The Lancaster Town Board pulled resolution #4 to set a date for a public hearing to take place on amending the zoning mp (rezone) for the Fairway Hills petition for development of an apartment complex on Genesee Street near Harris Hill Road. It was discovered that the resolution was submitted in error. Council member Donna Stempniak suggested performing a public hearing before doing a state environmental quality review (SEQR) because of concern that the property could not be developed as submitted based on rezone approval.
In its place a suspended resolution was added and approved to set a public hearing date of July 21 on the Harris Hill rezone petition to rezone a 32.5 acre parcel located at 375 and 391 Harris Hill Road zoned Residential District One (R-1) to Multifamily Residential Four (MFR-4) for the purpose of building a 175 senior apartment complex and a 9 lot single family home development.
The town planning board, an advisory board to the town board, had already recommended denial of the rezone petition based on myriad reasons.
Builder addresses board at work session
Angelo Natale, representing Natale Builders, addressed the town board at the work session and wanted the rezone application process to continue ASAP as the builder is expanding significant dollars on the project. Council member Donna Stempniak interjected that the board would also like to hear what the residents have to say.
Natale declared that he had scheduled a meeting with the Harris Hill Road neighbors for this Saturday and would make sure that they would all appear at the July 21st public hearing. It was noted by a board member that this was the same project that was pulled by another developer when the planning board recommended like rezone denial to the town board.
Natale admitted his project was also denied rezone by the planning board and declared they did not know if they had all the facts, wetland studies, traffic studies at the time, but now have those studies in hand. He voiced that the traffic study shows that the traffic would be less than half if the land were developed as a single-family subdivision as it is currently zoned for.
Stempniak added that the project is different than what was presented to the planning board. Natale said the project was reduced in size from 175 apartments to 150 and all would be confined within one three-story building. The three story building would not appear as a three story building as the ground level in the back of the property is lower by four to five feet than the front. Stempniak added that the development would be similar to the one on William Street near Penora Street.
Natale interjected that the buffers would be kept and a membership offered to the neighbors for the use of the amenities – tennis court, pools, etc. When asked Natale declared there would 9 single family lots in the development. He added that the sewer hookup hurdles had been addressed and resolved as well.
Public comment session
At the public comment session the writer asked for clarification on the resolution to set the public hearing date for the Harris Hill Road project rezone.
Chowaniec: Mrs. Stempniak, as liaison to the planning board I will address my questions to you. Mr. Natale approached the town board during the work session requesting the public hearing on the rezone application for his Harris Hill Road project. He presented information that was not given to the planning board when he petitioned that board for site plan approval recommendation which was prefaced on his needing a rezone. He spoke on getting a traffic study done, wetland mitigation, sewer hookup resolutions in place, etc.
The planning board had recommended to the town board denial of rezone approval based on myriad reasons. Has the planning board been notified of the changes made by the petitioner?
Stempniak: They denied the rezone and rezone is just land use. They were just considering a MFR-4 rezone in this area. We still have to go through SEQR, but we have to have a public hearing before SEQR.
Chowaniec: This is where the confusion comes in. About a month go, the town board scheduled two SEQRS (environmental reviews) for the Harris Hill Road project and the Fairways at Lancaster project. And then both SEQRS were cancelled. Where they cancelled because a public hearing was not held first – as is now happening?
Stempniak: They were pulled.
Chowaniec: But why; what’s different that now you want to hear from the public first.
Stempniak: We do that all the time (have a SEQR before a public hearing). This is unusual, to have a town board hearing before the SEQR because if the town board denies the rezone there is no sense going through SEQR.
Chowaniec: I had to ask on the process because over the years I have seen it go both ways regarding what came first. Generally the petitioner goes back to the planning board and presents environmental information that satisfies their criteria. It seems highly irregular for the petitioner to come to the town board to plead his case. I am just curious why the planning board is being by-passed.
Supervisor Dino Fudoli: The planning board is not being cut out. They will be doing it again. The changes Natale made were based on what they brought to his attention.
Chowaniec: But why is he not going to the planning board with the changes instead of the town board?
Stempniak: It is the town board who makes the decision on rezoning. If the town board approves the rezone the applicant has to go back to the planning board for site plan approval. They are not going to go back to the planning board for another recommendation for use of the property. The planning board already made their recommendation on what they believe is appropriate use of the property.
Council member Mark Aquino: The applicant made significant changes to the original plan but the concept is the same. I don’t think the planning board is changing its mind on the recommendation. Before the applicant spends an inordinate amount of money he is looking to us to give him some sort of direction (on how we feel about the rezone).
Stempniak: We usually do a SEQR before a public hearing on a project but the developer asked us to have the SEQR pulled and the public hearing held first. They wanted some time to re-tool; as they put it to us.
Chowaniec: What Mr. Aquino said to me was of importance. I have seen the process go both ways in the past. Here you are telling me that the planning board made their determination based on land use. So if the applicant comes in and says he has resolved the environmental issues that were not addressed at the planning board, it should have no bearing on the findings (reasons) the planning board gave for its recommendation to the town board for rezone denial?
Fudoli: Correct.
Aquino: Yes, but it’s only a planning board recommendation.
Stempniak: Yes, it’s only a recommendation.
It is only a planning board recommendation to deny rezone approval for the Harris Hill Road project says the town board. They have the final say. The planning board determination was based on the following:
1. Project not in character with the neighborhood (Hamlet of Bowmansville)
2. Project will exacerbate traffic situation on Harris Hill and will effect Genesee Street in Bowmansville
3. Increase in density
4. Concerns with floodplains and wetland delineation
The Erie County Department of Public Works had issues with the two projects proposed for rezone. They are:
• No traffic study had been performed as of June 12, 2014
• The increased traffic from both high density projects would impact the Town of Clarence roads as well
• The rezones of single-family (R-1) dwellings to high density apartment complex developments are not in compliance with the Town of Lancaster/Village of Lancaster Comprehensive Plan – last updated in 2001.
• There are major sewer line hook up issues that have not been addressed
• There is an active quarry near the proposed Harris Hill apartment complex where blasting could have a major impact on dwelling foundations and cause other structural failures in the future
So if Mr. Natale convinces the residents and the town that his downsized concept (175 to 150 units) decreases the density, and where he now has mitigated other concerns with studies, what impact will that have on appropriate land use regarding the Comprehensive Plan, continuing density demands, traffic volume increase, character of neighborhood, quarry issues, etc?
The developer stated that with his rezoned project concept traffic would be less by half than that should the land be developed as zoned for single family use. How is that possible when instead of traffic coming from a total of 184 units, the 32.5 acre site would accommodate the building of approximately 114 single-family homes; based on the town code ordinance for R-1 zoned projects which states: Maximum density for sewered areas of development will be approximately three and five-tenths (3.5) dwelling units for gross area. 3,5 X 32.5 acres = 114 dwellings.
The builder bases his claim on the 175 apartment development being a senior complex for those 55 years of age and over and don’t travel much. Nonsense! In today’s world seniors work past the age of 70. Those that don’t are active and leave the site frequently.
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote