Zoning Board of Appeals member silenced

[Lee Chowaniec]

At last night’s Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting, board member Robert Thill requested the board grant approval to the members of the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) to address the board on the recent e-mail communications submitted to all ZBA members. As soon as Mr. Thill began making his request, ZBA Chair Richard T. Quinn interrupted Thill and declared that he was not sure that that conversation was appropriate at the time as it was not listed on the agenda for a hearing. “I would refer to counsel for interpretation.”

Town prosecuting attorney, legal counsel to the ZBA, Nicholas LoCicero declared he knew this was coming in and advised there should be no conversation on the matter. “You have no authority to discuss this matter as it is not on the agenda. You have rendered a decision. If someone doesn’t agree with the decision there are proper procedures to follow. There are appeals. It is improper to come back here. I would say the same thing if the airport people were here. This group (SACL) would be out raged if they didn’t have a chance to speak.”

“You simply can’t do it,” added LoCicero. There’s a proper lawsuit here. Another reason you can’t say is that anything you say can be used in court against the town and that is not your job. The Town Board had a hearing on this on July 1st and even they have not rendered a decision at this point.”

“In reading statements Mr. Thill, it is my opinion you would have to recuse yourself and not comment,” LoCicero declared. “You have taken a side. That is improper, you can be disciplined for this and I warn you that if you become an advocate for this you are violating your position. The Town Attorney (John Dudziak) e-mailed me yesterday afternoon. I didn’t see it. I advised the Town Planning Board the same thing last night. I called Dudziak last night and advised the town attorney that it is to go to the courts. The way this could come to the ZBA is if it was reversed by the courts; specifically the Supreme Court and they send this back to this board.”

“As far as the agreement SACL talks about, it is not signed by the town. In other words there is no jurisdiction for this board to take any comments for two minutes, three minutes, or not at all.”

Chair Quinn stated that based upon opinion by counsel there will be no discussion at this meeting on the matter. The board then adjourned.

Other

SACL and supporter attendees were not as surprised and/or disturbed by the advice given by ZBA attorney LoCicero but in the condescending, near snarky tone in which he delivered his counsel. Mr. Thill was a respected individual during the lengthy years of service he provided as Lancaster Town Clerk, and over the past decade as a member of the ZBA. He deserved better than to be cautioned in becoming an advocate for SAC and/or in taking their side. Mr. Thill is recognized as a man of integrity and credibility and certainly a man that supports good governance. In the name of good governance Thill is always interested in hearing from the residents. He requested SACL be recognized and given an opportunity to be heard.

SACL wrote the following to the ZBA and wished to discuss their position on an agreement that was reached in 2010. They were told by LoCicero in no uncertain terms where to go.

Dear Chairman Quinn and ZBA members:

Attached is a letter from the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) to you regarding the violation of the Agreement the ZBA brokered between SACL and the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA). We know that your next meeting is this Thursday evening July 11th at 7:00 PM and we plan to attend this meeting. We hand delivered the attached letter to the Town Hall this morning and copies were placed in your mail boxes. However, given the short time before you meeting, and the urgency of this communication, we thought it best to also email this information to you along with some comments and some additional information.

Also attached is the April 30th, 2013 letter from Ms. Coleman to Mr. Simme requesting that the Light Industrial Code text be changed for the purchaser of the Colecraft Building, but nothing is mentioned about the later proposed text change for the BLA that suddenly appeared on the May 15, 2013 Planning Board minutes. We are supplying this April 30th letter to prove that somehow, and without any public notification or awareness, and without the required at least 10 days advanced written notice to SACL from BLA, the highly controversial text change to convert the BLA from a nonconforming use to a conforming use appears at the last minute.

We also note that the SEQR attached to the April 30th letter is dated April 23rd, 2013 showing that it was completed before the last minute text change for BLA was considered. So this SEQR should ONLY apply to the Colecraft building related text change and NOT the BLA text change since it was not under consideration at the time the SEQR was completed. Finally, as mentioned in the attached letter from SACL to the ZBA, the commingling of the BLA related text change with the Colecraft purchaser related text change was wrong because they are two very different situations and therefore should not be commingled, and rather need to be considered separately.

In light of this blatant violation of the ZBA brokered agreement, the improper way the BLA related text change was added without any public notification to become aware (this is exactly the type of back door action the Agreement was supposed to prevent!), and the serious consequences of this piggybacking the two text changes into one proposed law, SACL is requesting that the ZBA take appropriate action.

Of the various potential actions the ZBA can quickly take at this time the one we would like to suggest is to immediately send (i.e. hand deliver due to the short time) a letter to the Town Board requesting that any contemplated action on a zoning text code change for BLA that the Town Board is considering at the upcoming Monday July 15, 2013 meeting, or thereafter, be separated from those related to the Colecraft building and postponed until proper procedures are followed (or better yet abandoned), SACL is properly notified in advance as per the Agreement, and all important relevant information is provided and carefully considered. A sample letter to this effect is attached to help speed the process given the short time.

We would be happy to address the ZBA board and answer any questions you may have at this Thursday’s ZBA meeting if you invite us to do so.

Sincerely,
David Hangauer, a SACL spokesperson


It should also be noted that at the previous evening’s Planning Board meeting a few members who openly expressed were not pleased with the miniscule information provided them by the town board member who requested the airport code text change be piggybacked onto the Colecraft Building text change and recommend to the town board as a comingled proposal. Counsel LoCicero advised the board take no action on the matter and that is what took place.

[gorja]

So, SACL and BLA come to an agreement at the ZBA board but when the agreement is violated by the BLA, SACL can't go back to the ZBA? Mr Thill didn't take a side. He just stated facts when he stated,
"the public was never given an opportunity to be heard when the airport was planning its various expansions."
“The public’s right to appear at a public hearing was never given to the public”
“Due process was denied to every single person in the community.”
"the airport has expanded 51,000 square feet since it obtained a special use permit for expansion in 1966."
“It turned from a mouse to an elephant.”

[shortstuff]

This is an outrage, Mr. LoCicero let me tell you something, the SACL people are outraged because the BLA came to the Planning Board without the SACL group knowing at all that they have put forth a commingled proposition without our knowledge. What you Mr. LocCicero stated actually did happen. So since we were blind sighted by this why are you denying our due process!!

Mr. Thill is an honorable and principled person, to be spoken to by someone like that is a shame!!! I'm am mad as h/e/l/l!

[ichingtheory]

"It should also be noted that at the previous evening’s Planning Board meeting a few members who openly expressed were not pleased with the miniscule information provided them by the town board member who requested the airport code text change be piggybacked onto the Colecraft Building text change and recommend to the town board as a comingled proposal. Counsel LoCicero advised the board take no action on the matter and that is what took place."

It is well known that the Town Board Member mentioned above is Donna. I have to wonder if this is just one more attempt to make Supervisor Fudoli look bad. I think everyone knows the answer to that question. If so, it won't work. Residents are well aware of what goes on.

Can anyone tell me why we have "outside counsel? What do we pay our town attorney for? It seems we have to consult with "outside counsel" for every issue. Why do we need a full time town attorney if he cannot handle anything?

[dtwarren]

At last night’s Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting, board member Robert Thill requested the board grant approval to the members of the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) to address the board on the recent e-mail communications submitted to all ZBA members. As soon as Mr. Thill began making his request, ZBA Chair Richard T. Quinn interrupted Thill and declared that he was not sure that that conversation was appropriate at the time as it was not listed on the agenda for a hearing. “I would refer to counsel for interpretation.”

Town prosecuting attorney, legal counsel to the ZBA, Nicholas LoCicero declared he knew this was coming in and advised there should be no conversation on the matter. “You have no authority to discuss this matter as it is not on the agenda. You have rendered a decision. If someone doesn’t agree with the decision there are proper procedures to follow.

The proper procedure would be to either:

a) move to suspend the rules to discuss it;
b) move to amend the agenda to discuss it;

discuss it would be a motion for rehearing pursuant to Town Law section 267-A(12) which provides:

Rehearing. A motion for the zoning board of appeals to hold a
rehearing to review any order, decision or determination of the board
not previously reheard may be made by any member of the board. A
unanimous vote of all members of the board then present is required for
such rehearing to occur. Such rehearing is subject to the same notice
provisions as an original hearing. Upon such rehearing the board may
reverse, modify or annul its original order, decision or determination
upon the unanimous vote of all members then present, provided the board
finds that the rights vested in persons acting in good faith in reliance
upon the reheard order, decision or determination will not be prejudiced
thereby.

Or put it on an agenda for a special meeting or the next regular meeting.

[4248]

Town prosecuting attorney, legal counsel to the ZBA, Nicholas LoCicero states Mr.Thill should recuse him self for having a "Opinion" or "Advocates" his position"

Is this not true of the Town Councilman Donna Stempniak - she, Councilmember Aquino, Councilmember Ruffino and Councilmember Abraham have actually lobbied for the airstrips owner.

SACL will loose if a lawsuit is not started. SACL was lied to when they believed the Town Council would ever honor this agreement,

Now you have the final proof : Lo Cicero declared, “As far as the agreement SACL talks about, it is not signed by the town. In other words there is no jurisdiction for this board to take any comments for two minutes, three minutes, or not at all.”


The only thing that will stop Lancasters Controlling Members will be court action - they believe they can do as they please.

[WNYresident]

The only thing that will stop Lancasters Controlling Members will be court action - they believe they can do as they please.

But they won the majority of votes and can do was they please. Nogods says so. We got the winners and the losers.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The proper procedure would be to either:

a) move to suspend the rules to discuss it;
b) move to amend the agenda to discuss it;

discuss it would be a motion for rehearing pursuant to Town Law section 267-A(12) which provides:



Or put it on an agenda for a special meeting or the next regular meeting.

Thanks Mr. Warren. There will no need for that considering Section 2 of the Code text change proposal for the airport has been removed from resolution consideration at Monday night's Lancaster Town Board meeting.

The proper procedure as noted by you would never have taken place as the ZBA was set up to not consider any dialogue with the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) members present. Note again from post #1 that counsel LoCicero had interrupted Thills' petition with, "I knew this was coming in and advise there should be no conversation on this matter…"

But it doesn't end there. LoCicero declared to Thill that, "the board had rendered a decision and that if someone doesn’t agree with the decision there are proper procedures to follow.”

The ZBA never rendered a decision on the “Notice of Appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Interpretation on the zoning status of the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport, 4343 Walden Ave” dated February 18, 2010.

At the public hearing of May 13, 2010, the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster withdrew their petition based upon the covenants agreed upon in a Stipulation and Agreement between the attorneys of record for the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport, Inc. and the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster. No decision was rendered by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In the absence of a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster was left only the option to pursue their contractual rights under the “Enforceability” section of the Stipulation and Agreement which clearly states,“ by petition to the ZBA.” Indeed they attempted to do precisely that; namely, petition via email and letters to the board members.

For now this event becomes a 'no issue'. It is but another example of town agency doors that have been shut in SACL's face to receive information or to exchange dialogue. Most likely the airport will once again pursue an attempt to get the town to approve some sort of language that will be conciliary but with a slippery door approach to further airport expansion. Such attempt will be rebuffed by SACL. They have compromised enough in allowing the current airport to continue operating in its current size and scope considering they have been a non conforming use and far exceeded the 25% expansion limit set by a 1989 code change. If SACL is mistreated in the future and this matter winds up in court, SACL could demand, and the court could approve, removing all expansion buildings and taking this airport back to square one.

The so-called SACL whiners should have known better, obstructionists, NIMBY's, airport haters have been anything but that. They wish to see the airport operation continue with its present operation, have commended the pilots for the positive activities they bring to the town, but do not want further airport expansion which would allow for jet aircraft, larger wingspan aircraft and helicopters. This would not be in the best interests of the entire community.

It is bad enough there is no security check point at this airport now. We have yet to hear anything about security concerns should this airport further expand.

The turnout at the public hearing had to be 2-1 in favor of residents who voiced opposition to the code text change that would make the airport a permitted use and open for expansion. I have yet to run across a resident - who is not a pilot or associated with the airport operation - that favors airport expansion. It is my understanding that numerous correspondences were to be written and sent to the town opposing code text change. Once again the communications have not been posted on the town website for review. I will be visiting the library tomorrow and will review the postings and relay what actually occurred.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
It is my understanding that numerous correspondences were to be written and sent to the town opposing code text change. Once again the communications have not been posted on the town website for review.

At the bottom of the agenda, it does state that there were letters from you, David Hangauer, Kevin Lemaster and Philip Nanula (President of Essex homes).

[Lancaster Resident]

The way attorney Nicholas LoCiicero treated, Mr. Robert Thill, a highly respected Lancaster resident and a retired Town Clerk who served the pubic with utmost diligence and integrity for many decades is shameful. To make matters worse LoCicero had his key facts wrong in his accusations. One has to question if LoCicero is suited for his attorney positions with the Town IMHO.

[4248]

Just because a lawyer/person acquires a job title - don't assume you understand what the "Job description entails" or the actual "purpose" for that employee being hired/appointed.

As one elected official here in Lancaster stated at his swearing in ceremony - "We serve those who support us" !!!!!!


If you believe a "Town Attorney" is hired to "Represent" tax payers - your misinformed. He/she is employed by the "Political Party Elected Controllers" - another words his services are tax funded - yet the main purpose is to protect those people writing the agenda's - proposing and supporting projects and such - can't get sued by those with interests/taxpayers.

The Town Attorney or legal advisers don't protect taxpayers interests - they cover the Admins collective rear ends from tax payers.


Think of it this way - Councilmen and Town Clerk would never allow a non bias lawyer to review their agenda's. As Councilman Stempniak stated about the Ethic's Board, "I don't need someone looking over my shoulder to see what I am doing."

Ask your self this question - does the Town Supervisor have the right to suggest what goes on the Town Board Meeting agendas?

Isn't it his right/job to remove items he views as unclear or not legally complete?

Or does the Town Clerk have the authority to simply deny his requests - misinform - or simply say, "No, I won't change it - the agenda moves as written."(By her)????


Who's running this Town - the duly elected Supervisor or the Controlling Members of the Town Hall Admin and their lawyers ?

[gorja]

The way attorney Nicholas LoCiicero treated, Mr. Robert Thill, a highly respected Lancaster resident and a retired Town Clerk who served the pubic with utmost diligence and integrity for many decades is shameful. To make matters worse LoCicero had his key facts wrong in his accusations. One has to question if LoCicero is suited for his attorney positions with the Town IMHO.

In Monday night's Town board agenda minutes, Mark Aquino has a resolution to appoint Nicholas LoCicero as Town justice filling the vacancy of Mark Montour. It's a little ironic that Councilman Aquino appointed someone else after recently losing an election for the other town justice seat. He must have done a self-evaluation of his ethics.

Since Mr LoCicero has already tendered his resignation for Deputy town attorney/prosecutor, one would assume that it is a done deal.


It's more of the Lancaster democratic employment agency. It's preposterous.

Does this mean that Councilman Aquino will be appointed to the open Deputy town attorney/prosecutor position?

[4248]

Which position carries tax funded benefits ?

[shortstuff]

Which position carries tax funded benefits ?

dum-dee-dum-dum