Proposed Lancaster William/Lake Town Park

[Lee Chowaniec]

Listening to the 11-20-17 recording of the Lancaster Town Board meeting leads me to ask the following question: “Where have you people been the last 15 years regarding William Street development, its impact on ever increasing traffic and traffic safety issues, its impact on flooding and drainage from the destruction or filling in filling in of functional and valuable wetlands, and along a two lane county road that has not been widen because it cannot be widened because of right-away ownership. All the road improvements that could be made – turning lanes at Penora, Aurora and Lake – have been made. The county spent $5 million to resurface it several years ago. It is what it is.

I understand the need and reason for neighboring property owners addressing the board and voicing their concerns on flooding and drainage, wetland, sewer, and traffic issues should development take place. Been there, done that and still wound up with a rezoned Wal-Mart in my backyard when I was told by the town before moving in that the property would remain R1 and like development would take place.

What I can’t understand is the time spent at the town board level on a project where only a resolution exists to have the land appraised, where no land purchase has been made and where the project is nowhere near being at the Planning Board stage where SEQR is required and all potential adverse impacts to neighbors have to be mitigated to the extent practicable – where a traffic study is required, wetlands delineated and flooding and drainage issues considered.

As someone who lives off William nearest Transit Road, I get the brunt of the traffic and become more impacted by further development along this two lane county road. That does not preclude me from favoring this project as I well understand the need and merit of playing fields and a park developed to serve the community as a whole – and with reservations.

• Whereas the speaker mistakenly thought the land was to be used for developing but one or two soccer fields, he was informed by Councilman Ruffino that the concept is a complex with several fields, a track and a playground; a complex to be enjoyed by the community.

Wetland delineation has not taken place yet. The size of the complex and content cannot be determined until then.

• The speaker asked whether there was any developer interest to purchase the land to use to develop a subdivision. Councilman John Abraham interjected that a previous developer’s attempt (2008) to build a subdivision fell through because of sewer hook-up issues. Councilman Ruffino countered that there is a developer interested in buying the land and developing it. He tried to explain to the individual that the land will have something build on it someday – when all the environmental conditions are met. “People buy land to use it or ultimately sell it.

Is there really a serious competitive buyer – or someone waiting in the wings to purchase the land dirt cheap allowing them to install a sewer system that would overcome property elevation issues and at the same time lead to a profitable venture?

• The town park will have no need for a sewer system operation as there will be no buildings or restroom availability except for portable facilities.

Seriously, a town park with no formal restrooms and running water?

What residents should consider

The property is appropriately zoned.

If indeed something will eventually be built on this site neighbors should consider which development will serve them better; a 24/7 residential subdivision or a park that will most likely sit idle 5 months of the year.

Unlike a subdivision the park will not be in operation during morning peak hour traffic.

According to current plans the park will have no lighting and empty early. That should be conditioned in the site plan approval.

It should be conditioned that adequate on-site parking is provided.

By law a project has to have a water collection system to ensure that no more water is shed from the land as is currently – such drainage system is required.
The town cannot purchase the land expecting to not meet SEQR requirements. For residents to take the position they don’t want anything in their backyard is not tenable. When the time is right in the process they can express their concerns and engage to protect their quality of life and property values.

The town should be transparent on how this project will be funded – now and in the future. We are being told it will be funded through Recreation Filing Fees and grants. I would hope that this project would not cost the taxpayers a dime – now or in the future. I well understand and support the need and merit of having playing fields but their cost and future maintenance should not be borne by the taxpayer. At present, the sporting leagues do not pay field usage fees and the Depew-Lancaster Soccer League supposedly has $250,000 in reserves. The Leagues themselves have to have skin in the game.

This project is in its initial stages. Why the town board allotted so much time to this project at the last meeting is beyond me.

Lastly, no one in county government really gives a **** about William Street traffic/traffic safety issues or filling in open drainage ditches to widen the road.

[Greg Sojka]

I must ask the ( all knowing) Lee . Where were you the past 15 years? Mr. Blank you work the keyboard with your facts, fake news, and opinions. Why did you not step up and run for office? Show us how it’s done . I heard Ron Ruffino complain about his neighbor building next to him 3 foot higher which caused a water problem for him . The answer ? He made the neighbor put in drain tile . I laughed ! Ron lives on top of the hill on Pleasaview and we lowly common taxpayers live or have property below him. His yes votes for the new developments in Bowmansville and Harris Hill only added to our problems with flooding. I attend many meetings and have heard it stated when you build it can not negatively affect your neighbors. It is BS. Now why have you not mentioned who owns this possible park property???? Follow the money....also the former town engineer made several public comments about the use of that possible park did they get lost? Before you trolls say I am trying to hurt the kids. I sponsor , volunteer,and donate to many groups and clubs in our town . This possible property has many red flags . We do not need another Colecraft snafu!

[gorja]

Thanks Lee for getting all the facts together and posting them.

Posted by Lee Chowaniec:
The speaker asked whether there was any developer interest to purchase the land to use to develop a subdivision. Councilman John Abraham interjected that a previous developer’s attempt (2008) to build a subdivision fell through because of sewer hook-up issues. Councilman Ruffino countered that there is a developer interested in buying the land and developing it. He tried to explain to the individual that the land will have something build on it someday – when all the environmental conditions are met. “People buy land to use it or ultimately sell it.

A park, in my view would be much more neighbor friendly than a subdivision.
Who says a subdivision has to be connected to the Erie county sewer system.
Look at all the years, Spaulding Lake in Clarence had their own sewage treatment plant.
They may still operate it. A few year ago, they were requesting the Town of Clarence
to initiate the planning of a new sewer district to include the Spaulding Lake properties.
So, there are still possibilities of a subdivision. I'd take the park over the subdivision.

Ruffino tried several times to explain to the questioner that an owner of a property that is zoned correctly for the intended use, that follows the town code's regulations to a T can't be turned down by the town board. That is what I believe was the essence of what Ruffino was saying. Anyone, please correct if I'm wrong.

[yaksplat]

Why should the town be funding a park that will be mostly used by a single entity that has $250k on hand?

I have to ask, if the league doesn't pay to use the fields, doesn't pay its coaches and pays a minimal amount to refs, why do they charge $70 + uniform for players?

[WNYresident]

How could the board say no when they fund "entertainment" for other entities?

[yaksplat]

A second mistake doesn't cancel out the first mistake. They should never have gotten into the absurd indoor baseball business.

[WNYresident]

I knew the answer.

I also don't think towns should own hockey rinks.

I'm fine with parks, basic baseball diamonds and more or less low maintenance type items. Hockey rinks not so much. They seem costly.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Town Board committed to bringing more athletic fields to Lancaster
By Lee Chowaniec
Aug 19, 2009, 09:45

https://www.speakupwny.com/article_4115.shtml

So what’s happening with the proposed William Street / Lake Avenue Town Recreation Park that will provide the needed recreational fields?

Yawn, same old same old!

[gorja]

There was also someone pitching their in-law's land on Hall Rd at a work session. Nothing more has been said about that either.