Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63

Thread: Lancaster Residents fight Air Strip rezone and exspansion. Funded by FAA

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,754

    Thumbs down Lancaster Residents fight Air Strip rezone and exspansion. Funded by FAA

    Town Hall 21 Central Ave - March 11th 8:00PM , will be the ZBA's - Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to discuss the zoning for Lancaster Air Strip located at 4343 Walden Ave. Lancaster NY.

    FAA is out of control - $3.4 Billion spent on "Private Venture Air Strips" not public safety - private play grounds for private plane owners at tax payers expense.

    Please tell a friend and try to attend - this affects hundreds of area residents and near by Towns , not just Lancaster.

    This notice is scheduled for a March 4th public notice.

    SACL = Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster has joined with concerned Lancaster area to question the legality of this rezone.

    This air strip has received a rezone and Town Board approval without a mandatory public input hearing. The Town Board and Lancaster's IDA Chairman Bob Giza have approved paper work to allow the air strip to expand. They have also helped the air strip receive $12 Million Fed Tax dollars (FAA Money) to finance the unwelcome expansion.



    Lancaster Town Zoning Board asked to determine legality of Lancaster-Buffalo Airport expansion
    By Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster
    Feb 18, 2010, 16:59

    A group of Lancaster residents, the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster [SACL], has filed an appeal to the Town of Lancaster’s Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA], asking the board to determine whether the extensive expansion of the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport is legal under the town’s zoning laws. A similar request, made on December 18, 2009 to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer, Jeffrey H. Simme, has not been responded to by either Mr. Simme, or the Town Attorney, John Dudziak, Esq.,

    The Buffalo-Lancaster Airport is a private airport located at 4343 Walden Avenue, east of Pavement Road. The members of SACL, who are largely concentrated to the south of the airport, have concerns regarding the noise, safety and privacy issues associated with the facility’s operations. It is their contention that the Lancaster Town Board and Code Enforcement Officer have repeatedly violated the town’s zoning ordinance by allowing the airport to substantially expand its size, capacity and functions. SACL’s attorney, Arthur J. Giacalone of East Aurora, NY, provides the following explanation of his clients’ claims:

    Neither the current Town of Lancaster zoning ordinance, nor the zoning code in effect when the airport began its operations in the mid-1960’s, allows construction and operation of an airport or airstrip. The facility is, at best, a “non-conforming use.” Under the town’s zoning laws, a non-conforming use may not expand by more than twenty-five percent (25%) or extend beyond the lot occupied by it at the time it became a non-conforming use. In 1989, when the town’s current zoning law was enacted, the airport occupied approximately 25 acres of land, had a runway about 1,900’ long and 25’ wide, and included a hangar large enough to store 10 airplanes. By 2006, the airport covered 94 acres, its runway had been enlarged to 3,200’ by 75’, and it had three hangars with the capacity to house 44 planes. In 2007, the Town Board and Federal Aviation Administration approved plans that would allow the airport to expand to 143.1 acres [570% larger than its size in 1989], extend its runway to 5,500’ [110% longer than its 1995 length], and substantially increase the number and size of aircraft housed on site.

    Despite the fact that the airport’s consultants have reminded Town of Lancaster officials that the airport and surrounding area is not zoned for use as an airport, the town officials have repeatedly approved proposed expansions, and have expressed support for large, taxpayer-funded projects. Additionally, although the Lancaster Industrial Development Agency is required by its enabling statute to take into consideration local zoning laws when considering financial aid requests, it has approved multiple Buffalo-Lancaster Airport applications for real property and sales tax exemptions.

    At no time have the zoning laws of the Town of Lancaster been enforced. At no time have the rights and concerns of the residents living near the airport, or under the flight paths of the airplanes that utilize the Walden Ave. facility, been taken into consideration or protected.

    __________________
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,754
    Sorry folks I forgot: If you'd like more info about the
    Safe Aviation Coalition in Lancaster - use this email link:


    SAC_Lancaster@roadrunner.com

    Thank You!
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  3. #3
    Member FMD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,735
    it should be noted that no one cares.

    seriosly... the TB's of any municipality could give a hoot about the residents, its all bout whats 'in it for me'....
    Willful ignorance is the downfall of every major empire in history.

    "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao, 1938

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,754

    I don't agree totally

    Look at what the residents of Clarence have accomplished. Some times you have to push right past the local pay to play politicians.

    One way or another, a strong showing at Town Hall on the 11th at 8:00 will let them know voters/residents and concerned citizens are watching. Election will soon be here again and we wont forget.

    Some people walked to prove a point, some walked for their families , most walked because its the right thing to do.

    Join Us and make your voice heard!
    PS: just to let you know I have already recieved emails from residents out side of Lancaster. People do care!
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  5. #5
    Member nickelcityhomes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,636
    Do you like ping-pong? Hopefully.

    This is gonna get bounced around for a few weeks until they decide how to address the crowd. Expect a bunch of bored looks by the board. You already said there is 12 million in Federal funding for a crappy little airport. It doesn't matter how many people you round-up for that meeting.

    This is a done deal.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of state and federal oversight. Do you really want to consolidate your local voting power into that vacuum? Ask Kevin Gaughn (intentional sic) what his plans are for this type of power grab. I bet he tells you it's a wonderful thing that 5 salaries are eliminated in his quest to eliminate local government.
    Most of all I like bulldozers and dirt

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,456

    Safe Aviation Coalition

    Has there first baby steps accomplished. Noted in this morning's Bufnews that the FAA has halted funding to complete the expansion on the Lancaster Airport.

    "...a minor technical point was missed as we were following a masterplan which was on file with the town." stated Mr. Tom Geles.

    Well, minor? Mr. Tom Geles, this is huge when you think a technicality with such a huge project is justifiable?

    It is with praise that the citizens of Lancaster has a good day today with the diligence in their fight.

    The attorney Art Giacalone was an asset and his expertise is what helped our cause.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,754

    Lightbulb SACL has helped protect their neighbors and themselves - BRAVO

    Clarence Residents have shown what "Neighbors" can do. Average tax payers can cause change for the better. This isn't "Political" - its not "Economics" - Its about peoples right to be safe. We trust Government, FAA and our Local Leaders. We fund every move they make, should that mean they work for us?

    In this Country over $3.4 Billion Federal Tax Dollars were given to private venture hobbyist type Air strips - not to create air safety - not to create jobs. WHY ?

    Until our Major Airlines are safe, until the FAA puts our tax dollars into "Major Airport Safety Programs" - no person who fly's is safe - no people who live near these "Hobby Center Air Strips" are safe.

    Government needs to be Responding to the taxpayers - not pandering the "Special Interest Groups"

    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,754

    Would you like sauce on that crow, Sir?

    [quote=nickelcityhomes;609585]Do you like ping-pong? Hopefully.

    This is gonna get bounced around for a few weeks until they decide how to address the crowd. Expect a bunch of bored looks by the board. You already said there is 12 million in Federal funding for a crappy little airport. It doesn't matter how many people you round-up for that meeting.

    This is a done deal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ping Pongs Fun!!!!!!!
    Click below to contact SAC (Safe Aviation Coalition) of Lancaster, NY


    SAC_Lancaster@roadrunner.com
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    In this Country over $3.4 Billion Federal Tax Dollars were given to private venture hobbyist type Air strips - not to create air safety - not to create jobs. WHY ?

    Until our Major Airlines are safe, until the FAA puts our tax dollars into "Major Airport Safety Programs" - no person who fly's is safe - no people who live near these "Hobby Center Air Strips" are safe.
    Talk about sensationalism! You should be disgusted with yourself trying to play off the Clarence crash to further your Lancaster agenda.

    The money from the airport trust fund helps improve ALL airports, not just small, general aviation airports. Additionally, this money helps make ALL airports safer by expanding runways, improving and implementing instrument approaches, providing greater taxiway-runway separation and so on. To further make the outrageous claim that no person who flys is safe??? C'mon! You're much more likely to get killed in a car crash tomorrow than you are when you fly a plane this year.

    Additionally, these "hobby center air strips" that are supported by the federal airway money provide far more services than for just recreational pilots. Companies use them, the military uses them, medical services use them, small tour operators use them, and they also help relieve congestion at the nation's busiest airports. And by the way, they're not all private airports. Everyone of them is public use and many are supported and owned by public entities. BNIA recieved money from the AATF, as did Genesee County airport. Both owned and operated by public entities.

    And to make a futher claim that no one that lives near these airports is safe! Give me a break, you've just gone off the deep end. Making claims against the Town board in Lancaster is one thing, but to go out and scream the sky is falling when it's a proven fact that general aviation has been getting safer is another.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    In this Country over $3.4 Billion Federal Tax Dollars were given to private venture hobbyist type Air strips - not to create air safety - not to create jobs. WHY ?([/CENTER]
    BTW, here are some facts to debunk your claim that 3.4 Billion went to small airports:

    The FAA distributed $3.34 billion in AIP funds to 2,610 airports.

    341 primary airports—airports with more than 100,000 passenger boardings each year—received $2.1 billion in AIP funds. That’s an average of $6.17 million per airport.

    48 commercial service airports—airports with between 2,500 and 100,000 passenger boardings—received $93 million, or an average of $1.94 million per airport.

    139 GA reliever airports received $214 million, or an average of $1.54 million

    982 GA airports received $617 million, or an average of $628,000.

    Combined, the 389 airline airports divvied up $2,199,335,046, averaging $5.5 million per airport. The 1,121 GA airports shared $831,717,227, averaging $741,942.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,456
    Quote Originally Posted by OutsidetheBox View Post
    Talk about sensationalism! You should be disgusted with yourself trying to play off the Clarence crash to further your Lancaster agenda.

    The money from the airport trust fund helps improve ALL airports, not just small, general aviation airports. Additionally, this money helps make ALL airports safer by expanding runways, improving and implementing instrument approaches, providing greater taxiway-runway separation and so on. To further make the outrageous claim that no person who flys is safe??? C'mon! You're much more likely to get killed in a car crash tomorrow than you are when you fly a plane this year.

    Additionally, these "hobby center air strips" that are supported by the federal airway money provide far more services than for just recreational pilots. Companies use them, the military uses them, medical services use them, small tour operators use them, and they also help relieve congestion at the nation's busiest airports. And by the way, they're not all private airports. Everyone of them is public use and many are supported and owned by public entities. BNIA recieved money from the AATF, as did Genesee County airport. Both owned and operated by public entities.

    And to make a futher claim that no one that lives near these airports is safe! Give me a break, you've just gone off the deep end. Making claims against the Town board in Lancaster is one thing, but to go out and scream the sky is falling when it's a proven fact that general aviation has been getting safer is another.


    Box, all of this is naysay when a project of this magnitude did not involve the Lancaster residents/taxpayers. This project missed key points in the masterplan, which indicated no major airstrip as part of the town plan.

    A masterplan for the town is intrical and is a guideline to development with TAXPAYERS in mind. There is such a term called Smart Growth. It is inappropriate for hobbiest to entertain the thought that the entire town embraces it' plan.

    Other hobby's that people have does not indulge millions of other people's money without having it be a townwide involvement.

    At the end of the day, fact remains~~~~taxpayers need to be involved when projects encompasses such magnitude.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    Box, all of this is naysay when a project of this magnitude did not involve the Lancaster residents/taxpayers. This project missed key points in the masterplan, which indicated no major airstrip as part of the town plan.

    A masterplan for the town is intrical and is a guideline to development with TAXPAYERS in mind. There is such a term called Smart Growth. It is inappropriate for hobbiest to entertain the thought that the entire town embraces it' plan.

    Other hobby's that people have does not indulge millions of other people's money without having it be a townwide involvement.

    At the end of the day, fact remains~~~~taxpayers need to be involved when projects encompasses such magnitude.
    I won't deny that the town dropped the ball in a big way, but I think 4248's post just steps over the line of decency.

    One of my big problems is that SAC at this point seems to be looking for any and every reason it can to stop the airport, including use of fear.

    Obviously we look at airports differently. I view them as necessary and part of this nation's infrastructure which includes roads, rails, airports, and waterways. SAC (or at least some vocal members) seem content on painting small airports as only being used by hobbyists and for recreation.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,456
    Quote Originally Posted by OutsidetheBox View Post
    I won't deny that the town dropped the ball in a big way, but I think 4248's post just steps over the line of decency.

    One of my big problems is that SAC at this point seems to be looking for any and every reason it can to stop the airport, including use of fear.

    Obviously we look at airports differently. I view them as necessary and part of this nation's infrastructure which includes roads, rails, airports, and waterways. SAC (or at least some vocal members) seem content on painting small airports as only being used by hobbyists and for recreation.
    Good, then we can agree to disagree. I feel that you are not as accurate when stating SACL is using fear tactics. I suppose if you knew the whole story, your perception would be entirely different even as far as being a supporter of the group opposing an airport that's agenda does not stipulate what you just stated.

    With the airport as it sits, all the things that is of importance works perfectly with a 3200 runway. The only projection to 5500 runway is to bring bigger aircraft. It is a town that does not need that. Sir/mam, the masterplan does not reflect that vision.

    Fear is of the unknown, we know all the peramiters of the project. It is bad.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    802
    I suppose I must be missing something... 'cuz, like, why is this Lancaster thing in the Amherst/Clarence shop??

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Member 2358 View Post
    I suppose I must be missing something... 'cuz, like, why is this Lancaster thing in the Amherst/Clarence shop??
    There weren't enough 'high fives and back patting' going on in the lancaster thread so they created another one here. Sometimes mold spreads if left unattended...

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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