Despite Planning Board determination, residents voice concerns

[Lee Chowaniec]

On April 2, 2014, by a 6-1 vote the Town of Lancaster Planning Board (PB) denied recommending code text change to the Lancaster Town Board (TB), as requested by said TB.

The PB was charged with ‘clarifying’ use in a Light Industrial District and in making a determination whether the current code language in Section 50-24(B) (1) (f) of the Town of Lancaster Town Code instated in 1997 and reads: “Any commercial recreation activity [Special Use Permit Required], should be amended to read “Any commercial recreation activity including, but not limited to, private commercial airports (Special Use Permit required).

This text change would make the Buffalo- Lancaster Airport (BLA), a conforming use where it is now a nonconforming use and open the airport operation to further expansion.

Included in the communications this week is a submittal by the PB to the TB listing reasons as to why it determined the code text change did not fit the uses permitted on Industrial District zoned land and why they even suggested the TB keep the current code language the same as currently written.

Planning Board Discussion and Determination

DISCUSSION: LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF LANCASTER ZONING CODE TO CLARIFY PERMITTED USES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT

The Planning Board discussed the proposed text change to the Lancaster Zoning Code to clarify permitted uses in the Light Industrial District (LI) and made the following comments:

• New York State requires that any text change to a Town’s zoning code be carefully studied and should be to the benefit of the community.

• Currently the Lancaster Airport must come before the Planning Board regarding any changes to the airport. Why give up this kind of control?

• New language does not clarify Light Industrial Use.

• If the text change is made would the Lancaster Airport meet the criteria for a special use permit?

• Not comfortable with the proposed wording. What type of aircraft can land at the airport?

• Is the Lancaster Airport a non-conforming use? Should it have a separate code: airport category? Does a special use permit require any environmental study regarding air traffic?

• Amending the Town Code because of one entity (Lancaster Airport) seems to send up a red flag. Do not recommend code change.

• Keep the language the way it is. Recommend no code change.

• The airport should be put in the Lancaster Zoning Code with a special use permit.

Determination:

Following the discussion a motion was mad by Kristin McCracken to recommend denial of the text change to Section 50-24(B) (1) (d). The proposed text change is considered to be open-ended, not definitive enough, and too vague. The motion was seconded by Joseph O’Keefe and carried by a vote of 6 ayes.

Comments

Instead of finding relief in the determination of the PB and their recommendation to the town to leave the code language as it now stands, members of the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) voice concern that the TB council members will continue to breath air into this controversial process and somehow use a backdoor approach to favor the airport’s best interests over that of the community.

Despite the extensive research done by SACL, the volumes of documents submitted by the coalition regarding process, policy and legality on the past and future plans for expansion of the airport, the denial recommendation by the PB for code language change, the overwhelming support of the community, etc, SACL has good reason for concern considering the past attempts by some of the council members to continue support for the code text change – for whatever reason.

SACL is saying leave the code the way it is and let the airport exist and operate as it does today. The PB says leave the code the way it is and let the airport exist as it does today. It is in the best interests of the community they say. Why would the TB council members consider continuing to move this forward? In whose best interests are they working for? Supervisor Dino Fudoli has expressed his opposition to the code text change and any further airport expansion.

[gorja]

Lee,

Could you summarize the contents of the letter that you wanted made public that was from Deputy attorney Loftus?

[4248]

SACL, current and future residents have reason to be concerned - there are safety and quality of life issues involved.

While some feel good about this statement from Lancaster's Planning Board Members,

"motion was mad by Kristin McCracken to recommend denial of the text change to Section 50-24(B) (1) (d).

The proposed text change is considered to be open-ended, not definitive enough, and too vague.

The motion was seconded by Joseph O’Keefe and carried by a vote of 6 ayes."

This statement should satisfy the Town Board Members - The Town Board Council Men seem to be driven by some unknown force/need to support the expansion of the Walden Ave Air strip - Why ?

In the recent past the Lancaster Town Councilmen hid their formal actions to facilitate the Air Strip getting $13MILLION Tax Dollars. They misinformed residents and the media of their factual involvement! Why !

Could this latest push be because some Councilmembers actually received campaign support from the owner ?

All this while approving more new homes in the Cross Creek - Pleasantview - Pavement area !

Are they informing these new buyers and prospective buyers ?

Are they legally responsible to make the proximity of the air strip known ?

The fact that more planes will be flying over their homes as well as other residents in near by Nichter & Cemetery Road area !

This game of the Town Councilmen saying, "The Planning Board approved it there's nothing we can" is getting old .

I respect the decision of the planning Board in standing their ground - this game of dodge ball has to end !

[Lancaster Resident]

Any Town Board member that would want to bring the airport zoning change/expansion possibility up again would have to be crazy. It would shed an extremely bad light on that individual and would raise serious questions as to what the motivation could possibly be. Campaign contributions and VIP lunches would not be enough to explain it this time. It certainly would not be for the best interests of the citizens/voters of Lancaster, or even the housing developers. So time to do what I seem to recall that the late John Lennon sang "let it be, let it be, whisper words of wisdom, let it be"...

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee,

Could you summarize the contents of the letter that you wanted made public that was from Deputy attorney Loftus?

FOIL petition and appeal were denied by Town Attorney John Dudziak on the basis of ‘client – attorney’ privilege.

March 25, 2014

Lancaster Town Attorney John Dudziak

Re: Appeal regarding document denial

Mr. Dudziak,

At the March 5, 2014 Planning Board (PB) meeting, said board discussed ‘clarification’ regarding proposed text change to amend Local Law 2013 of the Light Industrial District zoning code.

The proposed amended language change requested by Buffalo-Lancaster Airport, Inc. (BLA) changes the code language 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].”

During the March 5th discussion, PB member Rebecca Anderson claimed that non-resident pilots had as much standing as residents as they add to Lancaster’s economy by bringing in airport jobs and spending at local businesses. To date, no airport jobs have been created and the revenue received from non-resident pilots pale in comparison to property tax revenues and the will of the people. Not having any information that affirmed that claim, Chair Neil Connelly requested PB consul Kevin Loftus to ‘do some research and write a report.

During the public Planning Board meeting that took place on Wednesday March 19th Planning Board Member Ms. Rebecca Anderson thanked Deputy Town Attorney Mr. Kevin Loftus for submitting a document to the Planning Board that she characterized as very clear. This document was prepared by Mr. Loftus in response to the Planning Board’s publicly stated request at the previous meeting on Wednesday March 5th to provide his input and advice on the airport situation.

I visited the Clerk’s office to FOIL for a copy of the report and was told that the office had no such report document. Town Clerk Johanna Coleman declared she would investigate as to whether I could obtain such copy as it might be considered privileged ‘attorney/client’ information, and not for public dissemination. After some investigation, Ms. Coleman called me later in the day to notify that I could not review or receive a copy of Mr. Loftus’s correspondence because it was considered attorney/client privileged information.

I have since filed a FOIL with the Clerk’s office and have received correspondence that I am not entitled to review or receive a copy of Mr. Loftus’s report to the Planning board.

As such, I am appealing to your office for clarification on the matter as I fail to understand why disclosure on such research and discovery document should not be made available to the public when in fact the attorney’s research and report should not be construed in the true sense as ‘legal opinion’ and therefore not deemed ‘attorney-client’ privilege status.

I am presenting you with documents from the State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government regarding when so-called attorney/client privileged information can be made public.

Mr. Loftus’ findings will bear great weight with the PB’s determination and I feel such information not being made public makes it unassailable and a disservice to the public in not having the opportunity to respond; especially considering code text change would make the non conforming use airport into a conforming use with the likely potential to bring about further airport expansion.

Lee Chowaniec

[gorja]

Thank you, Lee.

[4248]

These are excerpts from Lee's letter and my comments

Lets see now a Planning Board Chairman N.Connelly (Empowered by the Tax Payers of the Town of Lancaster) requested a review/report from the Planning Board Council Kevin Loftus(Employed by the taxpayers of Lancaster) -

"Client – attorney privilege." ? - Deputy Lancaster Town Attorney Mr. Kevin Loftus (Employed by the taxpayers of Lancaster) - or is he considered a Employee of the Air Strip owner ?

Lee states , " I visited the Clerk’s office to FOIL for a copy of the report and was told that the office had no such report document".

Told by Town Employee that "No such report document" was in there possession - Town Employees in the Clerks Office - all employed by Lancaster Tax Payers !

But after being told they (Town Clerks Office) had no such document -

The Town Clerk Johanna Coleman declared she would investigate as to whether I could obtain such copy as it might be considered privileged ‘attorney/client’ information, and not for public dissemination.

The Town Clerk Johanna Coleman (Employed by the taxpayers of Lancaster) has to call/ask (Presumably she called the Lancaster Town Attorney) if a resident could view or have a copy of the report written by the Deputy Town of Lancaster Attorney - the one Planning Board Member Anderson thanked him for giving her/them) showing what financial gains Lancaster receives from the Air Strip operation.

Lee stated, "Planning Board Member Ms. Rebecca Anderson thanked Deputy Town Attorney Mr. Kevin Loftus"


Lee was later told, "After some investigation, Ms. Coleman called me later in the day to notify that I could not review or receive a copy of Mr. Loftus’s correspondence because it was considered attorney/client privileged information.


Maybe I don't understand "Attorney Client Privileges" - but the Deputy Town of Lancaster Attorney was asked by a Town of Planning Board Chairman to do a report - - so who's the "Client" in this situation ? They are all Town Tax Funded Employees -

So what "Client" of the Deputy Town Attorney is being protected ? Again he and everyone else involved work for the Town Of Lancaster ! ? !

Why did Town Clerk Johana Coleman first deny the report existed - then say she would investigate to find out if a concerned resident/tax payers could see it or copy it ? WHY run interference?

All to often, this is the case in Lancaster Town Hall-and other Town Offices-Town Employees run interference to cover the actions/information/agendas of insiders.
The Legal Department has a "Selective" sense of who employs them - the Town Clerk buries the bones!

This needs to change !