Originally Posted by
Lee Chowaniec
While five Harris Hill Road spoke in full support of Natale’s rezone application to rezone 38 acres of Residential District One (R-1) property at 375 & 391 Harris Hill Road to Multi-Family District Four (MFR-4) zoning for the purpose of constructing a 150 unit senior apartment complex and 9 single-family homes, two Harris Hill Rod residents had reservations, three residents raised concerns, and one recommended rezone denial.
A 390 Harris Hill Road resident who lives directly across the street from the project declared she was sitting on the fence. Doesn’t know what the right answer to this is. Traffic, sewers and quarry are issues. Behooves the town board to use their wisdom when making a determination and how this project will affect the future. I am not fighting progress but I am asking that all parties work together.
The resident living at 394 Harris Hill Road claimed that she could set her clock at noon everyday to coincide with the stone quarry blasting that takes place near the project location. She declared that her house has suffered foundation damage. The dust from the stone quarry comes right across Harris Hill into her backyard as well.
Resident Don Symer spoke on a Sewer District Four meeting he had recently attended. He had asked on the sewer system that is located on Harris Hill Road between Wherle Drive and Genesee Street. He was told that the current sewer pipe was two inches in diameter and was only buried two feet below ground. He added that individual homes have grinders in the line that are pressurized. The existing system currently is at max capacity right now. A sewer district official said a larger pipe size is required and would need to be installed deeper in the ground. The length of sewer line needed to connect to the main at Genesee Street and with a gas line present makes this a costly project.
Respectfully, I assume that the assurances that the town board members were given tonight, namely that the sewer costs would be picked up by the petitioner, and not the taxpayer, should this project move forward. Symer mentioned that he had heard nothing on the viability of the water lines knowing the demand for water will increase.
Respectfully, I offer these considerations to the town board.
Paul Grabowski informed the board that there is a Volunteer Fire Hall that takes care of all the residents living along Harris Hill Road. “I don’t know how much more we can get involved here,” declared Grabowski. “That is one concern the board has to keep in mind. I’m not for this. There is going to be an increase of traffic, sorry to say. If it gets approved, fine, but I think you should look at the fire halls.”
Resident Mike Fronczak
You (petitioner) talk about putting in walkways in wetlands. Can you put walkways in State regulated wetlands? I didn’t think so.
Attorney Jeff Palumbo: We didn’t say walkways in wetlands.
Fronczak: You mentioned walking dogs…
Supervisor Dino Fudoli: You can walk in wetlands; you can’t put trails in wetlands.
Fronczak: Is that a feasible thing to be telling people they can walk in wetlands when there are no trails or bridges to cross standing water areas?
Fudoli: I can’t answer that question for the developer but I can refer it to Town Engineer Bob Harris.
Harris: They would have to go to the DEC for approval for what they want to do. I assume they haven’t had a chance to talk to them yet. This is a possibility, not a given.
Fronczak: Well, the residents should know this may not be a possibility to walk into and disturb a wetland.
Councilman Mark Aquino: There isn’t always water in a wetland; there are times when there is no water.
Fronczak: Does Mr. Natale own this property.
Fudoli: I believe he has a contingency contract in place based on development approval.
Fronczak: One thing I have seen happen in Lancaster is that we develop the structures first and then put in the infrastructure later. I don’t care if you put one more car on this road either from developing single-family homes or if it’s multi-family use, how is one ever to make a left turn into or out of this complex without a signal, or even a turning lane? It is near impossible now not only at traffic peak hours but at other times of the day as well?
Fudoli: That are not denying it’s busy there, but Transit Road is ten times busier and I have property there where there is no signal and they make turns there all the time.
Fronczak: I am not against the development but I want to make sure we do our homework before we rezone again, and we know how many times that has happened in this town, and that the infrastructure is in place before we made the move on the development.
Fudoli: It’s a county road.
Fronczak: There we go again. We are going to have a scapegoat. It will be like hearing the same thing as on William Street and where the residents petitioned for road improvements and all they heard was that it’s a county road and the town couldn’t do anything about it.
Fudoli: It’s a county road and there is nothing the town can do to control it.
Fronczak: So as someone that has been travelling this road for 15 years I will be hung up even more when heading north by someone trying to make a left into this complex where there is no signal or turning lane.
Fudoli: Actually the state grants signalization and turning lanes; county road or not.
Resident Lee Chowaniec
I agree with the recommendation made by the Town of Lancaster Planning Board to the Town Board on May 21. 2014 to deny rezone of this project based on their findings and other:
• The project does not fit the character of the neighborhood (Hamlet of Bowmansville)
• The project will exacerbate the traffic situation on Harris Hill Road and will impact traffic on Genesee Street in Bowmansville and the Town of Clarence. Considering Clarence’s proximity, the traffic study should be presented to Clarence for their review and comment.
• Increase in density. The proposed rezoning and high-density development are not in compliance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. This rezone hearing is supposed to be about land use, as you told me at the last meeting. The Future Land Use Map from the Town of Lancaster, Village of Lancaster, and Village of Depew Comprehensive Plan of February 2000 identifies the property in question as an area where low-density housing should be located. The Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2000 and since that time Lancaster has been handing out rezones and rezones of rezones like candy. It’s time to stop or re-evaluate the Comprehensive Plan.
• Except for a notation from the Erie County Department of Public Works I have heard no mention of the fact that there is a Limestone Rock quarry within ¼ mile of the project site; until tonight. The county raises potential risk concerns to the public and the dwelling structures. Will the blasting operations to mine the rock cause problems with the foundations of these buildings? Within Erie County there are other active quarries that existed before the surrounding areas were built up. Residents within these areas now want the quarries shut down due to health risks, noise, dust, and truck traffic. Will the Town of Lancaster be causing future problems by allowing additional residential land use in this area?
Supervisor Fudoli: Stop right there. Jeff (Simme – Building Inspector), do we have on record people that have structural damages from the quarry?
Simme: Not that I am aware of. (Yet one Harris Hill resident spoke out that she did).
Chowaniec: That’s not relevant here as I know of many instances in different subdivisions where homeowners are suffering basement or other structural damages and will not come forward for fear of devaluing their property.
I am hearing tonight from Natale reps that the land to be rezoned is for 38 acres, yet on the application to the Planning Board it was for 32 acres. Which is?
Palumbo: 38 acres. There was some confusion as to whether or not the entire parcel would be rezoned or not. It is and includes the single-family home construction.
Density/Traffic
Chowaniec: So if this were about land use, this project would be denied as it was for a previous developer who had applied for a rezone to construct a 262 apartment complex.
But this developer, as others have done before have done, meets with neighboring residents a little over a week ago and convinces them the project concept is now less dense as it has been reduced from 175 senior apartments to 150 - but still with 9 single-family lots to be developed; and that as it is a senior complex there would be less traffic than if it were developed as intended in the Comprehensive Plan, as a 50-60 single-family subdivision.
I find that reasoning presumptuous, unsubstantial and based on supporting the developers self-serving agenda to get this property rezoned. The project site is located on 38 acres. The number of maximum homes allowed in a Residential District One (R-I) = 3.5 dwelling units max per acre per town zoning code. That would allow for max build-out for 133 single-family homes. In their own presentation the petitioner rezone reps declare at least half the land is comprised of a state regulated wetland and as such would only allow for a 50-60 single family home build out. The DEC might permit building in the wetland adjacent area (buffer area) but not in the wetland.
And somehow the developer has convinced the Harris Hill Road neighbors that a 150 senior apartment complex with 9 single-family dwellings would bring no more, maybe even less traffic, than a 50- 60 R-1 single-family development. Seriously?
The developer has reduced the density because of the wetlands and declares that because of his now less dense project he does not need the installation of a signal or a turning lane. No need for road improvements for the future senior apartment dwellers, the neighbors and the Harris Hill Road travelers. Hey, the neighbors get use of facility amenities. If this project were denied rezone, it is my opinion that nothing would be built there as the development of a 50-60 R-1 single-family subdivision would not be financially profitable.
Seniors and traffic
The age 55 and over apartment dwellers are well in today’s working age. Seniors 70 and over can be found in today’s workplace. Those seniors that are not working are not the stay-at-home seniors of yesterday. Being one of them and living in a townhouse complex with like demographics, vehicles are traveling in and out of the complex at the same rate of single-family subdivisions. As for traffic volume and traffic control systems in place, there are none. I live along William Street and would not want to see anyone suffer same broken promises and unintended consequences that have taken place here.
The developer met with the neighbors, told them different on the potential traffic impacts, misled them on volume count between the senior apartment complex and a single-family development, promised the neighboring residents use of the developed project amenities; pool, tennis court, etc, and asked them to submit letters of recommendation to the town board for rezone approval; and where seven (7) did and where five (5) spoke in total support of the project.
While the project neighbors have standing and a voice in the determination of project approval, one neighbor spoke and claimed that as the project was in her backyard she had more standing than residents that lived several miles away and just travelled the road. It behooves this board to consider the well being (safety) and quality of life of every Lancaster resident using this already overburdened two-lane road, as well as the residents of the Hamlet of Bowmansville and the town of Clarence.
Lastly, the rezone petitioner appeared before the board at the last meeting and requested a public hearing take place before a SEQR was held. It was mentioned that time and money could be saved by him if the board were to determine that a rezone was not to be approved. Despite the project’s downsizing and claptrap of his traffic study, this project does not fit the character of the neighborhood or the tenants of the Lancaster Comprehensive Plan and rezone should be denied as recommended by the Town Planning Board.
In addition, the newly presented concept drawing does not indicate where the access roads are, but does indicate on the drawing “patio’ lots for single-family type homes to be constructed. There are enough questionable issues and statements made by the applicant reps to warrant returning this back to the Town Planning Board for further review and they’re determination and recommendation. This is another 'the check is in the mail presentation'.
This should not be about developer and the town profiting (tax revenue) from a project that requires a rezone that flies in the face of the Comprehensive Plan, has so many uncertainties regarding wetland disturbance and sewer hook-ups, and is not in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Reply With Quote
