Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: Eastport Commerce rezone petition tabled again

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922

    Eastport Commerce rezone petition tabled again

    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.

  2. #2
    Member Neubs24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    652
    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.

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Neubs24 View Post
    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.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #4
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,948
    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.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    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.

  6. #6
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    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?

    Georgia L Schlager

  7. #7
    Member Neubs24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    652
    Jane Kwiatkowski in the Lancaster BN reporter now. Karen Robinson switched to covering the medical campus.

  8. #8
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,309
    ... 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.

  9. #9
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Neubs24 View Post
    Jane Kwiatkowski in the Lancaster BN reporter now. Karen Robinson switched to covering the medical campus.
    She has been the reporter for quite awhile now but doesn't show at most meetings

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Planning Board denies Eastport Commerce rezone

    A revised concept plan to rezone the Eastport Commerce Center from Light Industrial (LI) to Multiple Family Residential Three (MFR-3) was denied by the Planning Board (PB). The motion to deny was unanimous.

    Concept plan- The board has been vocal in their disapproval of mixing the industrial use with a residential use. The changes to the plan are not substantial enough to change the opinion of the Board members. The plan does have merit and a larger buffer may help the project. The plan is essentially a good plan but does not warrant the rezoning of the industrial property. This parcel was rezoned 15 years ago at the request of the applicant to L1-Light Industrial. The most important question is whether or not the rezone is in the best interest of the community.

    Master Plan-A moratorium was placed on rezones during the review of the Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for L1-Light Industrial iin this area. Erie County has expressed concern for the limited availability of shovel ready properties. The loss of industrial land is of concern to the Town and County

    Market analysis-The market analysis showed that there is a supply of industrial land for 200 years according to the current rate. The rate is debatable because it includes years were there was a recession. Uniland has tried to market this property for 15 years with no success. Some of the issue was the relocation of the toll booths not happening. An industrial project will use fewer services than a residential development. The applicant stressed the amount of taxes collected from a residential development.

    Town owned property-A clear plan of how the town owned plan will be addressed has not been submitted.

    Noise-The roadway of trucks in an industrial development would be directly behind homes. The noise from these trucks and the loading and unloading of them would need a more substantial buffer in between them.

    Egress-The two egress streets onto Pleasant View Drive are of concern. The impact on traffic and to the residents of Pleasant View Drive is of concern. The possibilitv of trucks exiting onto Pleasant View Drive was also of concern.

    Elevation-The elevation of the site was called into question. The scale did not appear to be accurate and caused concern.

  11. #11
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Master Plan-A moratorium was placed on rezones during the review of the Master Plan.
    My understanding was a moratorium was in place for projects that weren't already in the pipeline.
    So, if they were that statement wasn't applicable to them.

    If they weren't in the pipeline, this project should not have gone to the ZBA until the new master Plan is completed, IMHO.

    Georgia L Schlager

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    My understanding was a moratorium was in place for projects that weren't already in the pipeline.
    So, if they were that statement wasn't applicable to them.

    If they weren't in the pipeline, this project should not have gone to the ZBA until the new master Plan is completed, IMHO.
    The project application was submitted before the moratorium was approved - it was in the so-called pipeline and eligible for review and determination.

  13. #13
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    The project application was submitted before the moratorium was approved - it was in the so-called pipeline and eligible for review and determination.
    Wonder why they included that particular statement since it wasn't applicable to this project?

    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #14
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Lee, does this mean any proposed residential project on this property is dead in the water?
    I would hope so.

    Georgia L Schlager

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Lee, does this mean any proposed residential project on this property is dead in the water?
    I would hope so.
    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

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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
  •