Reply With QuoteIn addition to 2006 master plan book (we have maps) "missing", entire airport environmental study also flawed. What a mess!Originally Posted by gshowell
The Master Plan sets the tone for development. A well conceived plan will allow for industrial, commercial, and residential development that minimizes conflict. A poorly conceived plan will create conflict similar to the one Lancaster is experiencing around the airport.
Lancaster’s current Master Plan mixes industrial, commercial, and residential development helter skelter, creating conflict throughout the town. Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas surrounding the airport.
In a well-planned community, there is room for airports and residential development. In a well-planed community, airports and residential areas are kept separate to avoid conflict.
There is a lot of noise over who was their first, the Lancaster Airport as it was, or the surrounding homes versus the Lancaster Airport as it is being upgraded. In this case, it’s irrelevant because the current Master Plan allowed for both to develop as they did. When you have a Master Plan that generates conflict and Town Board Members who lack the foresight to recognize conflict, you end up with the problems we are now experiencing.
If Lancaster’s current Master Plan was properly developed, many of the problems we now face would have been mitigated, or avoided completely.
In addition to 2006 master plan book (we have maps) "missing", entire airport environmental study also flawed. What a mess!
-execute properly
-projections long term
-mitigation generate proper resolutions
When you develop a masterplan, it is advantageous to incorporate what all of the impacts that will be relevant and acceptable with public as part of the MASTERPLAN!!!!!
True residents input and involvement
The number of "Public Questioneers" should reflect the Towns population. It should use a scattering sample areas Town Wide. All responses should be verified and documented.
No private developers should be involved in the actual locating of future building sites. The taxpayers should decide what should be included.
Our current "Master Plan" is and was a developers guide. Its a plan used to show County,State and Federal Agencies where they need new utilities for Developers. Its a plan that says,"We want to develop this green space." - then they set out to get the roads and utilities in motion - who pays - tax payers.
Start the process again and keep it limited to residents and taxpayers input.
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
Mate!!!!!
After years of review by the Town f Lancaster and the Villages of Lancaster and Depew, the “Comprehensive Plan” was approved on September 2, 2003. It was deemed not comprehensive by those not in elected office, lacked specificity in land use plans and was influenced by developer input.
On April 1st, 2001, a public hearing was held to listen to and evaluate public input (as well as written comments). 50 attendees were present and 17 commented on the Master Plan. In a correspondence titled “Additional Planning Board Comments on the Lancaster Master Plan,” dated June 6, 2001, the Planning Board comments portrayed the residents as being ill-informed and/or NIMBY’s; commenting that most were focused on problems near their homes. The correspondence closed by stating: “The Planning Board again recommends approval of the Master Plan as modified by the changes included in our comments of November 1, 2000 and by the maps submitted therein, and as elucidated by these comments (accepting not one public comment for consideration or change).
With their approval of the Master Plan, the Town accepted the Final Findings Statement. The following are a few Findings that rancor some residents:
Findings Statement – Facts and Conclusions
Specific land use plans have yet to be developed and cannot be completed until additional project specific studies are completed. The implications of the plan that develops from the additional project specific study/planning may have some environmental impacts. The town will address these specific land use plans at the time the plans are considered for adoption.
Convoluting, smoke and mirror language use meaning “we are not going to be specific on land use at this time, but will act accordingly when a project comes before us in the future. This plan leads to all the rezones that have appeared over the decade and the further asinine rezones of rezones.
Findings Statement – Facts and Conclusions
The Comprehensive Plan is both a mitigation document and a proactive means to address the many issues that have arisen and will arise in the town. The recommendations and action items will help the town to focus on a common vision, continues to address current issues that face the community, and prepare for anticipated future development and associated impacts.
• The Plan is not a mitigative document. It contains recommendations and clearly states that mitigative measures will be taken when individual projects come before the Town and Planning Boards.
• The issues that have arisen in town have resulted from current and past Town & Planning Boards that have favored developer and special interest groups over the best interests of their residents. This document was no more proactive in addressing future issues than in the past; as is exemplified by the Lancaster Buffalo Airport fiasco.
• In the Findings statement, this document is defined as strategic. Nonsense, it is filled with “recommendations”.
• The use of the word “vision” in this town is an abomination. Whereas the document calls for rail systems, walk-able communities with local retail stores, interconnectivity between neighborhoods, etc., we have overburdened primary and secondary road (where subdivisions are connected for the express purpose of moving traffic off main roads), traffic safety issues, destruction of open space and filling in of wetlands for developer profit, exclusion of neighborhood playgrounds, sewer capacity issues, etc.
Findings Statement – Local Laws, Codes and Ordinances
The Town of Lancaster should update its zoning ordinance and zoning map to reflect the changes outlined in the future land use plan and to protect historical/architecturally significant areas.
It was stated in earlier Findings that “specific land use plans” have yet to be developed. How is it possible to update zoning ordinances and map covers when in reality there is no strategic plan in place? But then again, it was labeled a “living document,” one I would imagine means map covers can be amended at will – resulting in rezones of rezones.
Findings Statement – Thresholds for Future SEQR Actions
Since the Comprehensive Plan and GEIS (Generic Environmental Impact Statement) do not propose and/or evaluate specific land uses and related actions, and therefore have not established SEQR thresholds, all future actions by the Town Board, Planning Board, or Zoning Board relative to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan that would allow the adoption of land use plans and policies or modifications of zoning and subdivision regulations and local laws should be reviewed.
This is not a comprehensive plan in any way, shape or manner. It is not a strategic plan as it lacks specificity. This plan offers no mitigative substance or direction to best serve the community and the environment. This convoluted, meaningless document allows the town to continue acting in such manner that favors developer and town best interests over that of the community and environment.
I was at the meeting Lee is referring to. Lee and I were among the people who spoke. It was extremely upsetting to learn that the Town considered those who spoke as ill-informed. What they didn't know was, we read the Master Plan and that Lee, myself, and several others previously attended state-sponsored seminars on the SEQR process. The seminars were designed for planning and zoning board members, but anyone could attend. Lee, myself, and others were not ill-informed. We put time into studying the document and learning about the process.
Since the master plan was adopted, the town board has ignored and/or openly made planning decisions that are contrary to what's in the plan that they approved.
At times, I get the distinct impression that certain board members never read the plan.
On the other hand, as Lee says, "This is not a comprehensive plan in any way, shape or manner. It is not a strategic plan as it lacks specificity. This plan offers no mitigative substance or direction to best serve the community and the environment. This convoluted, meaningless document allows the town to continue acting in such manner that favors developer and town best interests over that of the community and environment."
Which is why the plan needs to be revised, to become a living document.
Gary:
It was nice to hear you label us as only being ill-informed. Through the years, you and others like us questioning and challenging town board activities have been labeled Obstructionists, NIMBY's, Cave Dwellers, Fossils, and worse.
Good luck on your endeavor to bring political change to the town. Fight the good fight by sticking with the issues; there are many. Should the other side resort to their usual mud-slinging tactics, as they have little else to go on, others will address the charges.
Some comments on the Alden comprehensive plan survey -
What things in the Town would you like to see stay the same?
Don’t become Clarence or Lancaster - don't have a lot of new development
Regardless of the monetary profit - don't turn farmland into prime real estate
Where should residential development occur?
Anywhere in the Towns of Lancaster, Cheektowaga, etc.
What type of housing is needed in Alden?
Don't become another Lancaster - keep new single-family residential limited
Other Comments:
Keep growth managed and slow (what's the big rush?)
Local officials need better understanding of State and Fed. regulations (soil, water, etc.)
There is too much non-taxable land in Alden - need jobs and tax base increases
We need to be good, responsible stewards of our land - preserve for next generations
http://alden.erie.gov/pdfs/survey_results_4-28-09.pdf
There were only 129 respondents. Just wonder if Lancaster were to have a similar survey, if there would be more responses.
Georgia L Schlager
I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't read it with my own eyes. not good news for the folks on the town board or for us for that matter.
The town board creates the problems and when the residents complain, the town board tells them it's the resident's fault.
Wow, same here.
Excellent find Gorja. This is the kind of stuff that has substance. I had heard the same sentiments a few years ago when working with the Alden Coalition to keep Wal-Mart out of their town. It confirms what some of us have been saying for years, namely, Town of Lancaster residents have been subjected to dumb growth principles, patronage practices, the rape of our greenspace, etc., while our status quo government continues.
Speaking of patronage jobs, one has to look no farther than at the appointees on the Lancaster Planning and Zoning Boards. It's so bad that a former Republican Party Chair switched sides and wrote a letter to the Town Board stating he would never actively participate in any future Republican Party campaigns. Needless to say, he got the position. So, by the time a rezone, site plan approval gets to the Town Board for resolution approval, it's a done deal. The project/proposal approval has been worked out behind the scenes.
It's funny cause besides hearing comments about how bad Lancaster is, my friends who live in other towns are always asking me how the hell I can afford the taxes in lancaster. I wonder the same things myself.
The town board creates the problems and when the residents complain, the town board tells them it's the resident's fault.
I also wonder why we pay so much just to get aggravated.
I've never seen the Master Plan, so I can't comment on the specifics of it. The below random comments are in theory:
- Regarding the airport: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current problems with the airport exist, not because the airport is there, but because of its recent growth. Did the Master Plan address the possible future growth of the airport? As far as how, or where, an airport should be located -- I can only think of two other local small airports: West Seneca is right in the middle of a densely populated area, and Akron can't really be compared as the population is much different (sparser) than Lancaster.
- As far as developers being involved...I think they should be - to some extent. Their input, along with that of the residents, and business owners, should all be taken into account. You can't plan development, without getting the input from the people who will actually be doing the building.
- Just for the record, I don't think taxes are higher in the Town of Lancaster than other nearby Towns. I don't have a list of tax rates, but it wouldn't be that hard to get -- (Gorja are you willing to take that assignment?)
- How do Master Plans work? How often do they usually get updated?
- The way to curb residential growth is to decrease building lot requirements. Make it so that each residential building lot for a single-family house has to be 1/4, or 1/2 acre. The only people that this will hurt are the handful of families/individuals that own the few remaining large lots (mostly farms,) as this will substantially decrease their land values. Developers won't even care, as their land acquisition costs just went down. They will buy the land cheaper - sure they won't be able to build as many homes, but the ones they do build will be larger (ie increasing the tax base,) and more valuable. Maybe we'll get nicer looking subdivisions, instead of the cookie cutter crap that's been built so far.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
