Safe Aviation Coalition

[shortstuff]

has accomplished a baby step today noted in the Bufnews that the FAA has halted the expansion on the Lancaster Airport.

Mr. Geles was noted stating, "..a minor technical point was missed as we were following a masterplan which was on file with the town."

Well what a revelation!!

We are so happy with this first step of our case. The attorney Art Giacalone who is an expert in the field of municipality, is attributed partly to this small success so far.

[KevinL]

TOWN OF LANCASTER
Expansion of Lancaster airport faces fight
By Michelle Kearns
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: February 22, 2010, 7:59 am / 1 comment
Published: February 22, 2010, 12:30 am

Neighbors who complained of noise and low-flying planes in protest of an expansion of Lancaster Airport have filed a zoning appeal and hired an attorney who specializes in municipal disputes.

“There’s nothing in the Town of Lancaster zoning code that permits an airport anywhere,” said Arthur Giacalone, a lawyer based in East Aurora. He is working on behalf of the citizens group Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster. Last week, he asked the Zoning Board to review the matter and hold a public hearing, possibly March 11, to determine whether the airport’s expansion since its 1960s-era founding was legal.

The request for review, submitted last week, follows a similar request made two months ago to Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Simme. “I have not responded because I have to wait for legal interpretations,” he said.

An airport owner said the Federal Aviation Administration already reacted to the lawyer’s demand by putting a hold on a grant that would have helped pay to extend the 3,200-foot runway to 5,500 feet.

“The FAA stopped our funding,” said Tom Geles, son of one of the two original owners who founded the airport.

He worried about the potential expense that could come with a prolonged dispute involving lawyers. Such a contest, which could cost the municipality, seemed like a waste, he said.

Giacalone’s argument includes the allegation that town zoning law does does not permit an airport and that if one is developed under a “nonconforming use” clause, it should be contained by no more than a 25 percent expansion. The 1960sera airport has already exceeded such limits, said Giacalone.

Geles questions the validity of the appeal.

“At every step, Lancaster Airport has consulted with the town as to changes that would have had jurisdiction by the town,” he said. “I would not rule out that, inadvertently, a minor technical point was missed as we were following a master plan which was on file with the town.”

By serving small airplanes, Lancaster Airport has helped alleviate air traffic at Buffalo Niagara International Airport, he said.

“We’re the best alternative airport,” Geles said.

mkearns@buffnews.com

[Lee Chowaniec]

Having read the Lancaster Airport Inc. master plan, I would have to say Mr. Geles has erred on several "minor technical points."

[ichingtheory]

Having read the Lancaster Airport Inc. master plan, I would have to say Mr. Geles has erred on several "minor technical points."

Yes, I have to agree Lee.

[yaksplat]

How many people that complain about the airport have lived there since before it was built?

[Lancaster Resident]

There are two questions one can ask. 1) How many people lived near the airport before it was first built in the 1960's. Answer: Some, though not nearly as many as now. 2) How many people lived near the airport since the major expansions began. Answer: Many, and their rights, and the impact on them, was not considered at all by the Town, the airport, or any of the agencies that provided the funding.

So it is the illegal expansion from the approximately 10 planes, short runway, one hanger, that was done without considering the impact on the nearby residents that is the main problem---not who was there first.

If you pay taxes in Lancaster then you lose big time with this airport too. The airport is a deterrent to building more high end subdivisions in the area wherein only two such houses would pay more local taxes than a $13M dollar, 100 acre, airport! All of Lancaster is subsidizing an airport that is the hobby playground for pilots, the vast majority of whom don't even live in Lancaster. This airport has been expanded on your tax dollars (FAA $ NYS) to boot! How's that for a kick in the pants?

[shortstuff]

How many people that complain about the airport have lived there since before it was built?

Well to put this in perspective, before the newer subdivisions came into play, we all found out that the majority of the people complained years back. People who have lived here 45 years have never seen such activity that has been prevalent for the past 1 year.

To put to perspective, it has come to our attention that people have complained all around Lancaster since 2006. It just took a part of a town to make people and the FAA to pay attention.

If the public was made part of the decisions and planning of this airport back mid 1990's, the impact of this project would have been different. BUT, the town hall and the airport owners decided to not hold public meetings or public hearings. Hense that feeling people get when things are done quietly without clarity to the american people, you feel betrayed by the very people in politics that are suppose to keep the best interest of the taxpayers at hand.

Does that answer your question?

[therising]

Good job, folks. It's a start, at least.

[ichingtheory]

How many people that complain about the airport have lived there since before it was built?

I have lived here for 20 years. Zoning for airport was never allowed in the first place. That being the case, it doesn't matter whom was around first.

[ichingtheory]

There are two questions one can ask. 1) How many people lived near the airport before it was first built in the 1960's. Answer: Some, though not nearly as many as now. 2) How many people lived near the airport since the major expansions began. Answer: Many, and their rights, and the impact on them, was not considered at all by the Town, the airport, or any of the agencies that provided the funding.

So it is the illegal expansion from the approximately 10 planes, short runway, one hanger, that was done without considering the impact on the nearby residents that is the main problem---not who was there first.

If you pay taxes in Lancaster then you lose big time with this airport too. The airport is a deterrent to building more high end subdivisions in the area wherein only two such houses would pay more local taxes than a $13M dollar, 100 acre, airport! All of Lancaster is subsidizing an airport that is the hobby playground for pilots, the vast majority of whom don't even live in Lancaster. This airport has been expanded on your tax dollars (FAA $ NYS) to boot! How's that for a kick in the pants?

Very well said....

[shortstuff]

Good job, folks. It's a start, at least.

thank you therising.

[4248]

This is once again proof of what taxpayers/residents can do! Many people over the years have complained - Local Government didn't listen.

Once concerned residents took the issue to the media, to outside agencies and Officials - things change. BRAVO!!!!!!

This should not be "Political" - its not about "Jobs Lost" - Its about safety! Its about unfair tax exemptions, hidden agendas, lack of honest disclosure and manipulation to avoid public input.

If the owners didn't follow the rules and received unfair advantage - the Town should be suing them for back taxes and to recover taxes unpaid.

If the Town Board or their representatives created the "error" - they should be held accountable.

If Mr.Simme didn't understand the request put in front of him, he shouldn't be in the position he's in.

If Mr.Giles sues Lancaster - the Town Taxpayers shouldn't get stuck with the bill. The Board was not acting on taxpayers behalf - tax payers were shut out and ignored - why should we have to pay again(Cole Craft)???????????

Campaign donations, back door deals and VIP Dinners don't make it right!

Click below to contact SAC (Safe Aviation Coalition) of Lancaster, NY


SAC_Lancaster@roadrunner.com

[shortstuff]

4248, well said. AND thank you for your continued support and clarity. You nailed it when you stated lack of public input, you nailed it when you stated back door venues, you nailed it when you said if "they" missed or errored then why do "WE" have to pay for "their" mistakes!

Absolutely not!!!! We the people stand tall and we the people want answers and solutions.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I can’t believe that no one fired in a response on Supervisor’s Giza’s comments in today’s Lancaster Bee regarding the Lancaster Airport expansion and zoning non conformance.

1.) Giza stated: “If the Zoning Board agreed with the residents, I can’t imagine that the airport would be forced to remove hangars or other improvements that already have been put in place.”

Supervisor Giza, I don’t believe the Save Aviation Coalition of Lancaster is looking for that to happen. It is my opinion that they would like to see no further expansion and that the IDA’s that were granted the airport would be discontinued.

Then again, I am sure your politically chosen Zoning Board minions will do your bidding and bail your butt out of this jam. While denying any support for this expansion process, the town board has been responsible for endorsing resolutions that made state funding possible, approved by resolution a SEQR with no public input and approved the Lancaster Airport master plan that had no public involvement.

As to the nonconforming use zoning, it was stated as far back as the 1995 airport master plan, and then on, that “although Lancaster Airport is considered to be a compatible land use, airports are not specifically listed as a permitted land use in these districts (Industrial and Light Industrial). This should never have gotten this far where it is being thrown into the hands of the Zoning Board.

2.) Giza stated that if it were completed (full expansion), it (airport) wouldn’t be much different.

Ludicrous, a simply ludicrous statement. Bringing in corporate jets, helicopters, and who knows what and he don’t think it would make a difference!

WNYRESIDENT was spot on when he posted that the town should be recognized for the good things it does. This is not one of them. This stinks to high heaven. Thanks SACL for your research and efforts.

[4248]

I have a feeling in my gut that they(Town Board) will end up paying outside lawyers to work on this issue. That should not happen!

The Town Board Members put them selves into this by them selves. No public input, no tax payers approvals. Campaign money wasn't given to residents, Supervisor Giza and friends were treated to the VIP Dinners.

Why should we pay - they will either try and bill it to one of the Towns insurance carriers - in which case we paid the premiums.

Or they will simply pass a resolution to cover whatever it takes to bale them selves out and help fight for their friends at the air strip.

Even when they get caught - they spin it onto our backs(Tax Payers).

This should be a major campaign issue next election cycle. Cole Craft and now Lancaster Air Strip - how many more back door deals and IDA Gifts will we be stuck paying before voting taxpayers out number voting paid employees????????