Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Town approves Rachel’s Mediterranean Eatery SEQR & Amended Site Plan

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,581
    Shorter Lee:

    No more development! But don't raise my property taxes and/or fees!!!!

    LOL


  2. #17
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Breezy View Post

    On this thread, there is concern not so much for over-development (his words when pressed, I doubt that, readers), but for public safety and the good health of local residents whose daily travels take them to this center of commerce in Lancaster.
    Click on "Breezy's" solution:


    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  3. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    Zoning boards don’t have unlimited authority in considering variance applications. They’re governed by state law which establishes the tests for granting a variance and local governments can’t substitute different tests for approval. Nor can a zoning board deny a variance solely on the basis of general community opposition.

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Am I correct in assuming you are referring to the September 18th town board meeting where council member voiced the reasons for her ‘no’ votes to the SEQR and amended site plan approvals?

    If so, this isn't about stopping Rachel’s from occupying the Benderson vacant building parcel, the traffic on Transit Road, or anything else but holding the developer accountable for meeting town code requirements. The project sponsor’s attorney was untruthful when he tried to establish that the property was zoned ‘shopping center’ when there is no such district zoning classification.

    The planning and town boards were dead in the water when the zoning board granted the variance. Had other board members voted ‘no’ to the Planning Board’s SEQR findings and ensuing site plan, I have no idea where this could have gone.

    The planning board is a ‘recommending board to the town board.” The town board is the authoring board. I am not sure as to the binding power of the zoning board.

    Transit Road is a state road, has been designated as a ‘commercial corridor’ and improved to handle increased traffic. William Street is a two-lane county road and although improved by being widened to four lanes from Transit Road to the FLIX Theater driveway still has five driveways and where only two are signalized and opposite each other.

    When the so-called Gateway to Lancaster development was taking place at the Transit Road - William intersection, when rezones were handed out like candy to developers to make the development possible, in 2008 the Towns of Lancaster & Cheektowaga conjointly established the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance. The ordinance language reads:

    Promote the efficient flow of traffic and enhance public safety by reducing conflicting traffic movement.

    • The requirements set out in this ordinance shall apply to all properties with frontage on Transit Road and all properties obtaining access from or through properties on Transit Road for its entire length in the Town of Lancaster except those properties located within the Village of Depew.

    • The requirements of this ordinance shall also apply to all properties obtaining access from any road intersecting Transit Road for a distance within 600 feet from the intersection with Transit Road. (That is William Street to the FLIX Theater complex.)

    Inner roads and interconnectivity to reduce access points, thereby reducing conflict points and congestion was the town’s spoken plan. It never happened. Three current driveways were not supposed to be in operation. There were plans to have but one signal controlling access management - driveways with an inner road system where all traffic accessed the businesses and William Street at a signalized intersection.

    It never happened and most likely never will. The area became overdeveloped and continues to be overdeveloped because of the town granting a variance to a developer that violated building a code requirement.

    This is not about anti-development, but once again where the town enables developers to act in their best interests, not the communities. The current town and planning boards are paying for the sins of the fathers where rezones and variances have caused the environmental and traffic – traffic safety issues the town is now experiencing. It is disturbing to see this project come to fruition.

    If a property is zoned accordingly and the project meets all code requirements development is unstoppable. That did not happen here. Someone on the town board had the chutzpah to take the position ‘enough is enough’.

    That is the meeting I attended, everything you post is spot on. The zoning board allowed it, the town board majority voted in favor of it with 1 absent and 1 opposed. The enough is enough is theater, when was or is it too much? The town is stuck with their poor planning from years ago, But I don’t see a reason to let a small fish business get their approval after all the larger ones got theirs over the years. Pick your battles I guess, and this is one I would let go

  5. #20
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Breezy View Post



    I go to Wegman's all the time and people just love it. Same for a lot of the other Transit Road (yes, Lee, a modern commerce thoroughfare) businesses. Seems like other people support these businesses as well.
    Just a satire and I am joking of course:

    Hey "Breezy,"

    I did not realize just how representative of public opinion that the Transit-Wegmans area of Lancaster is, so I decided to take a page out of your polling procedures manual, and sampled some public opinion.

    I think I stood at the corner of William and Transit, and asked shoppers and transients some over-development and political preference questions.

    I believe I found that most people thought that the area was too heavily congested and dangerous. Those same people felt it necessary for the town to change political direction.

    The exception to that trending "change" opinion was in the office of town clerk. Everyone, Democrat, Republican, Independents, Conservatives and "Blanks" were all supporting Diane Terranova because they felt Ms. Desiderio was unqualified for the job,

    Many cited her lack of understanding of the role of town clerk as their primary concern, while some were upset with the Desiderio suggestion that the town clerk was/is somehow is responsible for the trash bag tax.

    Good grief, you have been on Speak Up insulting Gaczewski and Todaro, twisting and distorting their positions and comments, but seem to give Desiderio, with all of her rather questionable suggestions relating to the duties and responsibilities of the town clerk, a pass!

    Why is that "Breezy?"

    Are you not the defender of all things Democrat, and is not Terranova the incumbent Democrat candidate for Town Clerk?

    Is there some sort of scheme, collusion, or other shenanigan(s) in play in the Town Clerk's race?

    Do you think that the Libertarian disqualification has anything to do with the Lancaster Town Clerk's race?


    Please, favor us with you sage wisdom, and for Heaven's sake "Breezy," you need to step-up your game, and get on the Democrat-Terranova team.

    Or can't you do that?

    Your friend,

    Mark
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; September 23rd, 2019 at 09:34 AM.
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  6. #21
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    FYI, The Sun, September 26, 2019

    Attached Images Attached Images
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Town approves Orville's site plan
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 16th, 2013, 07:37 PM
  2. Lancaster approves 2013 amended budget, Supervisor votes no
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2012, 07:51 AM
  3. Town Approves Cross Creek Map - Flooding Continues at Site
    By gshowell in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2008, 04:28 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
  •