Eastport Commerce rezone petition tabled again

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Town of Lancaster Planning Board (PB) heard a petition from the Eastport Commerce Center property owners to rezone 63.03 acres of land (north side of the 120 acres of property) located at 4106 Walden Avenue from LI (Light Industrial) to MFR3 (Multiple Family Residential) for the purpose of building 73 Single Family and 98 Patio Homes.

The rezone application was filed before the Rezone Moratorium Ordinance went into effect and is open for consideration before the PB.

The petitioner representatives made the following comments on why the rezone petition should be granted:

• A traffic study has been added to the application since the last meeting

• Developers (here (Uniland) make more money developing commercial vs. residential

• Uniland in the past 15 years has not been able to attract one tenant on the site – not because of land price, more so because of Thruway acquisition. Nothing on planning board to indicate the building of a corridor to gain closer access to Thruway.

• Utilities, infrastructure and roads already in to accommodate zoning change

• All residential development traffic would only access to Pleasant View Drive – road blocked off to Walden venue from residential development. If developed as zoned truck traffic could go onto Pleasant View Drive.

• There are approximately 1,100 acres of LI property left in Lancaster to develop and Uniland is but 120 of that. There would still be approximately 1,000 acres of LI property to develop. With the way Lancaster is developing LI zoned property it would take a 1,000 years to develop that 1,000 acres.

• Tax generation –If developed over 12 years as rezoned residential, the estimated revenue generated to the town would be approximately $9 million in taxes. If developed in the same 12 years as LI, the generated taxes would be near $2 million; $7 million less. “We make money when we develop commercially.”

• When board voiced concerns about buffering between commercial and residential development, applicant said the same condition would exist if they developed the property LI to Pleasant View Drive and across from the Cross Creek residential development.


Planning Board comments/Concerns

• 2002 property purchased with anticipation of Gunville Road access to Thruway

• Failure to sell property for a National Veterans Memorial Cemetery

• Concern of truck traffic backed up to residential back lots

• Concept still has unanswered questions brought up at January Planning Board meeting

• New School Board bus garage (immediately to the west) will have buses idling next to the proposed development

• Concerns raised on buffering between residential and commercial properties to eliminate potential quality of life impacts on residents

• Several board members expressed not in favor of giving up LI zoned property and are not in favor of the rezone application

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.

[Neubs24]

And not one mention of the increased traffic on Pleasant View. Cross Creek isn't finished, plus this with no access to Walden will cause a traffic disaster on Pleasant View, which already backs up 1/2 mile in the morning due to the light at Transit.

[gorja]

And not one mention of the increased traffic on Pleasant View. Cross Creek isn't finished, plus this with no access to Walden will cause a traffic disaster on Pleasant View, which already backs up 1/2 mile in the morning due to the light at Transit.

I agree.

Why would they even think of putting the truck traffic on Pleasantview a residential street and not Walden?
Pleasantview is in rough shape as it is from all the truck traffic for Pleasant Meadows and Cross Creek and it seems there's no indication from Erie county that it's on any of their road construction lists.

[WNYresident]

Why would they even think of putting the truck traffic on Pleasantview a residential street and not Walden?

Because the people who will profit from the development don't like on Pleasantview. Same goes for the people who change zoning to allow it to happen.

[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 doesn’t 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
360’of 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.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:

**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.

Yes, the minutes also stated that "Member Szymanski was not in favor of the rezone."

Why did he vote 'YES" to table?

[gorja]

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 doesn’t 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
360’of 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.

Why is there a public hearing on May 21 in regards to rezoning this same property to multi-family?
I thought this was dead.

[mark blazejewski]

... cause a traffic disaster on Pleasant View, which already backs up 1/2 mile in the morning due to the light at Transit.

As it is from about 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. every weekday.