Eastport Commerce rezone petition tabled again

[gorja]

It’s time for all the developers to do what Acquest Development did in Amherst when the fool, Satish Mohan, and his lap dog, Debbie Bucki, screwed them over. Sue for $$$ damages. A couple of multi million dollar verdicts will be hard to sell to most taxpayers since they’re the ones who’ll be picking up the tab for this crap. Lee, I went back and read the idiotic letter to the editor you highlighted. I gotta a tell you the person “from the south” complaining about development must be a lonely voice. Early last month I spent an extended business trip through several southern states. We celebrate like its V-E Day up here when we get one new taxpayer funded building to crow about. Like the new medical school which is a “game changer”; as if moving an existing facility 25 blocks somehow creates something new.(But it does have a really nice atrium...a point the shoe shine rag makes ad nauseum). These cities are growing by leaps and bounds, with new commercial and residential developments springing up everywhere. If you’re not growing you’re dying and this area has been dying for 1/2 a century. A useless hulk like the Statler sits on prime CBD land, collecting less in property tax revenue than many people pay on their homes, while the “planners” and “preservationists” think great thoughts about “re-purposing” it. Get the hell out of the way and let people with real ideas go to work!!

They were denied a re-zone. Absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit

[grump]

They were denied a re-zone. Absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit

Is that a legal opinion? If so, what is it based on.

[Lee Chowaniec]

It’s time for all the developers to do what Acquest Development did in Amherst when the fool, Satish Mohan, and his lap dog, Debbie Bucki, screwed them over. Sue for $$$ damages. A couple of multi million dollar verdicts will be hard to sell to most taxpayers since they’re the ones who’ll be picking up the tab for this crap. Lee, I went back and read the idiotic letter to the editor you highlighted. I gotta a tell you the person “from the south” complaining about development must be a lonely voice. Early last month I spent an extended business trip through several southern states. We celebrate like its V-E Day up here when we get one new taxpayer funded building to crow about. Like the new medical school which is a “game changer”; as if moving an existing facility 25 blocks somehow creates something new.(But it does have a really nice atrium...a point the shoe shine rag makes ad nauseum). These cities are growing by leaps and bounds, with new commercial and residential developments springing up everywhere. If you’re not growing you’re dying and this area has been dying for 1/2 a century. A useless hulk like the Statler sits on prime CBD land, collecting less in property tax revenue than many people pay on their homes, while the “planners” and “preservationists” think great thoughts about “re-purposing” it. Get the hell out of the way and let people with real ideas go to work!!

From all the indicators I read of, Buffalo is experiencing rebirth – in development, economy and employment rate; a good sign in this overtaxed blue state. But this is not about Buffalo or Amherst.

This is about Lancaster and an application to rezone a rezone that was approved 18 years ago and where Uniland made a bad business decision based on the false premise that a north-south corridor would be built; one connecting to the Thruway and where the Williamsville toll booths would have been relocated to accommodate Walden Avenue business corridor truck traffic in this part of town – a pipedream then, even more so today.

Like Gorga I have been led to believe that if a property is zoned according to development intent and by SEQRA all potential significant adverse impacts have been identified and mitigated to the best practicable extent, development cannot be denied – and it shouldn’t be. No one is against smart growth and town development revenue.

However, when an application for rezone is requested the applicant is already contravening the master plan district zoning law and if the project sponsor fails to prove his project is in the best interest of the community, rezone application is deniable.

Had you been at the numerous PB meetings which took place since December 20, 2017 you would have heard a plethora of reasons why the PB found this project not be in the best interests of the community – and plus side revenue to the town was one of them.

Lastly, this PB and TB are (IMHO) attempting to create a comprehensive plan that is truly comprehensive and to establish zoning districts and zoning codes that are enforceable and will greatly reduce the need for rezone applications. For the public to get involved to hold the town accountable to enforce the zoning codes is not getting in the way.

The town’s proposal to place a moratorium on rezone applications until such time it updates its zoning district ordinance is a step in the right direction to develop the remainder of the town using smart growth principles.

BTW – Not that I think the developer has any grounds here for litigation, but should he proceed isn’t the town insured against such liability? Some of us would love to see the town take the position: “Not this time, buddy; we will not be intimidated.”

[gorja]

Is that a legal opinion? If so, what is it based on.

Personal

[grump]

From all the indicators I read of, Buffalo is experiencing rebirth – in development, economy and employment rate; a good sign in this overtaxed blue state. But this is not about Buffalo or Amherst.

This is about Lancaster and an application to rezone a rezone that was approved 18 years ago and where Uniland made a bad business decision based on the false premise that a north-south corridor would be built; one connecting to the Thruway and where the Williamsville toll booths would have been relocated to accommodate Walden Avenue business corridor truck traffic in this part of town – a pipedream then, even more so today.

Like Gorga I have been led to believe that if a property is zoned according to development intent and by SEQRA all potential significant adverse impacts have been identified and mitigated to the best practicable extent, development cannot be denied – and it shouldn’t be. No one is against smart growth and town development revenue.

However, when an application for rezone is requested the applicant is already contravening the master plan district zoning law and if the project sponsor fails to prove his project is in the best interest of the community, rezone application is deniable.

Had you been at the numerous PB meetings which took place since December 20, 2017 you would have heard a plethora of reasons why the PB found this project not be in the best interests of the community – and plus side revenue to the town was one of them.

Lastly, this PB and TB are (IMHO) attempting to create a comprehensive plan that is truly comprehensive and to establish zoning districts and zoning codes that are enforceable and will greatly reduce the need for rezone applications. For the public to get involved to hold the town accountable to enforce the zoning codes is not getting in the way.

The town’s proposal to place a moratorium on rezone applications until such time it updates its zoning district ordinance is a step in the right direction to develop the remainder of the town using smart growth principles.

BTW – Not that I think the developer has any grounds here for litigation, but should he proceed isn’t the town insured against such liability? Some of us would love to see the town take the position: “Not this time, buddy; we will not be intimidated.”

Insured? By whom? I’m not sure one can insure against the violation of Constitutional rights. And if you can so what! A judgment or two and you’re uninsurable going forward. Smart growth? God, I haven’t heard anyone trot out that tripe in 10 years, Lee. “Smart” by whose standards? Some Luddite who is against development because it might cause change or put 4 more cars a day on his street? You talk about “the public” getting involved to “ hold the town accountable”. Is the whole town involved? Was there a vote? Or is it just the same half a dozen loud mouths who show up to bitch about everything at every town board meeting?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Insured? By whom? I’m not sure one can insure against the violation of Constitutional rights. And if you can so what! A judgment or two and you’re uninsurable going forward. Smart growth? God, I haven’t heard anyone trot out that tripe in 10 years, Lee. “Smart” by whose standards? Some Luddite who is against development because it might cause change or put 4 more cars a day on his street? You talk about “the public” getting involved to “ hold the town accountable”. Is the whole town involved? Was there a vote? Or is it just the same half a dozen loud mouths who show up to bitch about everything at every town board meeting?

Whose constitutional rights are being violated, the developer's? Are you seriously implying that by owning the 120+ acre plus site Uniland can develop it without any consideration to zoning laws; where here the company had received a rezone 18 years ago and now is back again for another rezone because it has failed to develop or market the site – a site he has rezoned from R-1, AG to LI eighteen years ago?

Are you seriously implying Uniland’s property rights transcend those of the neighboring property owners and the developer need not bother going through SEQRA; thereby identifying and mitigating potential significant adverse impacts to the community and where his vision of progress should not stand in the way of the unwashed Luddite who challenges his vision.

Fortunately there will always be a few so-called ‘bitchers’ who take the time and make the effort to question or challenge the town on the merits of a project – more importantly to hold the developers and their hired guns accountable from violating regulations.

Your empathy for Uniland here is incomprehensible given all the Findings presented by the Town Planning Board to deny a rezone of a rezone.

Developers rule, right? The bogus wetland delineations, the wanton destruction and/or filling in of wetlands that has resulted in flooding and drainage issues / sinking homes / structural damage to homes, developments that don’t fit the character of the neighborhood, etc. are but small prices to pay for the progress of unfettered development.

[Lee Chowaniec]

By resolution (#15) the town will again be voting on the denial of a zoning map change for Uniland Development from LI to MFR-3.

A month ago the same resolution was withdrawn to give the applicant another opportunity to visit the Planning Board with a concept change.
The planning board once again listened to the concept change, found it was not of significance to warrant their consideration and published a list of Findings to support their recommendation for rezone denial - as they have recommended since 2017.

Enough already town board, put this beast to sleep!

[Lee Chowaniec]

At last night's town board meeting The town board once again withdrew resolution #15 as they received a correspondence from Uniland that it was withdrawing its concept plan to have 60+ acres of Eastport Commerce property rezoned from Light Industrial (LI) to Multiple-Family Residential -3 (MFR-3) for the purpose of developing the rezoned portion of the property into a patio home / single-family complex.

Don't know if this is the last we will see of this applicant as I believe if the project did not come to a board vote for denial of the project the sponsor has a one-year window of opportunity to revisit the planning board with another concept.