Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

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

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,580

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,188
    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.


    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,143
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,188
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    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.


    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Member leftWNYbecauseofBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,866
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    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'.

  9. #9
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,188
    Quote Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS View Post
    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


    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    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'.
    If you assume I live in a 339-y eligible property you assume incorrectly. I live in a single family home in post-war subdivision in Eggertsville. To the extent that I have hired lawn care, plowing, and other such services I pay myself and that’s my HOA fee. You only present half the facts..how much an assessment is lowered by 339-y. Why not provide HOA fees and what % of them actually pay for services that would otherwise be provided by local governments? You claim that developers can charge higher prices for 339-y eligible properties. Assuming you’re correct that there’s a premium for 339-y eligible property you should be incorporating the loss in value incurred by properties that lose 339-y eligibility and the effect of that loss on assessed value and tax revenue payable by those properties I’m all for tax equity and would favor getting rid of veterans exemptions, senior exemptions, religious exemptions, sovereign immunity exemptions and all the rest.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,580
    If you assume I live in a 339-y eligible property you assume incorrectly. I live in a single family home in post-war subdivision in Eggertsville. To the extent that I have hired lawn care, plowing, and other such services I pay myself and that’s my HOA fee.
    Thank you for sharing that information. Your analogy of contracting and paying for services in a private home vs. HOA fees is illogical.
    You only present half the facts..how much an assessment is lowered by 339-y. Why not provide HOA fees and what % of them actually pay for services that would otherwise be provided by local governments?
    I have posted the information you seek numerous times over the years on the Lancaster thread. You are not a resident of Lancaster and perhaps missed that information. Do some research.

    You claim that developers can charge higher prices for 339-y eligible properties. Assuming you’re correct that there’s a premium for 339-y eligible property you should be incorporating the loss in value incurred by properties that lose 339-y eligibility and the effect of that loss on assessed value and tax revenue payable by those properties.
    Again, do some research. Look up the tenants of Condominium Law 339-y and you will find its original intent was to consider only high-rise buildings in New York City. The New York State Builders Associated bastardized the ordinance and may it applicable for residential patio home / townhome / condominium style dwellings.

    The Town of Lancaster has already memorialized Albany twice for relief. There isn’t an Assessor I have spoken to over the years that has not remarked that the current Law is unfair.

    And yes, the developers, builders and real estate sale use it as a marketing tool. This week, as every week, there is a real estate ad for a new patio home in Lancaster, and the ad reads: Qualifies for condo status for significant property tax savings. And off-times the real estate agent will tell the buyer that they can now buy more house because of the tax savings.

    If that home sells for $300,000 and the buyer gets a 50% tax assessment reduction, that buyer will be saving $4,800 annually in tax obligation. That’s $400 per month. I can assure you that there is no condo association property in Lancaster that spends anywhere near $400 of the association fee to provide for services that are not provided for by the town.

    I’m all for tax equity and would favor getting rid of veterans exemptions, senior exemptions, religious exemptions, sovereign immunity exemptions and all the rest.
    And yet you are okay with a program that games the system and favors individuals who can afford to purchase pricey homes and get tax breaks to boot? Perplexing!

  12. #12
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,188
    Here's a listing for that same development on Blackstone Ct.
    The monthly association fee is $125. or $1500. annually.
    The future tax savings will outweigh the association fees.



    https://www.2findyourhome.com/propertydetail/3070655/4-Blackstone-Court_Lancaster_NY_14086


    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  13. #13
    Member leftWNYbecauseofBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,866
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Here's a listing for that same development on Blackstone Ct.
    The monthly association fee is $125. or $1500. annually.
    The future tax savings will outweigh the association fees.



    https://www.2findyourhome.com/propertydetail/3070655/4-Blackstone-Court_Lancaster_NY_14086

    You really don't understand how HOAs work. They can set the dues to whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are still not responsible for costs. If the community needs a large ticket item they will use a special assessment.

    Seems like you're just guilty of envy here...

  14. #14
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    12,188
    Quote Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS View Post
    You really don't understand how HOAs work. They can set the dues to whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are still not responsible for costs. If the community needs a large ticket item they will use a special assessment.

    Seems like you're just guilty of envy here...
    When i think of the 339-y, I think of condos. I guess, I never envisioned a condo with any land mass. I was under the assumption that the HOA fees were to cover costs that other taxpayers have covered by the town. Never knew they used a special assessment for high end items. Thanks


    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,580
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    When i think of the 339-y, I think of condos. I guess, I never envisioned a condo with any land mass. I was under the assumption that the HOA fees were to cover costs that other taxpayers have covered by the town. Never knew they used a special assessment for high end items. Thanks
    Yes, an HOA can set the association fee to whatever level they want. This is a new development and the fee is going to be low because there is no need for reserves to cover any expected ‘big ticket’ items for years to come. The fee now is most likely for landscaping, snow-removal and general maintenance.

    Using the example provided, the 40% tax break equals a annual savings of $6,090 - $508 per month. $508 - $125 = $383 per month. So, is this individual putting the $383 into escrow to pay for future ‘big ticket’ items? Or, just buying more house – which is what the builders push – or pissing it away?

    I have lived in my townhouse association for 27 years and have experienced just three ‘special assessments’ – totaling under $5,000. Half of that went towards a re-roofing project. Saving $6,090 over 25 years, that unit owner amassed $152,250 in savings for those ‘big ticket’ items.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Town considers resolution to install intersection stop signs for private roadways
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 16th, 2019, 03:43 PM
  2. Town withdraws resolution to erect stop signs on private roadways
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2019, 03:40 AM
  3. No garage sale ‘no parking signs’ for HOA’s/private roads
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2013, 07:42 PM
  4. Town of Lancaster Schedule of Salaries approved by Town Board differ from what was bu
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 19th, 2009, 03:20 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
  •