Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 83

Thread: Stutzman road subdivision.

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Ooops!!! I didn't know that shortstuff
    It has come to pass that in order for Matt to push a contentious project forward, it seems that in spite of the misplaced new build and the elevation discrepancy, Matt knew the differential elevation that existed between the new build and the existing home, he let it go. As a result of this problem (basically you cannot build a house next to an existing home where the land is higher than the other)it created a HUGE erosion problem that now has yellow tape surrounding the crater which poses a liability issue. The erosion did not exist until after this build was complete and now there are problems. New homeowner contacted Matt to meet with him to solve the land issue, Matt's response was that he will not meet with her. He shut the door on her request. Matt caused the problem, now they have to figure out how to fix it. Matt's position's now has caused an impasse. Homeowner(s) heard about the petition to remove Matt and now wish to sign the petition. Not a good sign for him.

  2. #47
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    It has come to pass that in order for Matt to push a contentious project forward, it seems that in spite of the misplaced new build and the elevation discrepancy, Matt knew the differential elevation that existed between the new build and the existing home, he let it go. As a result of this problem (basically you cannot build a house next to an existing home where the land is higher than the other)it created a HUGE erosion problem that now has yellow tape surrounding the crater which poses a liability issue. The erosion did not exist until after this build was complete and now there are problems. New homeowner contacted Matt to meet with him to solve the land issue, Matt's response was that he will not meet with her. He shut the door on her request. Matt caused the problem, now they have to figure out how to fix it. Matt's position's now has caused an impasse. Homeowner(s) heard about the petition to remove Matt and now wish to sign the petition. Not a good sign for him.
    Was there a natural watercourse at that location previous to the new build?
    Is this surface water or is it discharged water like from drainspouts and the like?

    Georgia L Schlager

  3. #48
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    It has come to pass that in order for Matt to push a contentious project forward, it seems that in spite of the misplaced new build and the elevation discrepancy, Matt knew the differential elevation that existed between the new build and the existing home, he let it go. As a result of this problem (basically you cannot build a house next to an existing home where the land is higher than the other)it created a HUGE erosion problem that now has yellow tape surrounding the crater which poses a liability issue. The erosion did not exist until after this build was complete and now there are problems. New homeowner contacted Matt to meet with him to solve the land issue, Matt's response was that he will not meet with her. He shut the door on her request. Matt caused the problem, now they have to figure out how to fix it. Matt's position's now has caused an impasse. Homeowner(s) heard about the petition to remove Matt and now wish to sign the petition. Not a good sign for him.
    I listened to a planning board presentation a few months ago. I had understood that drainage erosion on the beach was an issue of all property lines in that area especially the farther east you go. I had also understood that they were testing different ways to resolve the issues as what would work for one property didn't necessarily work for everyone.

    I didn't hear that one new build was at fault for the erosion.

    In this pic from 2014, you can see erosion on the north side of this property prior to a new build. There was also erosion following the property line on the south side of the property.



    In this pic from 2017, you can see the water followed the same channel along the property line between the two houses. The erosion is greater.



    At least, that is what my aging eyes see.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    They did pilot install of pipes to remediate drainage issues, unfortunately where the new build is, there was zero erosion issues in that area. Concerns were brought to Matt and as you mentioned (Planning Board) to remediate a continual problem created initially by the developer (here we go again) and the town. Who is left fixing the problem, yup the homeowners. Knowing full well that the new build should not be built higher than the neighbors lot, AND that there should not be a huge ditch between the properties (made due to the elevation differences) Matt did not force the developer to position the house so that this would NOT exist. If Matt had forced the developer to position the house properly, made sure that the land was level in congruent with the neighboring property, there would not be a gigantic erosion which now is eroding the new builds property. Lack of oversight, Matt just washed his hands of it.....

  5. #50
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    They did pilot install of pipes to remediate drainage issues, unfortunately where the new build is, there was zero erosion issues in that area. Concerns were brought to Matt and as you mentioned (Planning Board) to remediate a continual problem created initially by the developer (here we go again) and the town. Who is left fixing the problem, yup the homeowners. Knowing full well that the new build should not be built higher than the neighbors lot, AND that there should not be a huge ditch between the properties (made due to the elevation differences) Matt did not force the developer to position the house so that this would NOT exist. If Matt had forced the developer to position the house properly, made sure that the land was level in congruent with the neighboring property, there would not be a gigantic erosion which now is eroding the new builds property. Lack of oversight, Matt just washed his hands of it.....
    Looked through the Drainage complaint reports from 1/1/2018-7/31/2018. There is none reported for addresses near this situation.

    https://www.lancasterny.gov/document...tormwater.html

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Sorry to hear of the elevation / drainage / sinkhole issue. It is the law that a property owner cannot shed his water onto a neighboring property. That does not mean that an elevation difference cannot be mitigated with use of swales, drainage pipes with receivers, etc.

    Is your property in close proximity to the new build in question and how are you impacted by this drainage issue? Regardless, if the effected property owner(s) believe they have been treated arbitrarily and capriciously they have the right to sue the developer and the town.

    I find it difficult to believe Matt Fischione dropped the ball here and/or refuses to acknowledge credible complaints. Your development has experienced issues with the developer for years and it appears a situation that was allowed to fester under the past code enforcement officer is still not resolved. And, Fischione still answers to the town.

    Since Fischione took office permit applications and approvals have increased significantly (doubled at least) and code enforcement activity and citations to bring property owners into compliance have dramatically increased as well. Businesses that were operating without permits now have to get such permits. Building expansions and other activities performed without permits have had to come in compliance.

    Regarding the petition you speak of to remove Fischione from office, IMHO it is nothing more than the effort of disgruntled people who have an axe to grind and no nothing of the positivness Fischione has brought to the Building Department. It is analogous to saying, “Fischione is doing too good of a job, let’s get rid of him”.

  7. #52
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    I find it difficult to believe Matt Fischione dropped the ball here and/or refuses to acknowledge credible complaints.
    I agree. He takes his job seriously and I can't imagine him purposely ignoring a complaint

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #53
    Member Neubs24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    It is the law that a property owner cannot shed his water onto a neighboring property.
    Depends on what the code officer wants to enforce. When I lived in Cheektowaga my backyard was always a swamp, partially due to my neighbors yard sloping towards mine and his garage downspout pointing into it as well. When I pointed it out to the code officer he points to my front downspout and says yours is pointed at his yard. My rebuttal was that my downspout excess would roll down his driveway as opposed to his which dumped into my back yard. He basically said how much do you want to push it because if I tell him to switch then you have to fix yours too, even though mine wasn't causing groundwater issues. So he basically ignored it because I wasn't about to spend $1000 to run mine underground.

  9. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Neubs24 View Post
    Depends on what the code officer wants to enforce. When I lived in Cheektowaga my backyard was always a swamp, partially due to my neighbors yard sloping towards mine and his garage downspout pointing into it as well. When I pointed it out to the code officer he points to my front downspout and says yours is pointed at his yard. My rebuttal was that my downspout excess would roll down his driveway as opposed to his which dumped into my back yard. He basically said how much do you want to push it because if I tell him to switch then you have to fix yours too, even though mine wasn't causing groundwater issues. So he basically ignored it because I wasn't about to spend $1000 to run mine underground.

    As both of you were shedding water unto each other's property do you think the code enforcement acted unfairly? He gave you the option of placing a formal complaint against your neighbor while advising you that that you would also have to mitigate your transgression. Would you rather he would have cited both of you?

  10. #55
    Member Neubs24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    As both of you were shedding water unto each other's property do you think the code enforcement acted unfairly? He gave you the option of placing a formal complaint against your neighbor while advising you that that you would also have to mitigate your transgression. Would you rather he would have cited both of you?
    No, which is why I didn't pursue it, even though his discharge had an adverse effect on my property and mine didn't have one to his. Basically, to fix part of the problem on my end I would have had to spend about $1000 (only got one quote) to run my downspouts underground and out to the street. Then I would've had a legit gripe on his downspout. My back downspout dumped into the backyard so that along with the neighbors garage were the biggest culprits other than re-grading the yard. So to solve the problem, I sold the house and moved to Lancaster.

    Heres my old backyard pond:
    Last edited by Neubs24; August 16th, 2018 at 01:05 AM.

  11. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Thanks for sharing, Neubs.

    The picture is my backyard, a typical backyard drainage issue in the Town of Lancaster where development took place in a wetland, where stormwater receivers were installed to collect water and take it to a collection pond and with the promise by the developer that there would be no flooding or drainage issues.

    The only problem with that promise is that it was typical developer and their engineering design promises in the past that too often don’t work for myriad reasons and where the water can’t (doesn’t) get to the collection detention pond.

    The topography (landscape) of the site does not allow for much of the water to get to the receivers and the code enforcement officer at the time of development (89-95) was asleep at the wheel.
    4-4-18 Behind units 93 & 95.jpg4-4-18 Behind units 93 & 95.jpg
    Flooding and drainage are prevalent in Lancaster because too many valuable and functional wetlands were indiscriminately destroyed / filled in for developer best interests and town revenue.

  12. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Sorry to hear of the elevation / drainage / sinkhole issue. It is the law that a property owner cannot shed his water onto a neighboring property. That does not mean that an elevation difference cannot be mitigated with use of swales, drainage pipes with receivers, etc.

    Is your property in close proximity to the new build in question and how are you impacted by this drainage issue? Regardless, if the effected property owner(s) believe they have been treated arbitrarily and capriciously they have the right to sue the developer and the town.

    I find it difficult to believe Matt Fischione dropped the ball here and/or refuses to acknowledge credible complaints. Your development has experienced issues with the developer for years and it appears a situation that was allowed to fester under the past code enforcement officer is still not resolved. And, Fischione still answers to the town.

    Since Fischione took office permit applications and approvals have increased significantly (doubled at least) and code enforcement activity and citations to bring property owners into compliance have dramatically increased as well. Businesses that were operating without permits now have to get such permits. Building expansions and other activities performed without permits have had to come in compliance.

    Regarding the petition you speak of to remove Fischione from office, IMHO it is nothing more than the effort of disgruntled people who have an axe to grind and no nothing of the positivness Fischione has brought to the Building Department. It is analogous to saying, “Fischione is doing too good of a job, let’s get rid of him”.
    One would think Matt has done his job, unfortunately in this subdivision case, he has dropped the ball. The homeowner is so upset, in fact they put yellow caution tape surrounding the sink hole and crater. In addition to that, the homeowners contracted with a surveyor to make sure the house is positioned properly. I cannot wait to hear the results. Considering that Ferry Builders have mispositioned half of the homes on the lake, no surprise that they are concerned. You should see how this house is positioned. Unbelievable, in fact it is so bad you can only assume that the Coed Enforcement Officer DID NOT DO HIS JOB. Homeowners asked to meet with him to discuss the matter, his response was NO. How is that for doing a good job. I would have to say, Matt has decided to pick and choose. His stance is to obstruct in this matter.

  13. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    [QUOTE=shortstuff;1822396]

    One would think Matt has done his job, unfortunately in this subdivision case, he has dropped the ball. The homeowner is so upset, in fact they put yellow caution tape surrounding the sink hole and crater. In addition to that, the homeowners contracted with a surveyor to make sure the house is positioned properly. I cannot wait to hear the results.
    Nor can I. So from the pouring of the foundation, through the construction of the house, and before taking occupancy the homeowner had no idea that his house may have been miss-positioned?

    Considering that Ferry Builders have mispositioned half of the homes on the lake, no surprise that they are concerned. You should see how this house is positioned. Unbelievable, in fact it is so bad you can only assume that the Coed Enforcement Officer DID NOT DO HIS JOB. Homeowners asked to meet with him to discuss the matter, his response was NO. How is that for doing a good job. I would have to say, Matt has decided to pick and choose. His stance is to obstruct in this matter.
    Development in that subdivision has been ongoing for at least 10 years and no other homeowner had a survey performed to ascertain the homes were positioned correctly?

    Did Matt refuse to meet with the homeowner from the get-go or after they had a discussion on the matter? If the homes were not located according to approved site plan concept, where no site plan reconfiguration approval was given, then the homeowner(s) have recourse to sue. And where were the attorneys who represented the homeowners on closing – asleep at the wheel?

    The site plan was approved many years ago under the oversight of another town board and code enforcement officer. Since then there have been all sorts of issues between Ferry Builders and the homeowners. Until such time the homeowners can legally sort things out I find blaming Matt for not doing his job is premature and unwarranted. Obstruct? This is not the Matt I know.

    Keep us posted. If all is as you say it is, homeowner legal pursuit is warranted – against the town and developer.

  14. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    I will simply put this out there:
    1. The house was positioned differently, Lee-we will take some photo's and send it to you personally to get a view of the house.
    2. Matt did come out to see the house and the sink hole/drainage ditch, his response is classic-get an engineer ($$) {what he should have done was to help the homeowners to address the elevation differential-he did not} instead of helping the homeowners with a reasonable solution.
    3. These homeowners own a business, she is a dentist in the village of Lancaster-her request to discuss the matter should have had the courtesy of a meeting upon her request. Matt has no right to say no considering taxpayers pay his salary. She is not unreasonable in making that request.
    4. New build should not be higher than their neighboring lots, Matt should have been more attentive considering the complaint from the neighbor whose lot is flooded by the new build.
    5. It is my understanding that lawsuits are being considered against the Code Enforcement Officer and the Builder...

  15. #60
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    There was a very informative letter on the Stutzman Rd subdivision in this week's communications
    #522
    https://www.lancasterny.gov/document...ions/file.html

    Georgia L Schlager

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •