Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: Eastport Commerce rezone petition tabled again

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by MaddMatt View Post
    It is not dead in the water as they can continue to lobby both the zoning and town boards for approval/vote. I am meeting with representatives of the property owner this week to hear their side but I have made it clear to them that I believe this property should remain L1 zoned.

    Matthew Walter
    Lancaster Town Council
    Yes, Gorga, the current concept before the Planning Board to rezone a portion of Eastport Commerce property for residential development use is dead in the water to the Planning Board for myriad reasons besides just losing developable LI property – and they have recommended to the town board that they by resolution deny rezone approval.

    Why the applicant would be lobbying the ZBA is beyond me. As the Planning Board is but a recommending board and where the final decision rests at the town board level any ruling outcome is possible.

    The Planning Board has tabled the applicant’s concept plan several times and has given the applicant abundant opportunity to come up with a plan that was acceptable. The applicant failed to do so and so a final decision was rendered to deny rezone.

    The applicant’s ‘lobbying’ should fall on deft ears of the ZBA and Town Board members. I was at planning board meetings where the planning board presented serious concerns relative to the quality of life and other best interests of the potential homebuyers.

    Lastly, Matt, are they lobbying just you as a town board member or have you become appointed as Town/Planning Board liaison?

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Lastly, Matt, are they lobbying just you as a town board member or have you become appointed as Town/Planning Board liaison?
    Lee:

    Strictly as a hard working town board member :-)

    Matthew Walter
    Lancaster Town Council

  3. #18
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    58,754
    I didn't read all of this.

    Why wouldn't people want more residential homes? They would generate more property taxes. It can not be about sprawl because no one had an issue with that while other subdivisions were being built.

  4. #19
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    10,347
    Quote Originally Posted by MaddMatt View Post
    It is not dead in the water as they can continue to lobby both the zoning and town boards for approval/vote. I am meeting with representatives of the property owner this week to hear their side but I have made it clear to them that I believe this property should remain L1 zoned.

    Matthew Walter
    Lancaster Town Council
    Thanks Matt for the answer and for wanting the property left as L1.
    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    I didn't read all of this.

    Why wouldn't people want more residential homes? They would generate more property taxes. It can not be about sprawl because no one had an issue with that while other subdivisions were being built.
    Apparently you didn’t read all of this. You appear little informed about this project regarding its history dating back to 2003 where the property was then rezoned to LI and where Uniland alleged it had a major tenant all set to go and with the promise of other businesses interested in following.

    The developer got what he wanted in 2003 with the understanding from the town that a major north-south corridor would be build and pass through Gunville Road and connecting to a thruway booth that would be moved from the then and current Williamsville toll booths – a pipedream then that continues to reappear every so often and once again mentioned in the upcoming comprehensive plans – and still a pipedream IMHO.

    And no, it is not about sprawl – nor anyone opposing residential development. The town has experienced sprawl like development in the past and where developer best interests and resulting town revenues outweighed homeowner and environmental best interests. Residents were told the property purchased by the developer could be developed as he saw fit – that he had property rights.

    Valuable wetlands on the property were segmented, destroyed and/or filled in for developer and town best interest (revenue) and is the leading cause of the town’s current flooding and drainage issues. Water collection ponds were installed to control the on-property flooding and drainage issues and the collected water released at same rate as raw land into the creeks and streams that now overflow more than ever before.

    There were myriad and ample reasons given by the Planning Board to deny rezone of an already rezoned parcel of property. What did not show up in the minutes were the impacts to prospective homebuyers – school bus garage directly to the west; commercial development to the south; the proximity of the Lancaster airport across Walden Avenue; traffic and traffic safety issues.

    The Town Planning Board asked all the right questions, tabled the project concept for further review several times and got it right. The town board should follow their recommendation to rezone the property.

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Apparently you didn’t read all of this. You appear little informed about this project regarding its history dating back to 2003 where the property was then rezoned to LI and where Uniland alleged it had a major tenant all set to go and with the promise of other businesses interested in following.

    The developer got what he wanted in 2003 with the understanding from the town that a major north-south corridor would be build and pass through Gunville Road and connecting to a thruway booth that would be moved from the then and current Williamsville toll booths – a pipedream then that continues to reappear every so often and once again mentioned in the upcoming comprehensive plans – and still a pipedream IMHO.

    And no, it is not about sprawl – nor anyone opposing residential development. The town has experienced sprawl like development in the past and where developer best interests and resulting town revenues outweighed homeowner and environmental best interests. Residents were told the property purchased by the developer could be developed as he saw fit – that he had property rights.

    Valuable wetlands on the property were segmented, destroyed and/or filled in for developer and town best interest (revenue) and is the leading cause of the town’s current flooding and drainage issues. Water collection ponds were installed to control the on-property flooding and drainage issues and the collected water released at same rate as raw land into the creeks and streams that now overflow more than ever before.

    There were myriad and ample reasons given by the Planning Board to deny rezone of an already rezoned parcel of property. What did not show up in the minutes were the impacts to prospective homebuyers – school bus garage directly to the west; commercial development to the south; the proximity of the Lancaster airport across Walden Avenue; traffic and traffic safety issues.

    The Town Planning Board asked all the right questions, tabled the project concept for further review several times and got it right. The town board should follow their recommendation to rezone the property.
    The last paragraph should read: The Town Planning Board asked all the right questions, tabled the project concept for further review several times and got it right. The town board should follow their recommendation to deny the rezone application.

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    I didn't read all of this.

    Why wouldn't people want more residential homes? They would generate more property taxes. It can not be about sprawl because no one had an issue with that while other subdivisions were being built.
    IMO, I don't think it is compatible with the surrounding area. LI and residential needs to be in concert with each other. The development in that surrounding area, IMO, is getting congested and convoluted. You have walkable communities, an airport, LI businesses, a bus garage, and residential all bundled up. That signal on Walden and Pavement needs an arrow to direct/divert traffic. That intersection is a nightmare....

  8. #23
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,343
    =shortstuff;1775289] That signal on Walden and Pavement needs an arrow to direct/divert traffic. That intersection is a nightmare....
    Not to change the subject Shortstuff, but speaking of arrows, try the intersection of Walden and Sheldon. That nightmare will send you screaming madly into the night.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Town denies rezone petition
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2015, 01:15 AM
  2. Why is the Lancaster EastPort Commerce Center not succeeding?
    By Lancaster Resident in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 29th, 2011, 09:14 AM
  3. 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
  4. Eastport "Commerce" Park?
    By 4achange in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 26th, 2007, 12:06 AM
  5. Lancaster Planning Board Rezone Petition
    By pudge in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 8th, 2003, 11:10 AM

Posting Permissions

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