Resolution to install stop signs on HOA private roads approved by town

[Lee Chowaniec]

By unanimous resolution vote Lancaster’s town board approved to install stop signs at designated intersections in the private roadways at the Courtyards at Pleasant Meadows Condominiums.

Chapter 46-8 of the Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance entitled Stop Intersections designated on private roadways is hereby amended by adding stop signs in designated locations (intersections) and in accordance with State Law.

When questioned by a resident at the public comment session that precedes the resolution vote as to who will pay for the costs of the signs and installation, Supervisor Coleman answered: “town taxpayers.”

At the regular meeting and at the work session that precedes the regular meeting Coleman, Police Chief Karn and board members reviewed the process that led to their decision to amend the law:

• It’s a matter of public safety, the town’s #1 priority.

• Unless the Homeowner Association (HOA) became a gated community there is no way to prevent the community roads from becoming public roads – used as cut throughs by adjacent development vehicular traffic.

• The current HOA installed signs, their locations and number do not meet universal standards; state regulations – Uniform Traffic Control Devices manual. As such they are not enforceable, all will be removed and replaced in new locations.

• The town has been put on notice by the Pleasant Meadows HOA that they want state regulated stop signs.

• Although the HOA receives 50% tax reductions through Condominium Law 339-y, it still pays a considerable of highway and bridge taxes – estimated at $100,000 (200 units).

• A reduction in the number of signs posted at the Courtyards at Pleasant Meadows Condominiums will take place as studies have shown that when they are used to control traffic, their increased amount has the reverse negative impact.

• Other developments with like HOA private road conditions will be able to petition the town for like consideration.

• While this cost increase will burden and displease the general taxpayer, it will certainly appeal to the 5 HOA developments that pay full taxes and receive no Condominium Law 33-9y tax reductions.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Other developments with like HOA private road conditions will be able to petition the town for like consideration.

I would agree that it would only be fair and just that the other developments get like consideration.
I had not realized until attending that meeting that the private HOA residents pay highway and bridge taxes.

[grump]

I would agree that it would only be fair and just that the other developments get like consideration.
I had not realized until attending that meeting that the private HOA residents pay highway and bridge taxes.

Gorja, there’s a wealth of misinformation about 339-y. Condominium owners actually pay taxes despite efforts to portray them as living tax free in Beverly Hills-style mansions while being supported by poor working class people struggling to feed their little children and toothless helpless grandparents. Condo owners pay association fees often exceeding $3000.00 per year which pay for many services typically provided by towns. Because they’re paying their own way on these things they get an adjustment on their assessed valuation to recognize the value of services they pay for themselves. I’ve never once heard any of the whiners and bitchers suggest that the public services be scrapped completely and that they pick up the costs of these on their own as condo owners do. It’s envy, pure and simple.

[gorja]

Gorja, there’s a wealth of misinformation about 339-y. Condominium owners actually pay taxes despite efforts to portray them as living tax free in Beverly Hills-style mansions while being supported by poor working class people struggling to feed their little children and toothless helpless grandparents. Condo owners pay association fees often exceeding $3000.00 per year which pay for many services typically provided by towns. Because they’re paying their own way on these things they get an adjustment on their assessed valuation to recognize the value of services they pay for themselves. I’ve never once heard any of the whiners and bitchers suggest that the public services be scrapped completely and that they pick up the costs of these on their own as condo owners do. It’s envy, pure and simple.

Grump,
We have one condo status street in Lancaster in which 2 of the homes aren't even classified as colonials.
They are classified as mansions on the assessment site. $1.2 million mansions with 3-4 acres of land.

To me, that's not a condo.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Grump,
We have one condo status street in Lancaster in which 2 of the homes aren't even classified as colonials.
They are classified as mansions on the assessment site. $1.2 million mansions with 3-4 acres of land.

To me, that's not a condo.

The price of the unit has nothing to do with it's status. There are $100,000,000 condos in other cities. I think the term 'condo' is being used here to describe a collective group of homes that share common areas and the burden of those areas maintenance. This includes streets and services like garbage and what not. In other words, I don't think the litmus test for 339-y is based on shared walls but rather shared burden of otherwise public services.

[gorja]

The price of the unit has nothing to do with it's status. There are $100,000,000 condos in other cities. I think the term 'condo' is being used here to describe a collective group of homes that share common areas and the burden of those areas maintenance. This includes streets and services like garbage and what not. In other words, I don't think the litmus test for 339-y is based on shared walls but rather shared burden of otherwise public services.

My issue was more of the acreage

[Lee Chowaniec]

Gorja, there’s a wealth of misinformation about 339-y. Condominium owners actually pay taxes despite efforts to portray them as living tax free in Beverly Hills-style mansions while being supported by poor working class people struggling to feed their little children and toothless helpless grandparents. Condo owners pay association fees often exceeding $3000.00 per year which pay for many services typically provided by towns. Because they’re paying their own way on these things they get an adjustment on their assessed valuation to recognize the value of services they pay for themselves. I’ve never once heard any of the whiners and bitchers suggest that the public services be scrapped completely and that they pick up the costs of these on their own as condo owners do. It’s envy, pure and simple.

The great majority of Condominium 339-y recipients receive 50% tax assessment reductions. Using $250,000 as an average market value condominium style dwelling, that homeowner receives a tax assessment reduction in Lancaster of somewhere between 40-50%.

At 40%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 X .40 X $32 per thousand tax rate = $3,200 per year ($266 per month).

At 50%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 x .50 x $32 = $4,000 ($333 per month).

As someone who resides in a townhome complex that receives no 339-y tax reduction consideration, pays full taxes and is responsible for paying an association fee that provides for all services not provided by the town, all other maintenance fees, landscaping, snow removal etc., my association fee is much less than $266 per month and the cost for providing the services not provided by the town nowhere approaches the monthly association fee.

Too often 339-y recipients are receiving tax abatements that not only pay for the services not provided by the town, but for their entire association fee, and then some.

The patio home that Gorga referred to sold for $1.2 million and is assessed at under $700,000 – a $16,000 reduction in tax obligation, $1,333 per month. I think that covers the entire association fee; and then some.

Yes, condominium / townhome / patio owners pay taxes, too often not enough. That is why builders use the tax ploy to lure prospective homeowners into their purchase. That is why 50% of town development is now from the purchase of these units.

[grump]

The great majority of Condominium 339-y recipients receive 50% tax assessment reductions. Using $250,000 as an average market value condominium style dwelling, that homeowner receives a tax assessment reduction in Lancaster of somewhere between 40-50%.

At 40%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 X .40 X $32 per thousand tax rate = $3,200 per year ($266 per month).

At 50%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 x .50 x $32 = $4,000 ($333 per month).

As someone who resides in a townhome complex that receives no 339-y tax reduction consideration, pays full taxes and is responsible for paying an association fee that provides for all services not provided by the town, all other maintenance fees, landscaping, snow removal etc., my association fee is much less than $266 per month and the cost for providing the services not provided by the town nowhere approaches the monthly association fee.

Too often 339-y recipients are receiving tax abatements that not only pay for the services not provided by the town, but for their entire association fee, and then some.

The patio home that Gorga referred to sold for $1.2 million and is assessed at under $700,000 – a $16,000 reduction in tax obligation, $1,333 per month. I think that covers the entire association fee; and then some.

Yes, condominium / townhome / patio owners pay taxes, too often not enough. That is why builders use the tax ploy to lure prospective homeowners into their purchase. That is why 50% of town development is now from the purchase of these units.

So Lee, you moved into a complex whose developers didn’t know about or didn’t take advantage of 339-y and then you bought into that complex so now you’re complaining about others who made a different choice? Gotcha! As I was saying to Gorja, it’s just envy.

[Lee Chowaniec]

So Lee, you moved into a complex whose developers didn’t know about or didn’t take advantage of 339-y and then you bought into that complex so now you’re complaining about others who made a different choice? Gotcha! As I was saying to Gorja, it’s just envy.

Occupancy in my complex began in 1989. I moved in in 1993 understanding full well that I was to pay full town taxes and an association fee to cover all association provided services. As many other HOA’S, in 1996 we were denied Condominium Law 339-y status based on a ‘no conversion clause’ town ordinance – despite the fact we were an HOA from the get go.

Had it been ‘envy’ I could have opted to move to a development offering 339-y consideration. It's been 27 years and I am still here.

Where you label me a whiner, I consider myself an advocate for tax fairness – where everyone pays their fair share in taxes.

You speak of ‘misinformation’ and I offer you data and facts. Your return post presents nothing in the way of information – just a diversionary ‘envy’ label. That’s today’s social network, where when someone’s position is weak label the opposing individual in a derogatory manner or refer to them as a bully.

I don’t know anything about you, will not assume anything about you but have to believe you live in a condominium style dwelling getting 339-y consideration considering your position on the matter.

I have posted numerous times over the years that I am fine with getting tax reduction consideration for providing services the municipality doesn’t. Providing tax breaks that far exceed providing those town services – that oft times exceed the total association fee, and then some – is not fair to taxpayers not receiving such compensation – and to the municipality tax base as well.

Then again, who gives a **** anymore about fairness in today's 'me world'.