Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

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

  1. #16
    Member Breezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,280
    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
    5,305
    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:


    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. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    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
    1,557
    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
    5,305
    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.
    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. #21
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    FYI, The Sun, September 26, 2019

    Attached Images Attached Images
    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?"

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Development Company petitions for variances - again

    Benderson Development Company, LLC, 570 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202 is once again petitioning for three [3] variances for the purpose of installing an outside dining area with a twelve-seat capacity on property owned by the petitioner located at 4931 Transit Road, Lancaster, New York. The outdoor patio variances would allow Rachel’s Mediterranean Grill to expand its operation.

    On January 6th, Benderson Development Company appeared before the Lancaster Planning Board seeking an amended site plan approval to construct an outdoor patio for its client Rachel’s Mediterranean Grill. The site plan review was quickly tabled until February 17, 2021, allowing for Benderson to appear before the town Zoning Board of Appeals (ZB) to petition for three variances that would be required to move the site plan along.

    The first variance pertains to property setback variances, a second variance petition to allow outside dining as an accessory use, and the third to reduce the required parking spaces by four (4) spaces.

    Substantial variance relief was already granted on August 8, 2019. The ZBA approved a 35-parking retail development space variance, from 193 parking spaces to 158. Variance relief was also granted in allowing Rachel’s Mediterranean Grill to collocate signage on Orville’s Pole sign. The developer creates his own hardships in overdeveloping the property and looks to the town for relief at the expense of resident safety and wellbeing.

    I take no issue with the setback variances or the variance to allow outside dining as an accessory use.

    I have grave safety concerns with the petitioner's request for a variance to reduce the required parking spaces by four [4] spaces

    There are only 16 parking spaces serving the four building commercial enterprises - regularly filled during operating hours. Overflow clientele are required to walk across the development’s inner road that intersects with signalized William Street.

    Technically, there are only four parking space available directly in the front of Rachel’s. Not adding any parking spaces adjacent to the proposed outdoor patio compels clients to walk a distance cross a heavily trafficked inner road that connects four commercial entities to signalization at William Street. A busy inner road with no safe pedestrian pathway.

    The major portion of traffic on this inner road comes from major client Aldi customers accessing signalization to leave the Benderson complex to make safe left turns heading south onto Transit Road.

    To use the parking provided behind the building (where there is no public access), Benderson is suggesting construction of a sidewalk which would result in clients having to walk 100-200 ft. to access Rachel’s main entrance to enter the outdoor patio. This is Buffalo, with a weather environment that is not conducive to such arrangement and further adds to public safety concerns.

    I empathize and support businesses suffering financial losses from Covid. I order takeout food frequently but ensure it is from a safe environment that I am visiting. I visit this sire quite often, believe it is underserved with parking availability as is, and believe public safety is already being compromised.

    I would hope the Zoning Board of Appeals takes a hard look at this variance appeal this coming Thursday to ensure the public’s safety and best interests are being served over that of the applicant.

  8. #23
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    I would hope the Zoning Board of Appeals takes a hard look at this variance appeal this coming Thursday to ensure the public’s safety and best interests are being served over that of the applicant.
    Lee, am I correct in assuming that any decision will be made by the incumbent ZBA membership, or can such a decision in some way, reflect the wisdom and will of any possible new ZBA appointees?
    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?"

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,659
    If they planned ahead, instead of just throwing a building in there without thinking, they could have rotated the building 90 degrees and leveraged the space better. They have an additional 32 spaces on the side and back of the building that could have all been in the front of a rotated building. Typical benderson.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8793.../data=!3m1!1e3

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Lee, am I correct in assuming that any decision will be made by the incumbent ZBA membership, or can such a decision in some way, reflect the wisdom and will of any possible new ZBA appointees?
    Any decision rendered on Thursday will be by the incumbent board. The newly appointed board has yet to be approved by the town board. That will happen at next week's town board meeting.

    At Thursday's ZBA meeting there will only be five members in attendance. Swigowski's term expired and I understand he has moved out of town. Quinn's position has not been filled since his retirement. Sojka will serve as Chair even though his term expired and will not be reappointed to the ZBA.

    I find it strange that Sojka will not be reappointed to the ZBA considering he was voted Chair by his own board members when Richard Quinn resigned, submitted a letter of intent to continue serving on the ZBA, and in my opinion submitted the best resume of qualifications that should have made him a given for the position - and especially when incumbent ZBA members seeking reappointment by rote get reappointed.

  11. #26
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Sojka will serve as Chair even though his term expired and will not be reappointed to the ZBA.

    I find it strange that Sojka will not be reappointed to the ZBA considering hewas voted Chair by his own board members when Richard Quinn resigned, submitted a letter of intent to continue serving on the ZBA, and in my opinion submitted the best resume of qualifications that should have made him a given for the position - and especially when incumbent ZBA members seeking reappointment by rote get reappointed.
    Yours is very concerning news, and the post's analysis may raise some very significant issues.
    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?"

  12. #27
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Sojka will serve as Chair even though his term expired and will not be reappointed to the ZBA.

    I find it strange that Sojka will not be reappointed to the ZBA considering he was voted Chair by his own board members when Richard Quinn resigned, submitted a letter of intent to continue serving on the ZBA, and in my opinion submitted the best resume of qualifications that should have made him a given for the position - and especially when incumbent ZBA members seeking reappointment by rote get reappointed.
    Since reading of this news, I did some research regarding Mr. Sojka.

    I understand that Mr. Sojks's performance on the ZBA, both as Chairman and Member, has been stellar. As such, I am perplexed, if not troubled, by the apparent decision of the Democrat Majority Caucus, under the leadership of Supervisor Ruffino, not to reappoint him to the ZBA.

    It is important for the reader to know that Tyler Sojka was appointed to the ZBA Chairmanship in 2020 by the members of the ZBA. I would suggest that his elevation was resultant of a peer-reviewed assessment of his incumbency.

    For the reader's information, Sojka holds a BS from Buffalo State SUNY, and his practical experience included duties as a personal intern to Chris Hawley of the City of Buffalo Planning Department.

    Furthermore, Tyler Sojka also worked very closely with former Williamsville Mayor Brian Kulpa as they engaged the "Picture Mains Street" Program in 2017.

    Since 2017, Mr. Sojka has not only functioned as ZBA Chairman and Member, but since 2019, he has been a Village of Lancaster Planning Commissioner.

    Indeed, Mr. Sojka, IMHO, remains eminently qualified to discharge the duties of a ZBA Chairman and member.

    I wonder who is going to replace Mr. Sojka, and if his or her qualifications exceed or at least equals those of Mr. Sojka.

    Are you not suspicious that politics to the exclusion of the interests of Lancaster may be afoot?
    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?"

  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    If he worked with Kulpa get the hell rid of him!!! If he worked in the City planning dept. get the hell rid of him.

  14. #29
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    If he worked with Kulpa get the hell rid of him!!! If he worked in the City planning dept. get the hell rid of him.
    Easy grump, Tyler Sojka attended Buffalo State SUNY from 2013 until degreed in 2017. I understand that his duties with both Hawley and Kulpa were performed within the scope of college-related and/or assigned field work.

    Sojka was a student intern assigned to Kulpa, and his duties were not executed as a City employee.

    It would seem that Sojka's experience with Kulpa was also college related.

    As Sojka excelled in college-related and/or assigned field work, equally, Sojka's performance of his public trust duties has been, and remains, stellar.

    I hope that information clears things up for you grump.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 13th, 2021 at 04:04 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?"

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
  •