Reply With QuoteThis is from Chris Collins's Congressional web page:
Tom Geles, President of the Buffalo-Lancaster Regional Airport, made the following comment about the grant, “The safety project will permit removal of existing on-airport obstructions to the approaches of Runway 8-26 at Buffalo-Lancaster Airport. Removing the obstructions will also enable future implementation of safer instrument approach procedures for all users at the public use airport.”
One has to ask,
• What obstructions need removing that will cost $150,000; the home on Pavement Road, a shed and what else Mr. Geles?
• If the airport is not safe in its current operating condition Mr. Geles, just fine for single and twin engine aircraft, why is it still operating and why was this change not made with the $14 million the Buffalo-Lancaster Airport (BLA) has already received in federal and state grants?
• What does removing these ‘obstructions’ have to do with ‘enabling future implementation of safer instrument approach procedures for all users at the public use airport’ unless this is another backdoor approach to further expand the airport to allow for use of larger aircraft and jets and a ‘safer instrument approach’?.
The Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster (SACL) has every right to show concern regarding the purpose of this grant and to ask for an open investigation by the GAO – especially before a demolition permit is requested by BLA and granted by the Town of Lancaster Building Department. In fact, before a permit of any sort is granted the matter should go before the Town of Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals to determine eligibility.
This looks like another veiled attempt by Lancaster Airport Inc. to circumvent the language of the town code and to proceed with its expansion plans.
Town code:
On April 2, 2014, by a 6-1 vote the Town of Lancaster Planning Board (PB) denied recommending code text change to the Lancaster Town Board (TB); as requested by said TB.
The PB was charged with ‘clarifying’ use in a Light Industrial District and in making a determination whether the current code language in Section 50-24(B) (1) (f) of the Town of Lancaster Town Code instated in 1997 and reads: “Any commercial recreation activity [Special Use Permit Required], should be amended to read “Any commercial recreation activity including, but not limited to, private commercial airports (Special Use Permit required).
This text change would make the Buffalo- Lancaster Airport (BLA), a conforming use where it is now a nonconforming use and open the airport operation to further expansion.
While Republican Supervisor Dino Fudoli has openly expressed his disfavor with the airport expansion, the four Democratic council members have yet to the take action on the planning board recommendation and/or express opinion on the Planning Board recommendation to deny code language change.
From public hearings held on the matter and written correspondences submitted to the town and planning boards, Lancaster resident public opinion is overwhelmingly not in favor of further BLA expansion, but allowing the private/public airport to exist and operate as it currently does – despite its non-conformance status and having already expanded multiple times over its legal code limit.
Originally Posted by KevinL
