Sidewalks..cess pools and easements, the saga of St Anthony and Rose streets

[Lee Chowaniec]

No one said anything about sending the kids out for an afternoon swim. In fact, you'd actually make it safer and less appealing for the kids to g near it if it's left to become "overgrown" . Now, why these idiots in suburbia keep spraying their lawn with God knows what is beyond me too, but that's for a different thread. By demanding a fence be put around the thing you do want government to do your job. How about as a parent you just tell your kid not to go near it. Thousands, heck millions of kids grew up just fine without fences around us. Enough is enough. Personally if the kids were old enough I'd tell them to go out and have fun, be respectful and don't get run over. Are we going to put fences around everything now? Roads, rail road tracks, ponds, lakes, ditches, big trees good for climbing and as Frank suggested Niagara Falls and Zoar Valley!? It gets outrageous.

I see the same thing going on in Clarence. All these people move into these subdivisions and whine. They want more parks, they want little league, they want pretty flowers, they want Astro Turf, they want this, they want that. Its like a hundred little Alan Bedenkos walking around thinking money comes from tree's. The people that end up footing the bill for all this crap are the people that have been in the town for generations and don't even use the stuff. It sucks

“It would not make the pond safer by letting it get ‘overgrown’. Isn’t that the reason for the demand to clean them?

“If the kids were old enough,” is not the case here. Many are not old enough to recognize the danger.

“Suburbia idiots spraying their lawns,” really? No toxins come in from street storm water and other sources, eh?

Now think about what the residents of Rose and St Anthony are saying and petitioning for:


They are not petitioning for more government or more government spending.

• They are petitioning to have the town compel the property owner of the pond to clean the pond; to rid the pond of cattails and toxins. They have done that for years and got nowhere; expect one year where the Building Department took it upon itself to do. Why isn’t the property owner being cited and fined for not making any effort to maintain his pond.

• The residents only bring up fencing ponds in because they are compelled to fence their pools, put in alarms, etc. Wet ponds receive no such restrictions or conditions. Where’s the fairness?

• The residents are not asking the town to bear the expense of putting in a sidewalk at the vacant lot. They are asking why they have to follow town code on sidewalk maintenance and liability and why the property owner gets a waiver because of a delay in that homes may be built in the future and where the subdivision home builder (Ryan Builders) tells the residents that homes will not be built behind their homes. BS, and all for $2,000, the cost of putting in the sidewalk.

The problem here is that the town sees Mr. Wehner as an individual with an axe to grind for other personal reasons and his message is lost on them – especially not being a subdivision resident and thereby having the standing a resident would have. Where are the residents of this subdivision on this matter? Why are they not appearing at town hall to make a public issue of this; that is if it is that important to them and has been for some time? Why is there at minimum no formal petition to indicate subdivision support? And through all of this it wouldn’t cost the town a dime.

All the other amenities you mention were public wants and provided for by the town. We may not use all of them, we may bitch about some of them and want them removed, but which ones; the ones we don’t personally use or see the need for? Perhaps the ones we believe were created to create more town employees, create more patronage jobs, create more votes.

The sidewalk code is vague and unfair. Developers use it to their advantage. Change the code language.

As to fencing all ponds; not possible, nor reasonable. But the town and developer should make it damn straight to all prospective homeowners with wet ponds on their property who is responsible for their maintenance and cost of, as well as liability.

The town creates the problem, the residents complain, the town blames the residents

[Wehner]

I was happy to hear that a few residents showed up to the TB meeting from St Anthont and Rose st area. Here's hoping that the archaic sidewalk policy presently in the town code be addressed. I've said it before but it's worth saying again. When is the town board going to step up to the plate and help these taxpayers and I might add VOTERS out!!!!

If the present town board can't handle a simple sidewalk issue, how can the residents of the town have enough confidence in the town board to address complex issues that arise.


It's really a shame that a petition drive and vote of confidence is not available....

[gorja]

It was said last night from what I understand that if there were a change in code, it probably wouldn't be retroactive.

[Wehner]

I have asked repeatedly at the town board meetings if the town is in full compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT with regard to its sidewalk codes. All I got was lip service from SUPERVISOR FUDOLI. It's always, I'll get back to you. But still NO answer. Even after placing follow-up calls to the SUPERVISOR, I still am waiting for an answer.

[WNYresident]

Are these codes something the town follows when building new sub divisions? I can't expect the codes to be forced on existing areas that were built decades ago.

[4248]

The sidewalk waivers were issued by amendments set forth By Councilmember Donna Stempniak and approved by vote of the Town Board.

If they change the codes it will be a grand stand attempt to look good - as it will still be possible for her to set forth and approve waivers.

I asked before - the open lot that is to be used for future access to another parcel ? Was that included as a access road in the original approval - the building department/building inspectors office should have a filed approved copy.

A developer cant just arbitrarily set aside a access in a residential subdivision as a access road. It had to have been clarified and approved in the original plan or its residential property.

This is a point the residents should look into.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey Mike W.

It is about time someone from the St. Anthony and Rose Street subdivision addressed the sidewalk issue at the town board level. A petition drive would be more useful. People there have to get involved if it is such a big deal.

As someone not living in the subdivision you have very little standing – despite your interest and knowledge. Use it to mentor those homeowners – but you can’t carry the water for them.

As for Fudoli not responding, he is but one of five. Get on the asses of the other town board members.

If you read the included minutes you come to realize it was the same mantra being used by the town – sidewalks are not required unless a home is built on a lot in a developing subdivision. I would be surprised if any code change would affect past developments. But here is a different situation. Bal-Par owns the property and is keeping the lot open for possible development in the rear and would use the lot as an access road to Rose.

If Mike has to take care of his sidewalk and keep it shoveled in the winter and maintained otherwise for public safety reasons, how does the property owner get way here with having to do nothing, the 90 feet inaccessible and presenting an unsafe condition.

The code needs to be changed. This is not 1986 when Lancaster was not developed as it is today.

Town Board minutes

Councilman John Abraham: It is a buildable lot.

Fudoli: Don’t know if we have authority to go on private property and force people to do that; put in a sidewalk on a vacant lot.

Mike (Rose Street resident): But the maintenance falls on me here and my kids have to walk in the street.

Fudoli: We just can’t go to the builder and force them to put something on their property. You bought a hose there knowing you were going to have a sidewalk. We are not saying it is impossible to make them put a sidewalk in, but it would be difficult to do so.

Councilman Mark Aquino: We have an issue here. It was seven years before a sidewalk was put in the house built next door to me. Kids had to go into the street to get around the property. All we can do is to maybe change the law to that after a certain amount of time, if there’s x amount of houses there, the developer has to put a sidewalk in. If the builder puts a sidewalk in before a house goes in, are you burdening them (breaking up the sidewalk to construct the house)?

Council Ron Ruffino: Maybe that would help dictate how the subdivision is built out. Instead of putting one here and putting one two hundred yards away...

Fudoli: If we change the code, could we make it retroactive?

Len Campisano (Building Dept. Rep): You could run into a problem with curb cuts.

Abraham: In Chapter 12, Section 7 (sidewalk code) it states that the sidewalk will be placed within the parcel developed and that only the town board can address the requirement.

Fudoli: We can change the code but I don’t know if it will solve your problem. I don’t know if we can go retroactive and force somebody to do something that was not in the code before.

Mike (resident): I have to maintain my sidewalk and snow-blow it in the winter.

Aquino: Did you ever approach the developer and have a conversation about this?

Mike (resident): It’s actually a company called Bal-Par, a property holding company. Mike was asked if they were the ones to put the street in. Mike answered it that Bal-Par was the one managing the property right now.

Town Engineer Robert Harris: Was Bal-Par the ones managing the property when the street went in? Then Ryan homes developed it and left.

Supervisor Fudoli handed his personal card to Mike telling him to call him and he would see what he could do.

[gorja]

All these properties in Lancaster are owned by Balper Enterprises. They owe taxes on every property.