Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 83

Thread: Stutzman road subdivision.

  1. #31
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,304
    Lee Chowaniec

    Traffic concerns as Stutzman is already being used as a by-pass. Supervisor openly stated: I don’t drive there as I don’t want to get stuck in traffic – especially making left turns onto Genesee Street or Pleasant View Drive. The Planning Board has requested a traffic study. The results should indicate a resulting significant impact to traffic volume and traffic safety when SEQRA is performed.
    The Supervisor properly noted the obvious. My reaction, in a phrase, "No sh****t Dick Tracy!"

  2. #32
    Member Neubs24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    • Water pressure is already low in the area. More development will decrease it even more.

    • Wildlife will be impacted.
    My parents live in the Heritage Hills subdivision. Their water pressure has been terrible for years.

    I see deer on the Stutzman side of Pleasant View all the time, in the backyards of houses on Redlein so there is merit to the wildlife impact. More than a few times I've come close to hitting a deer driving down Pleasant View.

  3. #33
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    No one cared about wild life as the previous sub divisions/homes were built. That excuse can no longer be used with a straight face. Get rid of the last of the green space and the deer will no longer be an issue.

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    No one cared about wild life as the previous sub divisions/homes were built. That excuse can no longer be used with a straight face. Get rid of the last of the green space and the deer will no longer be an issue.
    Previous Lancaster administrations and the involved regulatory agencies didn’t seem to be too concerned about how the town was developed in the past regarding:

    • Property segmentation
    • Bogus wetland delineations
    • The wanton destruction or the filling in of wetlands for the sake of developer profit and town revenue – resulting in much of today’s flooding and drainage issues
    • Approving numerous rezones and rezones of rezones to accommodate developer best interests – allowing spot rezones s well which did not fit the character of the neighborhood
    • Utilizing dumb growth polices to build out the town without accommodating for the roads and infrastructure to do so – no north-south corridor, no major road construction
    • The disregard of wildlife and lands with historic significance
    • The filling in or rerouting of creeks and tributaries to accommodate developer best interests

    So, with a straight face are we to say let the aforementioned continue as it has been the practice in the past? The town has gotten rid of a lot of green space indiscriminately and in its stead has left a concrete jungle.

    If the deer bother the suburbanites perhaps they should move into the fully developed cities.

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    The project on William & Aurora initially was a Mark Dean & Ferry Builder's project. Mike Fronzak always brought the conflicts that existed on that property to the forefront. His expertise is well missed at times like this. Now they have a different developer that is doing the project. My question is this, what was Ron Ruffino's position on this project, considering he is running for Supervisor and infrastructure/development will be a hot topic for next years election.

    I'm glad the Stutzman group was able to come out as a group to express their concerns. I'm just confused as to why the board is still allowing the developers to have their way considering the infrastructure crisis that exists. Oh as far as the water pressure, ours is very low as well, I would have to ask the board what is their plan on the water line infrastructure to the town. This can also be a talking piece in next years election.

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    The project on William & Aurora initially was a Mark Dean & Ferry Builder's project. Mike Fronzak always brought the conflicts that existed on that property to the forefront. His expertise is well missed at times like this. Now they have a different developer that is doing the project. My question is this, what was Ron Ruffino's position on this project, considering he is running for Supervisor and infrastructure/development will be a hot topic for next years election.

    I'm glad the Stutzman group was able to come out as a group to express their concerns. I'm just confused as to why the board is still allowing the developers to have their way considering the infrastructure crisis that exists. Oh as far as the water pressure, ours is very low as well, I would have to ask the board what is their plan on the water line infrastructure to the town. This can also be a talking piece in next years election.
    While you question what Ruffino’s position on this project was, the entire 5-member town board voted its approval on the project. On this board there are two (2) Democrats, a Republican, a Conservative and a ‘blank’. Wouldn’t it be nice to get a thought consensus on why this onerous project found their approval?

    Ruffino alone shouldn’t be targeted for questioning for approving this site plan application – an application that included the need for a setback variance from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals; and got it.

    Review the MRC SEQRA on this project and you will find there is not one potential adverse impact associated with this project; not even a small-to-moderate impact on Transportation Service. For the sake of political fairness and future political reference note that Council Members Dickman and Gaczewski did not attend the MRC SEQR meeting, nor Planning Board member Kristen McCracken.

    Yes, Ruffino makes it known he is running for Town Supervisor in 2019. Are you positive that he is going to receive the Democratic Party endorsement? Yes, he is the top dog now but feelers are being put out to other notables, the endorsement process is near a year out, and politics is a blood-sport as we all know. Today’s friend could very well be tomorrow’s enemy.

    And it wasn’t only Mike Fronczak who spoke on the traffic &, traffic safety issues on William Street, the road conditions along this two-lane county road, and the conflicts and risk at the William / Aurora intersection. Numerous residents who live on or in subdivisions off William Street have spoken out through the years. Town board members themselves have spoke on the issues and have openly declared they avoid travelling William Street unless it is necessary.

    Unfortunately, those members attending past meetings and voicing concerns on such issues have either died off or unable to attend the meetings any longer because of age and health related issues.

    Who was there to voice any concerns on this project? None that I know of.

    That’s why I give kudos to the Stutzman coalition and their supporters for at least giving it a shot – win or lose. Developers should not be getting approvals to infill land-locked parcels to satisfy their best interests.

  7. #37
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    If the deer bother the suburbanites perhaps they should move into the fully developed cities.

    I have to hand the developer credit..

    Ever notice how they name things?

    Quail Run..

    Deer Hollow..

    Duck Blvd...

    and so on...

  8. #38
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Previous Lancaster administrations and the involved regulatory agencies didn’t seem to be too concerned about how the town was developed in the past regarding:

    • Property segmentation
    • Bogus wetland delineations
    • The wanton destruction or the filling in of wetlands for the sake of developer profit and town revenue – resulting in much of today’s flooding and drainage issues
    • Approving numerous rezones and rezones of rezones to accommodate developer best interests – allowing spot rezones s well which did not fit the character of the neighborhood
    • Utilizing dumb growth polices to build out the town without accommodating for the roads and infrastructure to do so – no north-south corridor, no major road construction
    • The disregard of wildlife and lands with historic significance
    • The filling in or rerouting of creeks and tributaries to accommodate developer best interests

    So, with a straight face are we to say let the aforementioned continue as it has been the practice in the past? The town has gotten rid of a lot of green space indiscriminately and in its stead has left a concrete jungle.

    If the deer bother the suburbanites perhaps they should move into the fully developed cities.

    Lee, if the developer has a favorable plan for the drainage issues and the project were to conform to all existing codes, is there any grounds for denial?
    Fifty extra cars doesn't compare to a Windsor ridge, Pleasant Meadows or Cross creek development's extra traffic.

    Maybe, they could find a Henslow sparrow habitat.


    In Clarence, a recent project was denied due to not meeting code, the issue of the woods being a sanctuary for many protected bird species wasn't even commented on by the DEC.


    https://www.clarencebee.com/news/201...ied_due_t.html

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    [QUOTE=gorja;1820712]
    Lee, if the developer has a favorable plan for the drainage issues and the project were to conform to all existing codes, is there any grounds for denial?
    If a developer meets all existing town codes, state and federal agency regulations and where all SEQRA potential adverse impacts are identified and mitigated to the extent practicable in a Type 1 action, a site plan petition cannot be denied.

    Through my experience in attending Town / Planning / Zoning Board meetings and supporting welcoming neighborhood coalitions in their struggle to maintain their property rights, quality of life & wellbeing, and property values, I can state with conviction that their best interests would not have been served had they not formed a coalition and brought before the Planning and Town Boards issues and concerns that were not being addressed at all or not being mitigated to the extent they believed practicable. Too often developers ruled, being brazen enough to openly declare that they could get the necessary permits anytime they wanted; and they did, including permits from the involved DEC and ACOE regulatory agencies.

    The so-called Stutzman Road project is zoned properly and the project cannot be denied on that basis. The drainage issue has to be resolved and there are circumstances involved that don’t make it an easy fix. The traffic volume and access to Genesee or Pleasant View Drive is a concern – or so it seems more so to neighboring residents because they live it daily. It doesn’t seem to bother town / county / state officials as the development goes on unabated.

    The neighboring residents have right to express their concerns and to demand relief to the extent practicable – by conditions that can mitigate the identified adverse impacts.

    Fifty extra cars doesn't compare to a Windsor ridge, Pleasant Meadows or Cross creek development's extra traffic.
    Apples to oranges!

    Maybe, they could find a Henslow sparrow habitat.
    Unlikely! LOL!

    In Clarence, a recent project was denied due to not meeting code, the issue of the woods being a sanctuary for many protected bird species wasn't even commented on by the DEC.
    Couldn’t open link and personally don’t care what takes place in Amherst. The sinking home debacle was enough for me.

  10. #40
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Posted by Gorja:
    Fifty extra cars doesn't compare to a Windsor ridge, Pleasant Meadows or Cross creek development's extra traffic.
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Apples to oranges!
    Each new phase had a significant impact on traffic on Pleasantview for Pleasant meadows and Cross creek and William St for Windsor ridge.

    I feel the Stutzman traffic impact would be minimal in comparison.

    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Each new phase had a significant impact on traffic on Pleasantview for Pleasant meadows and Cross creek and William St for Windsor ridge.

    I feel the Stutzman traffic impact would be minimal in comparison.
    It would seem so and in truth it will not be considered a significant environmental impact in SEQRA and affect site plan approval. In fact, I can’t remember a time where traffic impact alone resulted in a site plan denial.

    However, as water flows downstream it has a bigger adverse impact at terminus. Located in the west end of town the roads here are already overburdened with their own developments and with the traffic coming from the developments to the east. So, are you saying that they have no right to bring traffic issues to light? I believe they do have standing. How much water can you put in a vessel before it spills over and results in a bad outcome? It will not be the stopgap for site plan denial but it does impact transportation.

    Lancaster Police Chief Gill told a Warner Road resident a year ago when he requested traffic relief at the intersection of Warner Road and Pleasant View Drive there nothing that could be done by the town as Pleasant View Drive is a two-lane county road. “And things are only going to get worse as development to the east progresses. So much for traffic control and traffic safety issues; keep building.

    Drainage

    Drainage mitigation will be the big player here. And unlike past town boards and involved regulatory agencies soft approaches on environmental impacts, I believe this board and the code enforcement is more committed in doing what is in the best interest of the community.

    Pleasant View Drive

    A road was constructed through a state regulated wetland – and a sewer line was installed as well.

    Of the 19 identified wetlands on the 271 acre site only two were ultimately considered large enough to be considered state regulated wetlands (DEC) and the remaining 17 were filled in and developed (one as large as a small lake).

    Initially the developer wanted to build an apartment complex in the north-east quadrant, adjacent to Lancaster High School. Residents were very vocal against this project and the town denied the rezone application.

    The developer did receive rezones and even rezones of rezones based on his ‘market’ perception.

    Cross Creek

    The county didn’t want to see a sewage pumping station on site. The developer could have hooked up to the Eastport Commerce trunk but that could have been a more costly project than putting the sewer line under the south branch of Ellicott Creek and hooking up the Stony Road / Pleasant View Drive trunk. Incredibly, the developer got the necessary permits to do the project. He was later fined by the DEC twice for storm water violations – violations noted by the public and where written comments and pictures submitted by them to confirm the violations to the DEC; with little to no support from the town.

    Comment

    In the past, the town acquiesced too often in granting rezones and rezones based on developer market needs, not in meeting community best interests – growing the town while compromising ‘smart growth’ principles.

    This board has reviewed and updated the Comprehensive Plan, put in place a moratorium on site plan rezones, and is focusing on updating and improving the code system to reflect positive change.

    Again, kudos to the Stutzman coalition for their solid presentation at Monday evening’s town board meeting. All presenters were civil, made excellent, substantive comments and appeared to have the ear of the board members. An excellent time to approach the board!

  12. #42
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    So, are you saying that they have no right to bring traffic issues to light?
    I believe they have every right to bring it up. I was expressing my opinion that it wouldn't be an overriding factor in denying the project as larger projects with higher traffic impacts weren't considered no significant impacts. As you stated above,
    In fact, I can’t remember a time where traffic impact alone resulted in a site plan denial.

    Georgia L Schlager

  13. #43
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Drainage

    Drainage mitigation will be the big player here. And unlike past town boards and involved regulatory agencies soft approaches on environmental impacts, I believe this board and the code enforcement is more committed in doing what is in the best interest of the community.
    I agree. Our current code enforcement will NOT turn a blind eye to possible drainage code violations that would affect downstream residents unlike his predecessor.

    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I agree. Our current code enforcement will NOT turn a blind eye to possible drainage code violations that would affect downstream residents unlike his predecessor.
    Well gorja that is a matter of speaking, our current code enforcer officer just did in our community.

  15. #45
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    Well gorja that is a matter of speaking, our current code enforcer officer just did in our community.
    Ooops!!! I didn't know that shortstuff

    Georgia L Schlager

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. A subdivision of 700 all-brick 3 & 4 bedroom homes..
    By WNYresident in forum Cheektowaga, Depew and Sloan Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2013, 01:33 AM
  2. Martin Road Subdivision
    By Caz5 in forum City of Lackawanna Politics
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: July 6th, 2011, 07:54 AM
  3. What type of profit is there in building a new subdivision?
    By WNYresident in forum Erie County Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 20th, 2007, 01:44 PM
  4. Deal cut on Amherst subdivision
    By steven in forum Amherst, Clarence and Williamsville
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2006, 12:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •