Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Rezone process/Comprehensive Plan need further review

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922

    Rezone process/Comprehensive Plan need further review

    At Monday’s evening’s Town Board meeting the following is one of the resolutions up for consideration: Zoning Map Amendment Denial Re: Jeffrey Bochiechio 00 Broadway [Zoning Map: Jeffrey Bochiechio]

    Petitioner Jeffrey T. Bochiechio (“Petitioner”) submitted a rezoning petition to the Town of Lancaster Town Board (the “Town Board”) seeking to rezone property located on Broadway (SBL # 116.00-1-5.13) (the “Property”) from Residential District One (R-1) to Multifamily Residential District Three (MFR-3). The proposed future use of the Property, as described in the petition, is “[t]o develop sixty-four (64) two-bedroom residential condominiums in sixteen (16) four unit buildings.”

    The Town Board's Findings

    With respect to Petitioner’s rezoning request, the Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan and the current Zoning Regulations do not support the rezoning of the Property to MFR-3 and the current R-1 zoning should remain in place. Lower-density residential development here is contemplated by the current zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the unique characteristics of this location.

    The proposed rezoning would not be in the public interest, would be detrimental to surrounding land uses, and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

    For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s rezoning petition is hereby DENIED in its entirety.


    At the last Planning Board meeting Kristin McCracken declared that numerous rezone petitions have been coming before the board in the past year and whether a new comprehensive plan should be done. Council member Donna Stempniak (liason to the Planning Board) stated that a new Comprehensive Plan would be a very costly project for the town. Stempniak suggested parts of the Town Code could be modified. Following a brief discussion it was decided that over the next few months the Planning Board look over the Town Code and make suggestions on what modifications could be made.

    Why now?

    With rare exception it has been the custom for years for the town to hand out rezones to developers like candy to babies; favoring their best interests over that of the neighboring residents. Within the past month the town will be denying two rezones, one for an apartment complex, the other for a patio home development.

    The town is now citing such reasons as traffic and traffic safety, wetland and drainage concerns, buffering protection for the established neighborhoods, density and for not fitting the character of the neighborhood (Comprehensive Plan).

    Residents attending board meetings have questioned why the Comprehensive Plan (Generic if anyting and not comprehensive) has never been reviwed and updated. A good pln would not necessitte the rezones we have seen since its adoption in 2002.

    Well, what has changed, besides the increased number of rezone applications coming before the Planning Board and its call for comprehensive plan review and updating? Is it the fact that it is election year and the code is quite specific on reasons for declining rezones, but that the town has been fearful to pursue such action for fear of developer leagal suit?

    Is it because the great majority of rezone petitions coming in are for development types in neighborhoods that already have overbiurdened roads, flooding and drainge issues, and developments that do not fit the character of the neighborhood and/or provide adequate buffering?

    Or, is because affected neighborhoods are forming coalitions, presenting petitions, doing research and challenging the developers to meet criteria necessary to get rezone approval.

    Regardless, this is a breath of fresh air, a new direction that will level the playing field for the residents.Hopefully, the review of the Comprhensive Plan will not lead to modifications that will ease the burden for developers to get rezone approvals.

    Developers had become so brazen in this town that at one time the attorney for a developer openly stated to Planning Board attendees: “You can laugh all you want, but we can get the necessry permits anytime we want.” That was another time, another administration.

    The town is finally beginning to see the accumulative adverse impacts of development on a neighborhood, not just considering the potential adverse impacts of the development in question. Town revenue generated by uncontrolled growth without accommodating for such growth is no longer acceptable.

    Developers should not be allowed to come into our town town and tell us what is marketable and what is in the best interest for the community when in fact it is in their best interests as the land in question could not be profitably developed as zoned.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Question

    "Is it the fact that it is election year and the code is quite specific on reasons for declining rezones, but that the town has been fearful to pursue such action for fear of developer legal suit?

    Is it because the great majority of rezone petitions coming in are for development types in neighborhoods that already have overburdened roads, flooding and drainage issues, and developments that do not fit the character of the neighborhood and/or provide adequate buffering?

    Or, is because affected neighborhoods are forming coalitions, presenting petitions, doing research and challenging the developers to meet criteria necessary to get rezone approval."

    Its a desperate attempt to gain campaign fodder for the Dem Controllers !

    These developers aren't the standard "Party Supporters" - they haven't paid their dues !

    Please go back and look at any election cycle Town Board Agendas - 5/6 months prior to the November Election cycles.

    Its the same game - slap a few hands of the "Newer Developers" - do the "Dog and Pony show" about "Not fitting the Comprehensive plan" - "To many unanswered questions" and so on !

    I bet Councilman Stempniak has her calender marked, "Start Election time zoning denial charade

    Some of these developers are buying sites that have already attained "REZONE" by the Planning Board for the selling developer - they are being led to believe the sites are ready and another rezone is all but guaranteed by the Board.

    What they are finding out is the sites aren't as lucrative as they could be if they had been retained by " Party Supporting Regulars"

    Some think their sites will just be "Stalled" a while (until maybe after the elections - if the right people win)
    - and if they support the correct committee/Party their projects will be put back in for approval.

    Thats up to the Voters/Home owning taxpayers this November !

    Put the same Controlling Party back in - status quo development will commence !

    Will this be the year tax paying home owners out number the Friends and Family tax funded Dem Controllers at the poll ?
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Hey 4248: Much of what you stated is spot on and has beeen the status quo of past administrations. Here we are speaking of the present; and recently on the town board’s decision to deny a rezone petition based on ‘findings’ that have been present in many previous rezone applications that were approved anyway.

    Council member Donna Stempniak did state at a meeting prior to the Tyler Development rezone petition decision that the town could indeed deny a rezone petition simply based on its belief that the project is not in the best interest of the community. Stempniak further stated that to ensure the petitioner would not take the town to court on such a decision rendering it was necessary to list findings that would give credence for rezone denial.

    Read the resolution findings of the Taylor Development rezone denial posted below and you will see that many of the same conditions existed over the years for rezone petitions that were approved – and someetimes under the pretext that if a rezone were not given the petitioner would sue the town. How many times have we also witnessed rezones of rezones over the years.

    The code and criteria is there for rezone approval or denial. The application and enforcement has been inconsistent. Many of the ‘findings’ listed below pertained to the developments along Harris Hill and Genesee Street (the Fairways at Lancaster). But there the rezones were approved.

    Tyler Development rezone denial based on Findings for denial

    Petitioner Tyler Development LLC (“Tyler”) submitted a rezoning petition to the Town of Lancaster Town Board (the “Town Board”) seeking to rezone property located on Broadway (SBL # 116.00-1-13.11 and 116.00-1-18.21) (the “Property”) from Residential District One (R-1) and Residential Commercial Office District (RCO) to Multifamily Residential District Three (MFR-3). The proposed future use of the Property, as described in the petition, is “development of single family detached homes.”

    The current zoning designation for the Property is R-1 and RCO. The intent of the R-1 zoning district is “[t]o provide areas within the Town for low-density single-family detached residential development . . . .”

    1 The intent of the RCO zoning district is “[t]o provide areas within the Town for the location of commercial and office uses which are not necessarily related to retail trade.”

    2 The majority of the property proposed to rezoned is currently zoned R-1, with a smaller portion fronting Broadway zoned RCO.

    1 Town of Lancaster Code § 50-10(A).
    2 Town of Lancaster Code § 50-22(A).

    3 The Board notes that it reaches this conclusion even though it issued a negative declaration for the proposed rezoning. Evaluation of the criteria for determining significance is a different standard than the Board’s legislative determination whether or not to change the law to change the zoning designation for a property. For example, in the negative declaration, the Board determined that impacts to community-plan and community-character consistency were not large enough to warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Nonetheless, the Board determines that these impacts warrant denial of the underlying petition for rezoning.

    The Town Comprehensive Plan and the Town’s Zoning map designate the majority of the property for lower density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan does note that higher density development is permitted near the villages and in sewer districts, but controlling density and providing adequate buffering between high-density developments is an important component of the Comprehensive Plan and the R-1 zoning fulfills that purpose. With respect to Tyler’s rezoning request, the Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan and the current Zoning Regulations do not support the rezoning of the Property to MFR-3 and the current R-1 zoning should remain in place.

    Lower-density residential development here is contemplated by the current zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the unique characteristics of this location.

    4 The Board has previously noted the impacts on flooding, drainage, and wetlands.

    5 The site is located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, the depth to the water table is less than three feet, and it is adjacent to wetlands. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve important environmental features. Increasing the density of this parcel to permit more-intensive development would exacerbate the identified impacts.

    6 With respect to the proposed future use of the Property, the construction of patio homes, it is noted that this development was initially proposed as part of a larger patio home development, adjacent to the east. The continuity of development would have mitigated some aspects of a higher-density development in this area. For example, traffic flow could have been diverted to two exit points, one on Broadway, another on Bowen. This is important due to the increasing traffic at the intersection of Broadway and Steinfeldt. Moreover, drainage could be better coordinated and integrated. The proposal currently before the Board does not include this mitigation.

    The Board finds that adding a high-density residential development in this area, in addition to wetlands, potential flooding, drainage, and traffic impacts require denial of the rezoning petition. In summary, the proposed rezoning would not be in the public interest, would be detrimental to surrounding land uses, and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

    For the reasons stated herein, Tyler’s rezoning petition is hereby DENIED in its entirety.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    That just goes to prove the point - Councilmember Stempniak and others knew these same rules/codes and conditions for most of her carreer as a Councilmember and Planning Board Liaison.

    She also repeated what residents knew and brought up multiple times, "Council member Donna Stempniak did state at a meeting prior to the Tyler Development rezone petition decision that the town could indeed deny a rezone petition simply based on its belief that the project is not in the best interest of the community" -

    Yet she and her fellow controlling members misinformed and lied to residents - they pretended and said their "Hands were tied" - "It was approved by the Planning Bard - so we just act as a rubber stamp" - GLAD She's LEAVING FINNALY ! She finally maxed out her pension !

    Yes - we are now talking about today - and now - now its election time. Now the controllers want to present a "New Direction" well maybe that's because the prime development is done ! The bigger players are sliding into new areas.

    Its not because of some new found need to protect green space - its not because they see the follies of over building -

    Its because they are desperate to maintain control of tax funded positions.

    Notice the names of the petitioners aren't the prime developers/party supporters either !
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Yes, Lee, it does seem the the Fairways rezone could have been turned down for the same reasons as this one.

    http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...light=fairways
    http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...light=fairways

    Will Tyler development have any legal recourse as other like proposals received rezone approvals? Would those others be considered as a precedent?

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Last night the Lancaster Town Board tabled the resolution to deny the rezone pettion of Petitioner Jeffrey T. Bochiechio. Bochiechio appeared before the board at its work session held prior to the regular meeting and withdrew his project.

    He notified the board of his intent to meet with the neighbors at the Lancaster Library and discuss alternate plans on making the project acceptable to them. When the announcement was made of the tabling at the regular meeting there was an outcry by the 15-20 neighboring project attendees that they were not informed of such meeting. When they asked when the matter would be brought before the board again they were told that t could be as soon as a couple of meetings or never.
    I can understand Bociechio withdrawing his project and having a year to come back with another, but why he finds it important to appease the neighbors first is questionable. What kind of project he presents to the neighbors should have nothing to do with meeting the criteria set for approving a rezone, namely protecting the best interests of the community as a whole.

    Hopefully the neighbors realize the town issued findings that clearly state the reasons why a rezone should not be granted* and that the land should be developed as currently zoned – for single family homes.

    * With respect to Petitioner’s rezoning request, the Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan and the current Zoning Regulations do not support the rezoning of the Property to MFR-3 and the current R-1 zoning should remain in place. Lower-density residential development here is contemplated by the current zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the unique characteristics of this location.

    The rezone criteria for denying rezones is in the code. It is time for the town to consistently follow that criteria. Lancaster is beginning to get a bad name for its development direction and resulting overburdened roads. Smart growth principles have not been followed.

    The proposed rezoning would not be in the public interest, would be detrimental to surrounding land uses, and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    Obviously Mr.Bochiechio must be under the impression if he "meets with the neighbors at the Lancaster Library and discuss alternate plans on making the project acceptable to them" that he may get a new or different ruling !

    Isn't the Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board Councilman Donna Stempniak - isn't she also the Library Liaison as well - OH isn't that coincidental

    Looks like some two steppin going on here - who's playin who
    - who is organizing/arranging the meeting ?
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    Obviously Mr.Bochiechio must be under the impression if he "meets with the neighbors at the Lancaster Library and discuss alternate plans on making the project acceptable to them" that he may get a new or different ruling !

    Isn't the Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board Councilman Donna Stempniak - isn't she also the Library Liaison as well - OH isn't that coincidental

    Looks like some two steppin going on here - who's playin who
    - who is organizing/arranging the meeting ?
    Great point 4248, didn't put two and two together. Hmm

  9. #9
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Monday's agenda -8/3
    15. Stempniak/ _____ Zoning Map Amendment Denial Re: Jeffrey Bochiechio 00
    Broadway [Zoning Map: Jeffrey Bochiechio]

    There is no prefiled resolutions attached to the current agenda. Unclear if the wording will be the same as July 21st

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    A good donation to the Lan Dem Committee would guarantee passage. No money - no honey !
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Monday's agenda -8/3
    15. Stempniak/ _____ Zoning Map Amendment Denial Re: Jeffrey Bochiechio 00
    Broadway [Zoning Map: Jeffrey Bochiechio]

    There is no prefiled resolutions attached to the current agenda. Unclear if the wording will be the same as July 21st
    The resolutions can be found in the Town Code section of the town website. The rezone denial is based on the following findings:

    The current zoning designation for the Property is R-1. The intent of the R-1 zoning district is “[t]o provide areas within the Town for low-density single-family detached residential development . . . .”1
    The Town Comprehensive Plan and the Town’s Zoning map designate the majority of the property for lower density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan does note that higher density development is permitted near the villages and in sewer districts, but controlling density and providing adequate buffering between high-density developments is an important component of the Comprehensive Plan and the R-1 zoning fulfills that purpose.

    With respect to Petitioner’s rezoning request, the Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan and the current Zoning Regulations do not support the rezoning of the Property to MFR-3 and the current R-1 zoning should remain in place. Lower-density residential development here is contemplated by the current zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the unique characteristics of this location.2

    The proposed rezoning would not be in the public interest, would be detrimental to surrounding land uses, and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.


    For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s rezoning petition is hereby DENIED

    Comment

    Several more rezones could have been denied using the same reasons for denial; developments on Harris Hill and Genesee Street for like reasons. It is time the Lancaster Town Board started using criteria to stop dumb growth development that favored the best interests of the developers.

    It also helps to have residents opposing intruding developments petitioning in large numbers and doing the research to determine and present credible reasons for rezone denials.

  12. #12
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    The resolutions can be found in the Town Code section of the town website.
    Thanks, Lee. That's where I found the agenda this week and never looked for a resolutions link. I got spoiled finding them together under the other section of the website.

    Georgia L Schlager

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. No action taken by Lancaster Town Board on resolution to deny rezone of a rezone
    By speakup in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 09:09 PM
  2. Comprehensive Master Plan Alden
    By cyclops in forum Events in WNY
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 26th, 2008, 09:28 PM
  3. Pauls Comprehensive Economic Revitalization Plan
    By gonerail in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 24th, 2008, 09:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •