Fairway Hills subdivision rezone SEQR adoption draws public opposition

[Lee Chowaniec]

At Monday evenings Lancaster Town Board meeting, the board unanimously voted to adopt a SEQR negative declaration on the Marrano Fairway Hills development application to change the Zoning Map (zoning code) from R-I/AG to MFR-3 Fairway Hills project located at 00 & 5425 William Street to allow for the building of 112 patio homes. The board also set a public hearing for the rezone petition for the meeting of August 15th.

Several residents decided not to wait for the public hearing to voice immediate displeasure with the town adopting a SEQR negative declaration that no potential environmental impacts were associated with the rezoning of the land. They all voiced that the opposition was not against development at this location, but that the site should be developed as currently zoned (R-1). This rezone allows for an increase in density and as such:

• Increases the volume of traffic on already overburdened two-lane county roads – especially William Street.

• Increase sanitary sewer discharges that would tax the sewer systems in the town and Villages and where sewer backup issues already exist.

• The change in zoning does not fit with the character of the neighborhood or the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Natale Builders were denied MFR-3 rezone status several years ago for same reason when petitioning to build a patio home complex along William Street. The closest patio home development is at the Broadway Bowen Road intersection.

• More density (homes/population) puts more burdens on town and police services and already overburdened roads.

• A patio home development with private roads and a Home Owner’s Association makes it eligible for Condominium Law 339-y tax breaks – property, school and county. That the developer has yet to apply for such status proves nothing*

Town Board responses
I found the following responses not only misleading but in some cases double-speak.

*Supervisor Dino Fudoli: In the past zoning grew faster that revenue came in; caused everyone’s taxes to go up. There is one way to change that direction. Revenue has to go up faster than expenditure. Have we done a cost/benefit analysis of everything, no? As a town supervisor, when I compose my budget, my objective is to make sure that as I grow the town and population increases revenues outpace expenditures. Making an assumption that there would be a burden on the services and it would cost more money to the taxpayer, it may cost more money but less cost per resident. My objective when I ran for this office was very clear, to grow the government less than the revenue coming in and develop our way out of what I thought was an unsustainable position. I have lowered taxes two years in a row and intend to do so with the budget coming up in a few weeks. More revenue may allow for widening the roads in the future.

(Comment: What roads is Fudoli referring to? It is the two-lane county roads that are overburdened and Fudoli recently stated the town can’t do anything about county roads? In addition we were informed by the police chief at the last meeting that it is a matter of increased volume caused by more building and that there is likely no solution to the traffic issues. And yet the town continues to build-out and here is considering rezoning this land to allow for more even home building than it is currently zoned for.)

Councilman Mark Aquino: These are patio homes and there are no reduced taxes. It is not a condo development; unless it is a condo development, which I do not think it is.

Fudoli: There is no 339-y condo tax break for this development.

Resident: But they will be eligible to apply for it?

Fudoli: That may be able to do that afterward, but they haven’t yet.

Resident: No, but they have time to do so after site plan approval and before the first house is built, marketed and/or occupied.

Fudoli: Condo status and tax breaks have to come from the State Attorney General’s Office and they have been more reticent to approve such projects for tax breaks. The Attorney General’s office is scrutinizing these projects a lot more than they used to. This is due to government becoming more expensive, where services cost more money and there is a pressure not to grant so many of these Condo 339-y applications. I am not saying this is specific for Lancaster, but across the state. This developer has not applied for such status; as yet.

Council member Donna Stempniak: It is not the action of the rezone that triggers the Condo 339-y status. Our code does not allow small lots sizes like proposed. We have 75 foot lots. To get the patio homes onto the smaller lots we have to have MFR-3 zoning. Maybe we need to change our code so that we don’t have to have a rezone for patio homes. Maybe we should include those in with single family homes because they are single family homes on smaller lots. So it is not the rezone that will trigger 339-y. What triggers the application is going condo. **

There is some confusion on this rezone. Twenty years ago this is the same project where people were going to put a subdivision the way it is and a golf course. They never did. Marrano came and purchased the land around it and made Summerfield Farms. There is a phase 7 of Summerfield Farms that is going on. I think that, together with the patio homes, is a 112. I don’t believe this patio project is for 112 homes. (At this point Town Engineer Robert Harris corrected Stempniak and said the project being discussed is for 112 patio homes.) But there were going to be homes there; I forgot how many, 70 or so. So they could build that tomorrow without any further action from us.

So the planning board took a look at this and said the 112 patio home makes sense. There will be a spur street that comes off and going through Summerfield Farms. (Phase 7 of Summerfield Farms and yet to be built) and two homes are going to come of a cu-de-sac. The town doesn’t like cul-de-sacs but by them making their own private road they can do anything they want because they have to take care of the roads. The bottom line is that there are additional homes, maybe 30-40; maybe 45 or something else that was initially planned here.

So we are re-tooling something that was on the planning board. They were going to put up a big wall that would look like a fence that would look ugly; and then the Henslow Sparrows came and stopped all development. The sparrows are all gone and the subdivision is being approved. And then, looking at the trend of housing, Marrano decided more patio homes were the thing and they came to us.

** (Comment) The town does have a zoning code classification for single-family homes on smaller lots; it’s called R-2. This rezone is nothing more than once again favoring a developer who has received past rezones to develop as he believes is best for his market needs and not in the best interest of the community. If the lot sizes are smaller than required by R-2 code, then the code should be first changed and that it is stipulated that the development is not eligible to apply for 339-y status to get site plan approval.

If approved, this rezone allows for the building of 112 patio homes on 277 acres of land that is primarily in Lancaster Wetland 17; on smaller lots and where from examining the concept drawing 17 of the lots appear to be completely or partially in the wetland.

No one is against developing this site as it is currently zoned. How anyone cannot see how this rezone negatively impacts the best interest of the community while it favors the developer profit line and the town by increasing the revenue stream, while ridding the town the responsibility from maintaining the private road is beyond me. It is a win/win for the developer and town at the cost of resident best interests.

[4248]

Why - why did anyone assume it would have went any other way?

Sorry Lee - I know you and many others had great hopes for this guy !

Maybe they are right - we should just get into the business of making money off development and sit at the Country Club with Councilmember D.(Bulldozer) Stempniak !

Well one good thing - if he wants to cut or hold the line on taxes - he's got to put his foot down on unneeded patronage.

Maybe eliminate the Parks Boss Patronage post ! - NA - his shoes ain't big enough !

[Lee Chowaniec]

What is disturbing is that this project is being marketed by both the developer and the town as being in best interests for the community as a whole. It may bring the developer a needed marketing developing venue and the town more tax revenue, but the project does not fit the character of the neighborhood and the increased housing density adversely impacts the community as a whole – in several environmental ways.

The town believes it’s a worthy project because of the added revenue and the fact that the roads within the project will be maintained by an association.

The town seems to be doing well in the housing market. Lancaster is a hot commodity for housing sales both new and used.

Consider that since the beginning of 2013 new town development consisted of the following:

300 building permit applications were filed with the Building Department

185 single family homes
4 Two family homes
16 Patio homes
29 Townhomes
66 Residential apartment building units

$544,036 - Permit application fee (Grand Total)

$86,965,875 – Project cost (Grand Total)

So, do we need to squeeze in another 40 MFR-3 patio homes on a site that is zoned for AG/R-1 development; that disturbs a state regulated wetland; that further impacts traffic and sewer issues, a project that does not fit the character of the neighborhood? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately, the professional media blows this project off as being un-newsworthy.

[shortstuff]

I'm going to weigh in on this topic, might not be a popular post from me.

1. The town board members need to get acquainted with the difference between Patio Homes & Single Family Homes.
2. The town board members need to know that each township can determine whether they welcome 339-y status or not. Example- Orchard Park is currently undergoing their first Patio Home Community. Orchard Park does not allow 339-y status. However, they are calling their homes a Patio Home Community because an HOA common ground area will exist. The difference with OP is that the town will be responsible for plowing the streets. In reference to this current project on Bowen Road (Fairway Hills) the board members indicated that indeed the streets will be plowed by a private company where the residents will pay in addition to the town taxes. What that tells me is that an HOA status will exist. Invariably, this developer will apply for 339-y status. Not applying would not be a selling factor when it comes to marketing this community.
3. The town board members are talking about increasing the development while dwindling/downsizing the government. This should bring in more revenue. In theory that is correct, HOWEVER if the infrastructure does not support the development, down the road the taxpayers will have to foot the bill by bonding for infrastructure improvements. That will add a tax burden onto the taxpayers.

Mark my words, if this developer applies for 339-y status and gets it, the revenue won't be as significant as the board members projected. I will be one unhappy taxpayer!

[gorja]

I'm going to weigh in on this topic, might not be a popular post from me.

1. The town board members need to get acquainted with the difference between Patio Homes & Single Family Homes.
2. The town board members need to know that each township can determine whether they welcome 339-y status or not. Example- Orchard Park is currently undergoing their first Patio Home Community. Orchard Park does not allow 339-y status. However, they are calling their homes a Patio Home Community because an HOA common ground area will exist. The difference with OP is that the town will be responsible for plowing the streets. In reference to this current project on Bowen Road (Fairway Hills) the board members indicated that indeed the streets will be plowed by a private company where the residents will pay in addition to the town taxes. What that tells me is that an HOA status will exist. Invariably, this developer will apply for 339-y status. Not applying would not be a selling factor when it comes to marketing this community.
3. The town board members are talking about increasing the development while dwindling/downsizing the government. This should bring in more revenue. In theory that is correct, HOWEVER if the infrastructure does not support the development, down the road the taxpayers will have to foot the bill by bonding for infrastructure improvements. That will add a tax burden onto the taxpayers.

Mark my words, if this developer applies for 339-y status and gets it, the revenue won't be as significant as the board members projected. I will be one unhappy taxpayer!

Right on the money, shortie. Isn't that what happened in another Lancaster patio home community? When sales were flat, the developer applied for the 339-y status. Wasn't that the one on Bowen Rd near Broadway?

[shortstuff]

I believe so gorja. Stupid is as stupid gets, taxes in Lancaster are pretty significant so not applying for the 339-y status would be unlikely (Lancaster welcomes this). They will want a return on their money. Do you honestly think a homeowner is going to pay the high taxes that already exist in Lancaster (which include plowing services-we are a full service town you know) & privatized plowing in addition to the HOA fees to maintain the common grounds? I think not!