Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Lancaster Town Board skates again! Nobody is held accountable!

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    Thumbs down Lancaster Town Board skates again! Nobody is held accountable!

    Every time we turn around another "Town Board Folly Unfolds" -
    Another bypassing of the rules is uncovered and exposed. Zonings are changed and changed again. Rules are laid aside and procedures ignored.
    Yet no one is accountable - no Elected or Appointed Official is responsible.
    Only in Lancaster, N.Y. could this go on year after year. Project after project, election after election.

    Remember Supervisor/IDA Chairman Bob Giza said, "We have no authority over the Airport, we have had almost nothing to do with it, I didn't even know about most of this."


    Also, after you read what Mr.Thill wrote - notice the dates on all the changes that were granted by Lancaster's Government.
    • Then ask yourself this, which members of Lancaster's Town Hall Government have been here the longest?
    • Which Members would have voted on all these changes and permits?
    Unlike Mr.Thill, I do blame our Town Board, our Building Department, the planning Board, Zoning Board and every single Town Elected or Appointed Official who enabled the Air Strip to not only ignore the rules but also aid in getting the Owner Millions in tax dollars and tax breaks.

    If SACL stops legal actions now - they won nothing! They won the right to do what others were denied - they won the right to do what countless other residents have done - the right of a ten day notice to watch the Town Board Grant Permits and Projects regardless of audience/taxpayers interests, without any taxpayers rights being safe guarded.

    The only thing they won is the right to be told when they will be ignored next.


    They got away with it again!
    SACL needs to take this to a real Court of Law.
    Read what X-Town Clerk/ZBA Member/Lawyer Mr. Thill said:

    (Quote from L.C. article) : ZBA member Robert Thill spoke on the following.
    Thill declared he had questions and thanked Walters for his chronology and then stated the following:

    I took the time and went back to 1961. I took a look at the original ordinance adopted by the town board. You (Walters) are correct in saying that the airport property was zoned FA (farm/agriculture at the time. It was stated that special use permits were granted at the time to a gun club and the airport. Moving on to 1966, a special use was applied for and a public hearing was held. The town board granted a special use permit. That special use permit went leaps and bounds and gave the exact parcel of how much this parcel could operate under that special use permit. I took the time and plotted that to the map of the exact parcel enjoyed by the airport (today).

    In May of 1989, the town board felt that the ordinance of 1966 was not keeping up with the Town of Lancaster. They held a public hearing, rescinded the 1966 ordinance, and adopted a new ordinance and changed the zoning of the airport where it was then. A special use permit was not put in place because the legislature was wising up and legislated into that ordinance an expansion clause; which says they can’t expand if you’re a nonconforming use. It means that if you are existent at the time, you can continue what you are doing, but that you abandon doing much more. But we don’t want you to go out of control, so we will let you expand by 25%.

    And then comes 1967 and time for a hangar. The airport came in, got a permit (#134) and built their first hangar; 9,300 square feet.

    In 1989, the ordinance was adopted so it locked in the size of the hangar and the runway.

    In 2000, along comes building permit #2,612, adding 9,450 square feet of building.

    In 2004, another building at 17,850 square feet.

    In 2006, another building for 6,500 square feet.

    In 2007, another building for 18,000 square feet.

    A total of 51,000 square feet after the 1989 ordinance was adopted by the town board where it was stated expansion could not exceed 25%.

    Here is my question: You talk about people being greedy and what the law says, this is my observation. The original special use permit was very specific in saying that you can operate this airport on this particular piece of land. There was a public hearing and everyone had a right to know and everything was the way it should be. When they wanted to make the airport larger, there was a process which could be followed, but which was not; that is petition the town board to amend this position, change the description, and hold a public hearing on it so that the public could come in and be heard. When the 1989 ordinance was adopted, they (town board) established 25% as expansion max.

    When the airport wanted to have its first building permit (after 1989), they (airport) had a right to come before this board, not for an interpretation, but to ask for a measurement variance; saying we wish to build a building greater than what this says. We grant variances for like situations often. The airport failed to do that. The public has a right to appear at a public hearing, and this did not happen. The same thing could have taken place in 2004, 2006 and 2007, and it did not. Due process was denied every single citizen of this municipality. I do not fault one single person that reviewed these things.

    I do not blame any person who issued a building permit here. But I do observe that when a court of law, notwithstanding what Mr. Walters says, looks at this record and sees how many times that the public was denied the right to speak out on this, when they (court) sees a little tiny mouse grow into a giant elephant, without the people coming out to have their say, the judge is going to rule that this board had jurisdiction. That is my opinion. (end quote)
    ==========================================


    They got away with it again!
    SACL needs to take this to a real Court of Law.
    Last edited by 4248; May 16th, 2010 at 09:27 PM.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    There is much more on this airport story that will have you shaking your head and saying WTF.

    Besides this rezone abortion, the Town Board will be voting tomorrow on a resolution to rezone a rezone that will allow Bella Vista to build an apartment complex next to the Wal-Mart. The town did everything possible to bring the Wal-Mart to Lancaster, including rezoning residential property to General Business for the purpose of allowing 300,000 square feet of retail/commercial building to take place. Now Bella Vita is whining that the retail market is flat and an apartment complex is in market demand. Bella Vista creates its own hardship by selling more land than it should have to Wal-Mart and now bitches it doesn't have enough room and visibilty to attract a commercial enterprise.

    Then you have the zoning snafu on Schwartz Road where a commercial business is operating illegaly in a residential/agricultural zoned district. The operation was finally shut down after the property owner received several citations and a court appearance. Now what is scary about this is reading in today's Lancaster Source that the accused's attorney is quoted as saying there is no illegal operation going on and that they are trying to settle the disagreement with the town out of court. The town is going to settle by doing what? Agreeing that the location and operation is only a midpoint in the operation and grant a special use permit. The defendant's attorney is well known to the town as someone who has represented developers in town numerous times.

    And when the town passes out all the rezones and rezones of rezones, the public impacted by said rezones are told "you should have known better." Following a master plan or adhering to codes only happens when it suits town best interests.

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by 4248:
    They got away with it again!
    SACL needs to take this to a real Court of Law.
    You need a money tree growing in your backyard to keep going back to court, attorney's office research, etc.

    Posted by 4248:
    They won the right to do what others were denied - they won the right to do what countless other residents have done - the right of a ten day notice to watch the Town Board Grant Permits and Projects regardless of audience/taxpayers interests, without any taxpayers rights being safe guarded
    You are absolutely right. They won the right to have the town goverment follow their own town code. The right to have done what hasn't been since the first expansion.

    Posted by 4248:
    Unlike Mr.Thill, I do blame our Town Board, our Building Department, the planning Board, Zoning Board and every single Town Elected or Appointed Official who enabled the Air Strip to not only ignore the rules but also aid in getting the Owner Millions in tax dollars and tax breaks.
    That is it in a nutshell. They are all to blame.

    Posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    And when the town passes out all the rezones and rezones of rezones, the public impacted by said rezones are told "you should have known better." Following a master plan or adhering to codes only happens when it suits town best interests.
    Exactly.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    The chair person Jeff L. was astounding at best. First off, it appeared that he couldn't understand the concept of what a "Public Hearing" was. Secondly, I thought him to be totally inconsiderate towards the residents and justified an entity that came from a mouse to an elephant WITHOUT the public awareness. I mean Mr. Thill as the town clerk all those years even stated his unawareness of it's growth rate until SACL brought it to light.

    I think as watching the chair person, I feel he is unqualified for the position he is in. Also all the other zoning members had nothing to say, add or deflect. The only one who had some intellegence was Mr. Thill.

    They had a fencing agenda prior to the airport agenda, and I found the zoning board to be comical, they had ALL gone to the site in question and each board member had a comment, although some repeated what the other members had commented. The most interaction I saw.

    So bottom line, who is at fault here. This is what we are here to find out!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    The chair person Jeff L. was astounding at best. First off, it appeared that he couldn't understand the concept of what a "Public Hearing" was. Secondly, I thought him to be totally inconsiderate towards the residents and justified an entity that came from a mouse to an elephant WITHOUT the public awareness. I mean Mr. Thill as the town clerk all those years even stated his unawareness of it's growth rate until SACL brought it to light.

    I think as watching the chair person, I feel he is unqualified for the position he is in. Also all the other zoning members had nothing to say, add or deflect. The only one who had some intellegence was Mr. Thill.

    They had a fencing agenda prior to the airport agenda, and I found the zoning board to be comical, they had ALL gone to the site in question and each board member had a comment, although some repeated what the other members had commented. The most interaction I saw.

    So bottom line, who is at fault here. This is what we are here to find out!
    In my opinion, Mr. Thill was most likely the only ZBA member that took the time to do his homework. I have to believe other board members were thrilled not to have to cast a vote that evening. Now that they have time before we appear again (and we will), I only hope they do their own investigating. One more question, Mr. Spitzer represents the town, not the ZBA. Isn't that a conflict of interest? The ZBA is its own entity and should have hired their own counsel. Any lawyers out there that can verify and/or comment?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873

    SACL - It's time to get a website

    This fight is costing a handful of residents some serious cash. Isn't it time for SACL to have a website, get a PAYPAL donation button on it and ask for help?

    Many, people I know would donate. By using a PAYPAL account the money is tracked directly to the lawyer or SACL Rep. All documented, yet donors privacy is protected.

    I know a person who would create the website pages free and help secure the PAYPAL account - all protected by Federal Banking Laws.

    If you guys need help - send me a private message and I will give you all the info you need.

    This same issue is being fought in many other states. Homeland security money being diverted to private Air Strips - Billions of Federal tax dollars going to privately owned Air Strips which the majority of tax payers will never use or in many cases ever see.

    Its wrong -
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    This fight is costing a handful of residents some serious cash. Isn't it time for SACL to have a website, get a PAYPAL donation button on it and ask for help?

    Many, people I know would donate. By using a PAYPAL account the money is tracked directly to the lawyer or SACL Rep. All documented, yet donors privacy is protected.

    I know a person who would create the website pages free and help secure the PAYPAL account - all protected by Federal Banking Laws.

    If you guys need help - send me a private message and I will give you all the info you need.

    This same issue is being fought in many other states. Homeland security money being diverted to private Air Strips - Billions of Federal tax dollars going to privately owned Air Strips which the majority of tax payers will never use or in many cases ever see.

    Its wrong -
    IT'S WRONG, quote from 4248. YOu are absolutely right!! I am not computer savy, if someone can put Lee's article part III up on the Lancaster thread so people can comment.

    Lee the three series is excellent.

    4248, you pose a great suggestion. SACL will confer with their attorney. It is also in the grapevine that a larger than life entity is very interested in the fight.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 18th, 2011, 10:06 PM
  2. The Lancaster Source verifies, Mr.Abraham follows "Committee Traditions"
    By 4248 in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 08:14 PM
  3. Georgette Pelletterie for Lancaster Town Board
    By gshowell in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 25th, 2009, 10:11 AM
  4. Residents address Lancaster Town Board on Kohl’s geese and pond issues
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 01:18 PM
  5. Friendship Town Board Fires Police Dept
    By ChaneysGotaGun in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 5th, 2008, 11:53 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •