Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Eastport Commerce rezone petition tabled again

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,415
    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
    204
    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
    59,352
    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
    10,597
    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
    5,415
    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
    5,415
    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
    6,244
    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
    1,617
    =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.

  9. #24
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    10,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    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.
    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,415
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Why is there a public hearing on May 21 in regards to rezoning this same property to multi-family?
    I thought this was dead.
    The Lancaster Planning Board (PB) for myriad reasons did recommend to the Lancaster Town Board (TB) that the Eastport Commerce Center property owners petition 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 be denied.

    It is now up to the TB by resolution to either accept the PB’s recommendation or find reason to grant the rezone. I believe a public hearing on the matter is part of the process before the TB can render its formal decision.

    This project is not in the best interest of the community and the PB gave considerable and critical reasons why. It is imperative that there are residents at the hearing who speak out in support of having the rezone denied by the TB. There is no question that the applicant’s hired guns will feed the TB the same BS they fed to the PB. They will try to make **** smell like roses!

    No one on the PB favored the rezoning of the LI land to MFR-3. I can’t find any legal reason that would stop the TB for denying this rezone as well. Am I wrong councilman Walter?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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