Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Town adopts one-year building moratorium

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921

    Town adopts one-year building moratorium

    By unanimous vote the Town of Lancaster adopted a local law establishing a one-year Moratorium on Applications, Approvals and Construction of Commercial Residential Development.

    The purpose of this Local Law is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Lancaster and to maintain the status quo as to certain commercial residential development in the Town, as the current zoning regulations of the Town of Lancaster do not adequately address this use. This moratorium will temporarily stop the processing of applications for and the issuance of permits, certificates of occupancy, and approvals for certain commercial residential development land uses, including but not limited to apartment building complexes. The moratorium is for a period of one (1) year, allowing the Town Board to analyze and determine potential appropriate revisions and amendments to the Town of Lancaster Zoning Code and the Town of Lancaster Master Comprehensive Plan concerning this use.

    Supervisor Robert Leary sponsored the resolution. Before casting their votes Councilmembers Burkard, Dickman, and Studley spoke on their reasons for their ‘yes’ votes. They all spoke on the need for a ‘pause’ to examine the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and make zoning modifications to ensure that future town growth follows ‘smart growth’ principles to ensure the community’s best interests are served.

    Councilmember Burkard spoke on land and environmental issues - easements in the past that were sold to developers. Loopholes Will be searched for that are not in the best interest for Lancaster. Comprehensive Plan town traffic studies (not on state or county roads) will be investigated all in making Lancaster’s future growth in the best interest of the community.

    Councilmember Studley spoke on being a longtime resident and seeing the unique challenges brought on by overdevelopment; resident traffic and traffic safety issues attributable to unrestrained development, infrastructure and water pressure issues. “This resolution will not only define this board but will determine who is sovereign in Lancaster, the special interests or the people.”

    Councilmember Dickman spoke saying the other board members covered just about everything and added that this moratorium was temporary and in no way anti-development. “We want responsible development. It is not an attack on anyone. We just want to help the residents. We should not have residents suffer because of infringement from development – especially to lifelong residents.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwZXo5NFS-Y

    From the 45-minute mark.

  2. #2
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    By unanimous vote the Town of Lancaster adopted a local law establishing a one-year Moratorium on Applications, Approvals and Construction of Commercial Residential Development.



    Supervisor Robert Leary sponsored the resolution. Before casting their votes Councilmembers Burkard, Dickman, and Studley spoke on their reasons for their ‘yes’ votes. They all spoke on the need for a ‘pause’ to examine the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and make zoning modifications to ensure that future town growth follows ‘smart growth’ principles to ensure the community’s best interests are served.
    Supervisor Robert Leary and his Republican Conservative Town Board, just sixteen days in office, accomplished what Mr. Ruffino and the Democrat-controlled boards could not, or would not, accomplish in 22 years.

    Councilmember Burkard's comments were very impressive. His words, focusing on the need for local road traffic studies to determine development's overall impact on the entire town, were particularly compelling.

    Councilmember Dickman reminded everyone, including the most pro-development advocates, that the resolution does not ban further development, but is a necessary evaluative pause, which will precede wise and healthy growth.

    But, it was freshman Councilmember Studley who encapsulated the thoughts of so many residents: “This resolution will not only define this board but will determine who is sovereign in Lancaster, the special interests or the people.”

    Kudos to Supervisor Leary, and Councilmembers Dickman, Burkard and Studley.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 17th, 2024 at 08:54 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  3. #3
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Why is it that I did not see one word about the adoption of the development moratorium in today's electronic edition of the Lancaster Bee?

    Not even one of the Bee's famous journalistic sticky notes, come on man!

    Unless I missed something, in the past, the Bee gave extensive coverage to the opposing views on a subject, which if measured by today's coverage, was not newsworthy to begin with.

    What's with that???
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 18th, 2024 at 11:12 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Why is it that I did not see one word about the adoption of the development moratorium in today's electronic edition of the Lancaster Bee?

    Not even one of the Bee's famous journalistic sticky notes, come on man!

    Unless I missed something, in the past, the Bee gave extensive coverage to the opposing views on a subject, which if measured by today's coverage, was not newsworthy to begin with.

    What's with that???
    Hey Mark:

    I was equally disappointed with the lack of Bee report regarding Tuesday evening’s Lancaster Town Board meeting. No coverage on a meeting where several important resolutions were adopted and with near full room attendance. If the Bee declares the meeting didn’t occur until Tuesday and the delay prevented coverage, today’s meeting livestreaming negates that position.

    The moratorium coverage is relevant and important to the residents and was best positioned by Councilmember Studley: “This resolution will not only define this board but will determine who is sovereign in Lancaster, the special interests or the people.”

    Developers and Special Interests promised legal pursuit and gave multiple reasons why at the public hearings and predicted that the town would lose in court. The town pursued every avenue in the process to ensure the wherewithal to tell its adversary to ‘pound sand.’ I don’t know of any resident who is not supporting the town in its endeavor. Nor has any resident spoken against moratorium adoption at either public hearing or town board meeting since October 2023 when the moratorium was introduced.

    What is equally disappointing for me is the lack of public input at the meetings. No resident addressed the board on the 23 resolutions on the agenda Monday or at the closing comment session. No one is asking why we have increased the number of sworn officers in the police department by three in the 2023 budget – from 52 to 55. The three new officers were appointed at the January 2 ,2024, town board meeting. No explanation was given in the language of the resolution whether they were replacements for officers retiring / resignations / whatever. And no one asked.

    Monday’s officer hiring was a replacement for a retiring officer – not stated in the resolution but explained in the communications. Did not find anything in the communications or resolution defining why we increased the police staffing by three. Perhaps the board or Police Chief Gummo could report on this when addressing the board, or at town board committee reports.

    Perhaps when he addresses the board Chief Gummo could report on the number of accidents taking place and/or other traffic safety issues, or crime incidents that impact the town. It would help support the need of having more police presence and/ or the ‘building moratorium.’

  5. #5
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Perhaps when he addresses the board Chief Gummo could report on the number of accidents taking place and/or other traffic safety issues, or crime incidents that impact the town. It would help support the need of having more police presence and/ or the ‘building moratorium.’
    Spot on Lee.

    No rub against the LTPD, but the Bee does not seem to do much reporting on accidents.

    Way back when, the old Lancaster Enterprise was pretty faithful to reporting such stories, even if those incidents were confined to its "Police Blotter." Now, it would seem, "Crickets."

    Is that what happens when a strong local newspaper is replaced with a larger corporate newspaper group?

    Perhaps the ownership of that larger group, may be biased in favor of developer interests, and together, are suppressing certain growth-related stories; chronicles which may tend to undermine their "wonderments of development" public spin?

    As such, perhaps we need to caution against linking a specific reporter's diligent work to the lack of published reporting. Maybe, the explanation of that news void resides with the group's ownership, and its possible control over the editor's blue pencil?
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 19th, 2024 at 09:17 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Spot on Lee.

    No rub against the LTPD, but the Bee does not seem to do much reporting on accidents.

    Way back when, the old Lancaster Enterprise was pretty faithful to reporting such stories, even if those incidents were confined to its "Police Blotter." Now, it would seem, "Crickets."

    Is that what happens when a strong local newspaper is replaced with a larger corporate newspaper group?

    Perhaps the ownership of that larger group, may be biased in favor of developer interests, and together, are suppressing certain growth-related stories; chronicles which may tend to undermine their "wonderments of development" public spin?

    As such, perhaps we need to caution against linking a specific reporter's diligent work to the lack of published reporting. Maybe, the explanation of that news void resides with the group's ownership, and its possible control over the editor's blue pencil?


    Mark:

    What I posted was not a ‘shot’ against anyone. I have been a resident of the Town of Lancaster for 50+ years. I love my town and have actively supported and pursued its best interests. Moratorium support is but one example.

    I had religiously attended town board meetings for 20+ years and am no longer able to do so but watch all the livestreamed meetings. It had become increasingly disappointing to watch those meetings when the Supervisor of our town, in no uncertain terms, told residents whose opinion differed from his own, “We are only here to listen to your comments, not answer,” It was never like that, should never be, and I am hoping it ends with the newly elected administration.

    We are seeing less public participation at the two public comment sessions – none at either at this last town meeting. That is sad as the public has the right to know what is taking place in the town and to hold its officials accountable.

    I love living in a safe town and the police example I used in my last post was simply to illustrate that the resolution language is weak, and no explanation came from the board as to the reason for the hirings. No word whether the hirings were replacements or additions. If replacements the budgets do not reflect that – 52 sworn officers in the 2023 budget, 55 in the 2024 budget: 29 patrol officers in 2023, 32 in 2024.

    If the increase in patrols is due to town growth, an increase in traffic accidents, or crime, it should be noted and a supporting reason for the Moratorium.

    As for the Lancaster Bee, still nada on the storm, town board meeting, whatever. Check out the livestreaming of Monday’s town board meeting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwZXo5NFS-Y

  7. #7
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Maybe the moratorium approval will be the front page article in next week's Bee.
    The other front page items may have been written prior to TUesday.

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Maybe the moratorium approval will be the front page article in next week's Bee.
    The other front page items may have been written prior to TUesday.
    Do you get the Lancaster Bee?

    Didn't you ever notice that there is a post that says, 'latest edition'? Doesn't that give them editorial rights to update their edition.

    The storm was already raging the previous weekend.

    Stop with the maybes. allegations, etc.

  9. #9
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Do you get the Lancaster Bee?

    Didn't you ever notice that there is a post that says, 'latest edition'? Doesn't that give them editorial rights to update their edition.

    The storm was already raging the previous weekend.

    Stop with the maybes. allegations, etc.
    I just get it online and was very surprised that the storm went unmentioned.
    The 'maybes' was for the moratorium vote.

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #10
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Maybe the moratorium approval will be the front page article in next week's Bee.
    The other front page items may have been written prior to TUesday.
    In the journalism training that I had, and they were 300-level courses, I was always taught that news reporting had to be both accurate and timely. What was the saying, "The eleven o'clock news goes on at eleven o'clock"?

    Next week's Bee, seriously?

    Will that story run underneath the story about the Domed Stadium coming to Lancaster, get real Gorja.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 19th, 2024 at 04:17 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  11. #11
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    If the increase in patrols is due to town growth, an increase in traffic accidents, or crime, it should be noted and a supporting reason for the Moratorium.
    Lee,

    Your comment reflects common sense logic, but in support of the moratorium, is highly profound.

    It is not rocket science that an increase in ill-planned growth means an increase in traffic and other emergency issues requiring emergency response(s), and ergo, necessitates the hire of more police.

    As Supervisor Leary previously noted, "the Lancaster Town Police Department complaint numbers are projected to rise by over 4100 more complaints in 2023 vs 2022 and potentially 6,419 more complaints than the 10 year average." Leary also observed that the "Lancaster Volunteer Fire Department responses show an increase (in early November) by 237 more call outs, year over year, in 2023 vs 2022."

    I believe that if the Bee would have reported such incidents, and perhaps had specifically noted the obvious and projected increases, such reporting may have constituted an objective piece of evidence in support of the one-year pause. It is such omissions void in its reporting that leads me to speculate that the Bee may be effectively siding with the developers.

    Nevertheless, if the increase in personnel is due to "overdevelopment," the Town Council should not be shy to publicly point this out.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Building Moratorium resolution tabled for further review
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2023, 04:13 PM
  2. Town holds second public hearing on building moratorium; tables vote
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 14th, 2023, 04:15 PM
  3. Resident wants building moratorium
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 26th, 2019, 06:44 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
  •