Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Lancaster adopts lot size code correction

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921

    Lancaster adopts lot size code correction

    Monday evening the Lancaster Town Board unanimously approved a resolution to adopt Local Law No.4 of the Year 2022, which updates and corrects the lot sizes within Zoning 400 Attachment 2, Schedule B, of the Town of Lancaster’s Town Code.

    Minimum lot area for Residential Districts:

    If public sewer: 15,000 square feet per DU.
    If public sewer on corner lot: 15,625 square feet per DU.
    If no public sewer: 37,500 square feet (3/4 ac.) per DU

    Minimum Lot Width for Resident Districts

    (1) If public sewer: 100 feet
    (2) If public sewer on corner lot: 125 feet
    (3) No public sewer: 150 feet

    The zoning code change resolution was unanimously adopted by the board without board exchange or comment during numerous builder petitioner requests for resolution tabling or during resolution voting. Builders and their representatives addressed the board on their not being properly notified / made aware of the code change, the implications of increased home building cost, their contributions to the town’s tax base, lot size upkeep, etc.

    The who’s who of Lancaster builders addressed the board petitioning for resolution tabling so that they had an opportunity to meet with the town before voting took place.

    The builder’s plea on not being made aware of the lot size code change seems disingenuous considering:

    The Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York and Chapter 26 of the Town of Lancaster Town Code provide for the adoption and enactment of local laws.
    A proposed Local Law of the Year 2022 entitled “SCHEDULE B REVISION”, of the Code of the Town of Lancaster, was introduced to the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster by Council Member Mazur on the 2nd day of May 2022.

    The Town Board, acting as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) had determined the action is a Type I action and had issued a negative declaration.

    The Town Board called for, noticed, and held a public hearing on the proposed Local Law on May 16, 2022, where all interested parties were allowed to address the proposed Local Law. No one addressed the board at the public hearing on the zoning change.

    Excepting builders, no one from the public addressed the board expressing concerns or requesting resolution tabling at Monday evening's town board meeting.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Disappointed!

    Disappointed there is no Lancaster Bee report on Monday’s town board meeting. A full house, 30 resolutions, an important lot size code change, and several public comments on Stony Road flooding issues and the town’s commitment to seek grant funds to mitigate the flooding issues.

    I was looking forward to the Bee’s perspective on developer / builder petitions to have the board table the lot size resolution for reasons they gave that were in the best interest of their clients:

    • Affordability – home prices would increase by $30,000 to $40,000.
    • 15,000 square feet lots would be overkill for clients seeking less land management responsibilities.
    • Some builders live in Lancaster and want to keep housing affordable for their families and others in the future.
    • They have brought tens of millions in revenue to the town tax base.

    While the developers / builders pontificated on their contributions to the town and desire to work in their clients best interest, some of us have seen experiences and examples of town development that have had significant adverse impacts on the environment, infrastructure, public safety from overburdened roads, and the school district.

    For too many years these developers have been granted rezones and rezones of rezones to meet their marketing needs that resulted in town sprawl and dumb growth.

    Too often the town and associated state and federal agencies permitted creek tributaries to be filled in, creeks to be relocated, the filling in and or destruction of valuable and functional wetlands resulting in flooding and drainage issues, bogus wetland delineations and segmentation, all for developer best interests.

    The lot size change will help to reduce the number of Zoning Board of Appeals petitions for variances. Variances petitioned for because of lot sizes that do not allow for land use that should protect both property owner and neighbor needs and rights.

    In the same meeting, the Republican-Conservative Party candidates denied rezone of a Harris Hill project by a 3-2 vote – a rare event in the past 27 years of Democratic Party controlled town bords. Reason? There doesn’t have to be one.

    There is a new sheriff in town and developer and builders who contributed 100% to Democratic candidates in the 2019 town elections are going to be pissed.

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    In the same meeting, the Republican-Conservative Party candidates denied rezone of a Harris Hill project by a 3-2 vote – a rare event in the past 27 years of Democratic Party controlled town bords. Reason? There doesn’t have to be one.
    I must have misunderstood the purpose and reason of a rezone. I had thought that in 2021 the zoning was general business which allowed the residential use that it has now without being a non-conforming use. With the new zoning as light industrial and the current residential use, it is now a non-conforming use.

    So my thoughts were to become a conforming use, a rezone would have been needed.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I must have misunderstood the purpose and reason of a rezone. I had thought that in 2021 the zoning was general business which allowed the residential use that it has now without being a non-conforming use. With the new zoning as light industrial and the current residential use, it is now a non-conforming use.

    So my thoughts were to become a conforming use, a rezone would have been needed.
    Just read the old code book and did not find that residential (single family or multi-family) use was permitted in Neighborhood or General Business Districts. Regardless, it is the updated code that matters.

    The Harris Hill rezone petition was not for rezone from Light Industrial to Multi-Family Multiuse (MFMU). The land is zoned Light Commercial (LC). Regardless, residential development of any type is not permitted on any commercial or industrial zoned land.

    The land zoning update did not change making this land a non-conforming use. It always was - as I understand the code.

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Just read the old code book and did not find that residential (single family or multi-family) use was permitted in Neighborhood or General Business Districts. Regardless, it is the updated code that matters.

    The Harris Hill rezone petition was not for rezone from Light Industrial to Multi-Family Multiuse (MFMU). The land is zoned Light Commercial (LC). Regardless, residential development of any type is not permitted on any commercial or industrial zoned land.

    The land zoning update did not change making this land a non-conforming use. It always was - as I understand the code.
    Lee, you are correct. I errored when I wrote Light Industrial instead of Light Commercial.
    I had read this and assumed that the old code wasn't non-conforming while the new code is.

    Georgia L Schlager

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Lancaster adopts 2014 budget
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 20th, 2013, 11:10 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2009, 12:10 PM
  3. Town of Lancaster adopts Whistleblower Policy
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 24th, 2009, 11:43 AM

Posting Permissions

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