Lancaster declares Harris Hill project void of significant impacts at SEQR

[Lee Chowaniec]

At a SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) hearing held by the Town of Lancaster Municipal Review Committee (MRC), made up of members from both the town and planning boards, the members unanimously declared there were no potential significant adverse impacts associated with the rezone application; to rezone 38 acres of Residential District One (R-1) property at 375 & 391 Harris Hill Road to Multi-Family District Four (MFR-4) zoning for the purpose of constructing a 150 unit senior apartment complex and 9 single-family homes.

Supervisor Fudoli declared that the SEQR was being held on the rezone petition and on the project construction impacts; not the project site plan. He also asked the planning board members whether they had received the EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) that the rezone applicant had provided since the public hearing was held; and which included the traffic study. The planning board affirmed they had seen the new EAF, that it was not the plan submitted to them in the past, and that they would consider the new information provided to determine SEQR findings based on the scope ofthe rezone consideration.

When addressing the potential impacts on the SEQR long form, the MRC determined:

Small impact from 500-year floodplain; no impact from 100-year floodplain

Small-to-moderate impact to Archeological/Historical Resources – Gipple cabin moved off property, if any artifacts are found while digging takes place, it can be stopped

Small impact to transportation at Wherle Drive and Pleasant View Drive intersections – no was answer given to 500 or more vehicles a day – again this is based on scope of rezone SEQR

No impact regarding solid waste increase

No impacts concerning land over-usage or zoning regulations. Fudoli asked if that should be worded yes because its’ a rezone. Other board members declared that it’s only a different usage and the answer given was no.

Small impact to consistency of community character given because of greater demand of community services – police and fire; none to schools as it is a senior apartment complex and with only 9 single-family dwellings (patio homes).

The MRC unanimously declared there were no significant potential impacts associated with the project itself. The project now goes back to the planning board for site plan review.

Public comment session on pre-filed resolutions

Resident Mike Fronczak informed the board he was never asked at the public hearing whether he was a proponent or opponent to the rezone. He declared that considering all the positive press the media was giving the project, with little or no mention of the residents who voiced open opposition or reservations, he wanted it put on record that he opposed the rezoning of the site from R-1 (single-family) zoning to MFR-4 (multiple-family) zoning.

Writer addressed board at regular public comment session

Declaring I am not against development, especially development that meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and the character of the neighbor, I find the process involved with tonight’s SEQR on the Harris Hill project most confusing; as confusing as the process that led to tonight’s SEQR.

• On May 21, 2014 the planning board recommends the town board to deny rezone of the Harris Hill project based on their findings.

• On July 7, 2014 the developer appears before the town board at its work session with a new concept (reducing senior apartment complex units from 175 -150) and requests they hold a public hearing on the rezone petition ASAP as he wishes to not proceed and spend more money if the rezone is denied. The town board agrees to fast-track it and schedules the public hearing for the next town board meeting.

• On July 21, 2014 the public is held and five neighbors spoke in support of the project declaring it would be better than having a single-family subdivision with 50-60 homes. The developer leads the neighbors to believe the 150 apartment complex + 9 single-family homes would bring the same amount of vehicular traffic as seniors 55 and up who will reside in the apartments. He also comes to an agreement with the neighbors that they can use the amenities that come with the project – pool, club house, tennis court, greenhouse, a walkway to enter the 20 acres of NYS Regulated Wetlands.

• Six other residents openly stated they opposed the rezone, or gave reasons and concerns for denial consideration. With the exception of the Lancaster Bee, the other media sources choose to point out that the reaction at the public hearing was favorable for the rezone and mention nothing about the potential adverse impacts brought to light by other residents.

• On August 4, 2014 the town board holds a SEQR and declares the SEQR is only being held to consider whether significant adverse potential environmental impacts are involved with the project in itself. They find none and make a negative declaration. What is confusing is that the SEQR questions asked on transportation and fire/police resources where dealt with as if the project were already built and filled, and not what impacts would come from only the development construction.

• It is my opinion that this SEQR should not be used to base rezone approval on; especially since it was declared the new concept is going back to the planning board for their site plan consideration, determination and recommendation to the town board based on their findings.

No rezone approval should be given until the planning board makes its determination and recommendation to the town board on the new site plan concept and where a full blown SEQR is performed on the site plan and where the involved governmental agencies have had their say. In 15 years of attending town board meetings, planning board meetings and SEQR’S I have never witnessed such a convoluted process.

Other

It is mind-boggling to understand how the developer cajoled the neighbors into believing a 150 senior apartments + 9 single family homes project could have less vehicular traffic than a 50-60 single-family home subdivision; especially when he made it publically known at the public hearing that it would be very difficult to sell single-family homes to prospective buyers knowing there is a quarry nearby and with the volume of traffic on Harris Hill.

The petitioner engineer then states that with a dissatisfied apartment unit owner if for whatever reason they can decide to leave they can do so at any given time. A property invested homeowner would be hard pressed to do the same. It would appear here that the developer considers senior apartment second class citizens. I have to wonder how those apartment dwellers (especially the ones paying $1,400 for a two bedroom apartment) will cozy up to sharing amenities with complex non dwellers Of course the promise of use of project amenities and land conveyance may have clouded some of the neighbors thinking.

The MRC’S determination that there will only be small traffic impacts at the intersections is ludicrous when one considers there will be no turning lane or signalization at the access point to the apartment complex. So vehicles heading north on Harris Hill will not be impacted by apartment dwellers trying to make a left turn into the complex; on an already overburdened two-lane county road? But when this was brought up at the SEQR, the reply given was that the SEQR was strictly to consider impacts associated with the rezone and not the new concept plan presented at the public hearing. A very confusing SEQR in my mind and one I find had no merit except for giving the developer a signal that the new, less dense project is eligible for rezone.

The new concept will go back to the planning board for review and if recommended for approval another SEQR will be held on the site plan. I could very well be looking at this incorrectly, but declaring no significant impacts were associated with the project rezone is a gateway to getting rezone approval and in influencing the planning board in coming to a determination that project meets the requirements of the zoning code and comprehensive plan. How can the town not consider the potential significant adverse impacts that exist with site plan (and their mitigation) before considering rezone approval. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I agree with Supervisor Dino Fudoli when he advocated the surplus sale of a piece of town owned land-locked piece of property to a developer with the result that the useless piece of property (less than an acre in size) would profit both the developer and town with tax revenue. Here is an example where the town should not cave in to a developer and approve a rezone on a piece of property that holds little possibility for R-1 zoned housing just so that the town could profit in tax revenue. The objective here should be what’s in the best interest of the entire community, not a developer and neighbors promised use of amenities.

The neighbors that support the project declared at the public hearing that they had more standing than those residents who live in town, but six miles away. I would not hesitate to guess that any of those travelling this busy two-lane road (near 16,000 vehicular trips daily) would assert that they have a considerable say in the matter.

[4248]

New Direction = Segmentation of past practice. Supervisor Fudoli is letting the tail wag the dog .

It would appear whats happening is a new form of "Segmentation" among other things - instead of following "Past Practices" for considering and approving development. The new way is to ignore planning Board reviews - reshape the SEQR process and pretend the completed project affects don't matter!

Its definitely a new direction and one has to wonder if its legal.

Unfortunately the Towns Controlling Members realize - no matter who complains - what the facts are - no matter what the County says - they wont be held accountable by any legal authority.

Elections are the only thing that matters to these people - there is but one consideration when developers are involved - MONEY !

With so many real-estate minded/funded lawyers involved in Lancaster's Politics - they will do what ever it takes.

[shortstuff]

The process convoluted -- I agree. Shame on the residents that were easily taken in. Shame on the neighborhood for not coming and voicing their opinion. For those who will complain down the road--vote with your feet.

The deal made that the amenities are easily accessible - better be in writing because technically they cannot provide that service unless-these people are part of the HOA Declaration by-laws in addition, they would need to pay a fee.

I hope that the Planning Board continues to use common sense when presenting this project. I hope that if the surrounding neighbors are negative on this project-get off your couches and let your voice be heard!

[Lee Chowaniec]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...ridge-20140806

WASHINGTON – Peace Bridge Authority Chairman Sam Hoyt said state officials had “brainwashed” potential opponents of plaza renovations at the bridge in order to win their support.

“The Peace Bridge appears to exemplify boosterism trampling ethics,” said Jeff Ruch, PEER’s executive director. “There is a pattern of underhanded, deceitful actions employed by multiple government agencies, which treat legal requirements as speed bumps to be run over to reach their desired destination.”

“This type of activity makes a mockery of what is supposed to be an objective environmental analysis,” Ruch said.


Any similarity between this report and the Harris Hill project is non related, or is it?