Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 83

Thread: Stutzman road subdivision.

  1. #61
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    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...
    Are you saying the dentist's house was built on a higher elevation or her neighbor's house?

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    If you remember - most of those "Pondside" homes were built on "filled" land. Its was filled in because under most of it is sand and sandy loom type soil. Many people were surprised it was approved and if I remember there was no pilons to support the homes.
    There was many short cuts and less than complete things built in many areas of our town over the last 25 plus years. Many people wont complain about foundation issues for fear of resale value loss.
    And the beat goes on !
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    If you remember - most of those "Pondside" homes were built on "filled" land. Its was filled in because under most of it is sand and sandy loom type soil. Many people were surprised it was approved and if I remember there was no pilons to support the homes.
    There was many short cuts and less than complete things built in many areas of our town over the last 25 plus years. Many people wont complain about foundation issues for fear of resale value loss.
    And the beat goes on !
    Spot on!

    There are many homes in Lancaster experiencing flooding, drainage and structural home damages from development taking place on soils non conducive for building – especially found in hydric soils that are inherent in wetlands that were indiscriminately destroyed or filled in.

    The Amherst ‘sinking homes’ debacle brought to light much of developer poor practices in developing on such soils and led to improved regulations controlling some of that. Unfortunately, too often development still occurs in federal regulated wetlands and where the wetland area is mitigated elsewhere. Makes sense, eh.

    And then there the days when we heard developer reps mock us and tell us that we can laugh all we want but that they could get the regulatory and town permits anytime they wanted – and they did and got rezones and rezones anytime they wanted as well; and with ZBA that handed out variances like candy to a baby. Smart growth, a word not in the town’s lexicon back then.

    And then we had a supervisor that sided with the developers and claimed they could build on water if they did it right. Too often they did not do it right – after promising they would leave the site better than what it was originally and with no impacts(s) to the neighboring community.

  4. #64
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #65
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Maybe, a utility would buy the property and put a cell tower in between Stutzman and Home Rd.

    It would take care of traffic concerns

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Are you saying the dentist's house was built on a higher elevation or her neighbor's house?
    Yes I am, if you saw this you would say, "how did this get passed by the Code Enforcement Officer?"

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    If you remember - most of those "Pondside" homes were built on "filled" land. Its was filled in because under most of it is sand and sandy loom type soil. Many people were surprised it was approved and if I remember there was no pilons to support the homes.
    There was many short cuts and less than complete things built in many areas of our town over the last 25 plus years. Many people wont complain about foundation issues for fear of resale value loss.
    And the beat goes on !
    Yup 4248 and with that knowledge, the folks who reside there have gone to spend $$ to remediate those issues.

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Spot on!

    There are many homes in Lancaster experiencing flooding, drainage and structural home damages from development taking place on soils non conducive for building – especially found in hydric soils that are inherent in wetlands that were indiscriminately destroyed or filled in.

    The Amherst ‘sinking homes’ debacle brought to light much of developer poor practices in developing on such soils and led to improved regulations controlling some of that. Unfortunately, too often development still occurs in federal regulated wetlands and where the wetland area is mitigated elsewhere. Makes sense, eh.

    And then there the days when we heard developer reps mock us and tell us that we can laugh all we want but that they could get the regulatory and town permits anytime they wanted – and they did and got rezones and rezones anytime they wanted as well; and with ZBA that handed out variances like candy to a baby. Smart growth, a word not in the town’s lexicon back then.

    And then we had a supervisor that sided with the developers and claimed they could build on water if they did it right. Too often they did not do it right – after promising they would leave the site better than what it was originally and with no impacts(s) to the neighboring community.

    Yup Lee, and in the subdivision I refer too, well the town approved the site plans as it sat, and now that subdivision has tackled one heck of a erosion, elevation and drainage issue(s).

  9. #69
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    I drove down Stutzman today. Apparently their utility poles aren't located in the right of way as on most streets.
    Most of their 'No Stutzman subdivision' signs are between the utility poles and the street or maybe they're special.

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #70
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    Yes I am, if you saw this you would say, "how did this get passed by the Code Enforcement Officer?"
    It was mentioned tonight by the CEO that he wants to change the code for new residential construction regarding the rear yard drainage systems. He stated that traditionally the pipe is left above grade so it doesn't get damaged during the building process. It was left to the developer to cut it to the correct grade but they were cutting it to where they thought it needed to be not what was in the plans. What he wants is that the developer MUST have the pipes cut to the correct grade and submit a survey that the drainage was correct and in compliance with the plans before the town would give them a Certificate of Occupancy.

    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #71
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Stutzman subdivision back on the planning board agenda February 6

    Georgia L Schlager

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Stutzman subdivision back on the planning board agenda February 6

    I wish them well.

  13. #73
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Minutes from the Feb 6 planning board meeting regarding Stutzman Rd subdivision


    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #74
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Stutzman Rd subdivision again on the table at last night's planning board meeting.
    All board members voted to table except member Keysa.
    Listen to the recording Board chairman Neil Connelly nailed it with his comments

    Georgia L Schlager

  15. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Kudos to the Lancaster Sun on their report on the issues facing the Stutzman residents should the 9-acre parcel development (24 homes) by Natale Builders be approved by the Town of Lancaster.

    Several residents voiced issues on existing drainage, flooding, increased traffic volume, lack of sidewalks, sewage and water pressure issues and their increasing should development occur.

    As a former area resident (21 years), I can empathize with the residents’ concerns. What I found interesting in the report was the resident who stated her surprise that other neighbors were having problems. There are individuals who have been bringing up like issues before the town for the past 20 years that the town was not accommodating for its growth – regarding infrastructure, traffic and traffic safety issues, the wanton destruction and filling in of valuable and functional wetlands that help control flooding and drainage issues (for developer and town profit), etc.

    What is more interesting is Supervisor Ruffino’s report statement: “Because the property in question has been approved as being zoned correctly by an engineer, if it comes before the town board they would have to vote ‘yes’ to it, by law.”

    Ruffino then expands on that by adding the developer needs ‘certificates’, ‘studies’ by the engineers. He is talking about a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) which considers and reviews all project potential adverse impacts and ranks them according to significance.

    Through my years of development involvement, I have come to see developer hired gun environmental consultants present data that went unchallenged, but oft times when challenged by found less than truthful, manipulated, incorrect and sometimes resulting in developer environmental violation fines by the government involved agencies.

    Developer traffic studies have been found bogus. Bogus wetland delineations, property segmentation, the illicit filling in of wetlands under 12.4 acres and not under DEC regulations have all contributed to the flooding and drainage issues that are now plaguing the town. Oversized Storm-water collection ponds that were constructed undersized and increased neighborhood flooding and drainage issues.

    How many SEQR small-to-moderate potential impacts from continuing development does it take for the town to say “enough”?

    The residents shouldn’t have to think about purchasing this property to prevent the chance of the town of making a poor decision. The residents money would be better spent hiring their own environmental attorney and engineering consultants to challenge the developer studies.

    Lastly, dumb growth principles were in place for many years before the recent Comprehensive Plan process got underway. The first step in putting a moratorium on rezone development was a major step. For years rezones and rezones-of-rezones contributed to the town's uncontrolled growth and resulting issues. Supervisor Ruffino should be asked how many of those rezones he voted for, or against, in his 18 years as town council member. I don’t remember him voting to deny any of them.

    Hopefully, the soon to be announced zoning code changes will address some of the issues.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •