard time reading those things -- so, can someone please just tell me --- does 75 units on 37 acres fit into the current zoning? Yes or no?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote