Resident questions town on inappropriate airport FAA funding support
Since the early 90’s, when the FAA designated Lancaster Airport would become a reliever airport for the Greater Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, the FAA has funded over $10 million to help expand and improve the Lancaster airport.
The airport project has been in limbo the last few years because of a legal challenge brought against the town by the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL). At a Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing held a few years ago, the SACL attorney contended:
• The airport was a nonconforming use,
• That more than 25% expansion has occurred at the airport,
• That the aggrieved parties have not brought the aggravation on themselves because the airport existed. My response to that is that the airport that existed before 1989 was nowhere the size that it is today. Future expansion beyond what’s there now brings concerns that my clients did not bring about themselves,
• That the aggrieved parties have standing in that they are more aggrieved that the general public due to the flight pattern and that they are getting the full brunt of the noise because of the altitude at that point of the flight pattern.
Kevin Lemaster, SACL member, addressed the Lancaster Town on another sticking point. He has been in contact with the FAA questioning their decision to fund the airport project when in his opinion he had delivered enough documents to not only stop further expansion, but to question why the FAA granted funding in the first place. In the documents provided by Lemaster are also questionable land transactions – purchases and sales at reduced sale prices.
Lemaster was told by the FAA that the Town of Lancaster held four public hearings, two at the Town Board level and two at the Planning Board and that the public had a right to speak and make their concerns known.
Lemaster declared that the FAA had given him four dates on which public hearings were held. Two were to have taken place on September 18, 2006 and May 21 of 2007 at the Lancaster Town Hall. “There are no such records on file indicating these meetings (public hearings) took place. The FAA also informs me that two public hearings took place at the Planning Board. Are people even allowed to speak at a planning board meeting?”
Council member Mark Aquino affirmed that the public was not allowed to speak at a planning board meeting.
“The FAA is claiming that they received information from the town that on September 6, 2006 and in June 2007 public hearings were held by the planning board on the Lancaster Airport expansion project, declared Lemaster. Again, there are no records to indicate such public hearings took place at the planning board level, and where in Lancaster public vocal input is not allowed.”
Lemaster added that Lancaster Airport Inc. has received millions of dollars in federal and state funding based on town public hearings that were never held. “I have so much documentation, going back and forth with the FAA, and am requesting an investigation by them. The town was given a lot of misinformation by the airport applicant and should be looking into this matter as well.”
“And they (Lancaster Airport Inc.) are still looking for more grant money from the federal and state agencies as of February of last year. And the zoning issue is not going away as well.”
Supervisor Fudoli interjected that he was not in office when the airport expansion process was taking place, but that he would meet with Lemaster privately and get up to speed on the matter and answer his questions on the public hearing dates.
Lemaster declared that the reason he was before the board is that the FAA is saying that this town held open public hearings that he could never find documents that verified such hearings took place. He then told Supervisor Fudoli that he would present him with a copy of his latest correspondence that he was putting together for the FAA.
“I would like this town board to be very leery about moving forward with anything the Lancaster Airport owner would request from them; in the near future or the far future,” said Lemaster. Lemaster was referring to further building permits being issued without the SACL provided information and right to legal challenge.
“And you should note that the airport has not paid its taxes from last year,” Lemaster declared.
Lemaster closed by stating that the FAA declares they are granting the funding based on the town’s support of the project and the fact that public hearings were held on the matter, when he fact they were not held and no public input was ever forthcoming on the project or process.
