Originally Posted by
Lee Chowaniec
When presenting the minutes of this meeting, I wrote the following:
"Despite several board members expressing their distaste and opposition to the concept proposal and reasons for rezone approval the board tabled the matter to allow the petitioner to regroup and come back with a concept plan that better served the best interests of the community."
I wrote that because there was chaos when the motion to table the project was made, seconded and voted on (?).
The town publication of the Planning Board meeting minutes report the following took place:
Based on the information presented to the Planning Board, a motion was made by Kristin McCracken to table the project pending:
1. Further review of the traffic study and mrket analysis
2. Additional information regarding the concerns of the concept review*
Motion seconded by Chair Connelly. Roll call as follows:
Chairman Connelly Yes
Rebecca Anderson No
Anthony Gorski No
Joseph Keefe Yes
Lawrence Korrzeniewski Yes
Krisiti McCracken Yes
Melvin Szymanski Yes
The motion was carried. Member Gorski stated that he is tired of looking at this and there is so much he doesnt like. He is not in favor of the rezone based on the site plan presented.**
*Rezone concerns included:
Town property thru patio home development
Location of roadway will need to be reworked
School bus garage to the west of the parcel with idling buses
Configuration of lots-new concept
Snow removal concerns
Interconnectivity of the industrial to the residential area
Buffer for the residential area
360of roadway to be installed since Eastport was approved
Proximity to the airport
SEQR needs to be resubmitted
**Concept opposition
Mr. Gorski was not the only one commenting on the dislike of the rezone and development concept; at least 4 other board members voiced similar comments. I was surprised the petitioner was given another opportunity to come back.
Comment
How fortunate Lancaster residents are to have Planning Board meeting dates and agendas posted on the town website; more fortunate to have the meeting minutes also posted on the website in the communications. This information is not reported by the media. This rezone application should have been denied. Uniland created its own hardship when it bought the property in 2002 with the speculation that the north-south corridor was to be built. This project is not in the best interest of the community.
BTW Why is there no Buffalo News reporter covering the town? Nothing newsworthy I guess now that former Republican Supervisor Fudoli has been ousted. No issues to speak of and a budget that meets the tax cap. All is well if you read the Lancaster Bee; and must be well as there is no Buffalo News report.