Planning Board rezone recommendation, much to ponder

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster’s planning board is recommending the town board approve a rezone from Agriculture/Residential to Light Industrial for the purpose of light manufacturing and related production activities on a 43-acre parcel of land at 5841 Genesee Street.

The upside is job creation and use of land that will add to town revenues and development on only 15 acres – not disturbing the state regulated wetlands to the south.

Questionable at this time is the wetland that bounds the property to be developed, the archeological sensitivity of the area and the fact that the parcel of land under consideration is located where the North/South connector was proposed to go (Town Master Plan).

At the recent PB meeting Chair Keysa stated that Town Attorney John Dudziak obtained a memorandum from HodgsonRuss Attorney Daniel Spitzer on whether the Town’s Master Plan could be modified to allow the project without amending the Master Plan.

The recommendation for approval was based on 15 Findings.

Findings # 9-11 cover the resolve of the North/South connector road conflict

Finding #9: There is an apparent conflict with location of the North/South connector road between Walden Avenue near Cemetery Road and Genesee Street west of Gunville Road.

Finding #10: Land is still available to the west of the project that would align with land now owed by the Town of Lancaster located south of Ellicott Creek and north of Pleasant View Drive.

Finding #11: A shift to the west of the north/south corridor would be a minor adjustment to the Town’s Master Plan.

Simple enough, eh? An accommodation to a developer who as of now has no interested tenants, or so it appears as the project sponsor declared that lot sizes could changed dependent on who might come in.

Other interesting Findings

Finding #12 was of particular interest. It states: The economic well-being of the residents of the Town of Lancaster requires a continuous effort to create jobs as provided by light industrial development. Light industrial activity has to been shown to re-circulate money in the community in a multiple of approximately 2.5.

And yet the town played along with a reliever airport project that created no jobs and did take over 100+ acres of light industrial zoned property off the tax rolls.

Finding #13 is also interesting in that it states: This change in zoning will benefit the community as a whole and not only the applicant.

Lancaster airport is a non conforming use that has violated a 25% expansion ordinance condition and does very little, if anything, to benefit the community. It certainly does benefit Lancaster Airport Inc. and a few hobbyists who get cheaper gas and cheaper hangar fees.

Finding #15: The Planning Board strongly recommends that the Town Board actively seeks federal funds to preserve the right-of-way for a north/south connector road before any further construction occurs in its path.

The town/county couldn’t get $15 million from federal or state governments to widen William Street from Transit and Bowen Roads and put in a much needed turning lane. What would be the cost for such connector road from Broadway to Genesee Street be, and beyond to the thruway, and what makes the town think they will ever get such grant money? This topic has been around for decades.

[therising]

Lee - I'm not seeing what your take is on this.
Do you think the Town should deny the rezone based on the fact that the unfortunate piece of land lies withing the maybe-some-day future north-south corridor?

Or, are you OK with the rezone?

The way I see it - it just doesn't seem right to put restrictions on someone's property rights simply because the Town has plans for that property some years down the road.

Can you imagine, buying land, getting ready to build on it, and then, having a Town tell you - "you can't build there, because we may have plans for that property sometime in the future."

[gorja]

Originally posted by therising:
The way I see it - it just doesn't seem right to put restrictions on someone's property rights simply because the Town has plans for that property some years down the road.

Can you imagine, buying land, getting ready to build on it, and then, having a Town tell you - "you can't build there, because we may have plans for that property sometime in the future."

Geez rising, what planet have you been on?

Didn't you know that any property owner has restrictions on their property rights? If you want to raise a few pigs, your piggy manure has to be a certain distance from the property line. If you want to put up a fence, they tell you where you can erect it and how high it can be. If you want to repair cars, you have to get a special use permit and your garage doors have to face a certain direction. (Thou shalt not face a residential property) No auto repair customers may have exhaust problems either as it becomes a noise issue.

They nitpick these non-issues, yet they have no problem issuing permits to a nuisance airport without any restrictions.

Property owners don't have rights, just their neighbors do.

The time will come when they will tell us how many times we can flush.

[4248]

Lancaster's Master Plan is called a "Living Document" - it was designed by Stan Keysa and Developers. It has no true authority as far as land use - it has never stopped an insider from getting a rezone - its just there because the State Government said we had to have one. I believe its a tool to use to help get more tax dollars from other agencies.

The Planning Board will do nothing to stop it from being changed or amended. They never have and never will - when so many local political interests depend on developers - you can't stand in their way and risk donations being lost.

The "North South Corridor" will only be built if and when the actual build out and commercial areas along Pavement are near completion.

Stan Keysa has rearranged more zoning and building plans for developers than Supervisor Giza and Councilman Stempniak combined in his 30 years plus public service.

You might as well try to find out what companies are coming and get a job application. Just check with the Lancaster IDA - see who will be asking for tax incentives and such - that will give you a good idea who's coming.

Then check and see what Giza/IDA Chairman/Town Supervisor arranges for the new owners in the way of property and sales tax relief.

Just another day in Lancaster!

[WNYresident]

Lancaster’s planning board is recommending the town board approve a rezone from Agriculture/Residential to Light Industrial for the purpose of light manufacturing and related production activities on a 43-acre parcel of land at 5841 Genesee Street.

Why ruin clean land. Isn't there anyplace in erie county that would be more suited for what ever "light industrial" means?

[Lee Chowaniec]

=therising;705929]Lee - I'm not seeing what your take is on this.
Do you think the Town should deny the rezone based on the fact that the unfortunate piece of land lies withing the maybe-some-day future north-south corridor?

No.

Or, are you OK with the rezone?

No, not as it stands presently.

The way I see it - it just doesn't seem right to put restrictions on someone's property rights simply because the Town has plans for that property some years down the road.

Agree.

Can you imagine, buying land, getting ready to build on it, and then, having a Town tell you - "you can't build there, because we may have plans for that property sometime in the future."

Can you assure me that the land was already purchased, or does the project sponsor have an option to buy depending on the rezone going through? And what irks me again is that there is no present tenant - you know, just like so many of the Benderson deals on Transit Road. I would hope the town would at least ensure that development would occur here before allowing a rezone, not so this is but a land grab to sell off in the future knowing the town wants to put a north/south corridor in. Oh wait, that's never happened before has it?

The major point of my post was obvious to some by the hyperbole by the town in speaking on the importance of light industrial land and job creation while at the same time supporting the Lancaster Airport fiasco to expand an airport that is not warranted nor in the best interests of the community.

And when you speak of property rights, it cuts both ways. When I moved into my subdivision I was told outright by the builder and the Town that no commercial devlopment would take place adjacent to our development. The town not only rezoned the master plan to do so but supported the Wal-Mart in every way, including in the courts. But damn, I should have known better, right?

BTW - 4248's earlier post was very relevant.

[ichingtheory]

Why ruin clean land. Isn't there anyplace in erie county that would be more suited for what ever "light industrial" means?

I agree... it seems to me current "powers to be" will not be happy until they ruin every piece of green space here in Lancaster.

[therising]

No, not as it stands presently.

When you say "not as it stands presently," it seems as if you're open to it - with changes. What type of changes? ( I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth, if my assumption is wrong, just tell me.)

Can you assure me that the land was already purchased, or does the project sponsor have an option to buy depending on the rezone going through?

Tax records show that Donato bought it in 2005.
But, how is that relevant? If a Town takes the stand that they'll only look at projects when the developer already owns the land, then most developments will never occur. In most cases, developers won't close on a property, until they know if they'll be able to build on it.

And what irks me again is that there is no present tenant - you know, just like so many of the Benderson deals on Transit Road.

I can understand where you're coming from. But, the reality of it is, that in a perpetually soft market like WNY, smart developers need to have land ready at all times. I don't think Donato has ever built anything like this before, so I'm not sure what his plans are.
Also - developers, even if they do have a tenant, usually don't want to reveal it for competitive reasons. Because the second there's a hiccup in their plans (and there are always hiccups), their competitors will be trying to steal the tenant.

I would hope the town would at least ensure that development would occur here before allowing a rezone, not so this is but a land grab to sell off in the future knowing the town wants to put a north/south corridor in.

Maybe they should put a limit on it. I dunno.

Oh wait, that's never happened before has it?

I have no idea. But....if I knew that someone else (anyone) wanted land for some future use - and, if I had the money to do so, I'd probably buy the land myself.

The major point of my post was obvious to some by the hyperbole by the town in speaking on the importance of light industrial land and job creation while at the same time supporting the Lancaster Airport fiasco to expand an airport that is not warranted nor in the best interests of the community.

I know.
But, I find it frustrating (and non-productive) to bring up the Airport, Colecraft etc, anytime any issue is raised.

If Joe Blow is applying for a rezone (or a permit, or whatever,) on the other side of Town, the airport shouldn't be part of the equation.

And when you speak of property rights, it cuts both ways. When I moved into my subdivision I was told outright by the builder and the Town that no commercial devlopment would take place adjacent to our development. The town not only rezoned the master plan to do so but supported the Wal-Mart in every way, including in the courts. But damn, I should have known better, right?

See my previous statement.

BTW - 4248's earlier post was very relevant.

Hey, there's a first time for everything. (just kidding)

[therising]

Why ruin clean land. Isn't there anyplace in erie county that would be more suited for what ever "light industrial" means?

I suppose you could use that argument anytime anything gets built anywhere.

[therising]

Geez rising, what planet have you been on?

Didn't you know that any property owner has restrictions on their property rights? If you want to raise a few pigs, your piggy manure has to be a certain distance from the property line. If you want to put up a fence, they tell you where you can erect it and how high it can be. If you want to repair cars, you have to get a special use permit and your garage doors have to face a certain direction. (Thou shalt not face a residential property) No auto repair customers may have exhaust problems either as it becomes a noise issue.

They nitpick these non-issues, yet they have no problem issuing permits to a nuisance airport without any restrictions.

You really think that pigs and automotive repairs are "non-issues?"

[gorja]

Originally posted by therising:
You really think that pigs and automotive repairs are "non-issues?"

If I was their neighbor, it wouldnt be an issue to me. Live and let live. It's their property.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Rising wrote: When you say "not as it stands presently," it seems as if you're open to it - with changes. What type of changes? ( I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth, if my assumption is wrong, just tell me.)

Any business entity or individual(s) can purchase property and build whatever on it as long as they meet municipal codes and ordinances, and as long as they meet environmental regulatory requirements. This project has a ways to go on that.

I have no problem with anyone purchasing/developing/using property as long as they adhere to said requirements and do not impact the quality of life of their neighbors or community as a whole.

That said Rising, numerous examples have been given where municipalities skirt their own codes, permit processes, storm water/sewer drainage issues, etc and have aversely impacted the quality of life of the community.

Tax records show that Donato bought it in 2005.

Thank you for that piece of information.

But, how is that relevant? If a Town takes the stand that they'll only look at projects when the developer already owns the land, then most developments will never occur. In most cases, developers won't close on a property, until they know if they'll be able to build on it.

If it is zoned appropriately they have no concern that they will be able to build on it what they intend. This town has a master plan in place that is a farce. It is deemed a living document so that they can rezone to their hearts content. And, this and previous Democrat controlled boards have never met a rezone they didn’t like. They have even given rezones to rezones.

Also, developers, even if they do have a tenant, usually don't want to reveal it for competitive reasons. Because the second there's a hiccup in their plans (and there are always hiccups), their competitors will be trying to steal the tenant.

BS Rising. Examples of that are the Transit Road Benderson vacated property (two years) and the Wal-Mart. When Benderson was in a hurry to get approval for the four building project, Eric Racoon claimed they had a tenant in place for the anchor store. It was BS and the spec building project was approved. The Urgent Care Center is being built right next to the property.

The CARS coalition knew that the anchor store at Transit-William was going to be a Wal-Mart from near day one. We seen the plans for the store and Wal-Mart was clearly written on them. The town would not openly state who the tenant would be and arrogantly declared “we don’t have to tell you”. They wouldn’t tell because the opposition would have been greater to the project.

The same town board that rezoned 21 acres of back property from residential to General Business, failed in their attempt to declare that there were no adverse impacts associated with the project (and lost in court), etc, etc.

I have no idea. But....if I knew that someone else (anyone) wanted land for some future use - and, if I had the money to do so, I'd probably buy the land myself.

And that my friend is the game that has been played by Town of Lancaster insiders for years.

[therising]

[COLOR="navy"]BS Rising. Examples of that are the Transit Road Benderson vacated property (two years) and the Wal-Mart. When Benderson was in a hurry to get approval for the four building project, Eric Racoon claimed they had a tenant in place for the anchor store. It was BS and the spec building project was approved.

You're probably right that it was BS that they had a tenant (although it's possible they had the tenant, then lost it), but how is my statement BS?
All I said is that developers rarely disclose their tenants - and you said that was BS?

The CARS coalition knew that the anchor store at Transit-William was going to be a Wal-Mart from near day one. We seen the plans for the store and Wal-Mart was clearly written on them. The town would not openly state who the tenant would be and arrogantly declared “we don’t have to tell you”. They wouldn’t tell because the opposition would have been greater to the project.

WalMart's an exception to the rule. It's pretty much impossible to hide who they are.

The same town board that rezoned 21 acres of back property from residential to General Business, failed in their attempt to declare that there were no adverse impacts associated with the project (and lost in court), etc, etc.

OK.
But what does that have to do with the rezoning on Genesee Street?

And that my friend is the game that has been played by Town of Lancaster insiders for years.

I think you give people credit for being insiders, when, in fact, they're not. One doesn't need to be an insider to see the Master Plan. I'm pretty sure it's available to the public - not just "insiders."
You were wondering out loud whether, or not, Donato may have bought this as a "land grab," (I'm not even sure what that means,) simply because he knew it was in the way of the N/S corridor.
Well, if that's such a great idea, why doesn't every "insider" look at the publicly available Master Plan, and grab all the land down the path of the corridor?

[Lee Chowaniec]

therising;706187]You're probably right that it was BS that they had a tenant (although it's possible they had the tenant, then lost it), but how is my statement BS?

Because there have been several rezones approved by the board for commercial/retail purpose and no tenant was ever disclosed and/or no development has taken place.

All I said is that developers rarely disclose their tenants - and you said that was BS?

And that's because there were/are no tenants in place; yet they allude to them to move the boards to act.

WalMart's an exception to the rule. It's pretty much impossible to hide who they are.

The town and Bella Vista did a pretty good job of trying to hide the tenant until CARS outed them. Such a good job that when I kept telling two Buffalo News reporters at the time that Wal-Mart was the tenant they refused to believe until it was later openly declared by the town board. You would have known better because of your profession.

OK. But what does that have to do with the rezoning on Genesee Street?

You know where I'm going with this. Stop yanking my chain!

I think you give people credit for being insiders, when, in fact, they're not. One doesn't need to be an insider to see the Master Plan. I'm pretty sure it's available to the public - not just "insiders."

The master plan is indeed open to the public, however, for the few who have read it, this plan, this living (generic) document isn't worth the paper it is written on nor the time and effort that was put into it. Read the who's who that were involved in its creation.

You were wondering out loud whether, or not, Donato may have bought this as a "land grab," (I'm not even sure what that means,) simply because he knew it was in the way of the N/S corridor.

Would you believe that supposition could be on the money? If Donato, a home builder, bought the AG/R1 zoned property in 2005 and waited five years for a rezone to use the land, and it sat in the way of the proposed north/south corridor, gee I guess I would be way off base to suspect it could have been for other reasons.

Well, if that's such a great idea, why doesn't every "insider" look at the publicly available Master Plan, and grab all the land down the path of the corridor?

Some insiders have done that. Check the records and see who owns the land. The corridor plan was changed. If I remember the original planned route was along Cemetery Road.

There was great controversy on the N/S corridor 10 years ago and there will be even more so now and in the future. The town knew decades ago that another major N/S road was needed in town and did squat about it when governments were flush with money. Just like with the William Street improvement (widening and resulting turning lanes), it ain't going to happen.

Planning Board Chair Stanley Keysa is a smart man. He is revered by the town. He is also an attorney and represents numerous clients in residential and commercial real estate deals. The town needs a certified planning engineer who is totally independent.

[therising]

Lee:
The simplest way for me to reply is to say:
1) No, I wasn't yanking your chain

2)Your supposition about Donato could have been correct - I honestly have no idea. Donato is a homebuilder - maybe he had originally planned to do a subdivision here.

But, I don't know why you think it takes an "insider" to do this. Anyone with enough money, insight, and balls, right now could look at the Town's Master Plan, and start making land purchases with the specific intent of screwing up the N/S corridor.
Of course, the road may never be built - or, it may be changed - so it would be risky.
Would it be illegal to do that? No.
Kind of squirrely ? Sure. But, people get that way when money is involved.

PS Where is the Master Plan, anyway? Is it available online?