|
Proposal to rezone land is incompatible with Town's Master Plan (Part 1)
It is difficult to understand how anyone could read the Town’s Comprehensive Master Plan Update, approved in March 2002, or any of the other facts surrounding its development and conclude that the properties on Paul Road were recommended for rezoning to General Business.
The Master Plan is very specific about the type of commercial development it views as appropriate for this area. It recognizes that although this land may provide an opportunity for new commercial development, this land is in the midst of densely populated residential neighborhoods. PNOD provides the ideal zoning for this type of area. PNOD is defined as follows:
Planned Neighborhood Overlay District. Provides criteria, standards and procedures for the integrated development of vacant sites into a neighborhood setting containing a mix of residential and commercial land uses.
A careful review of the Master Plan documents reveals that there is no place in this document where it is specifically written that a rezoning to General Business is recommended for these particular properties. But there are many references to encouraging commercial development utilizing the mixed use concept of PNOD. For example:
Appendix B of the
Comprehensive Master Plan Update approved in March of 2002 contains
the SEQR documentation required as part of the official update
process. This official SEQR document was signed by the Town's paid
consultant Ron Brand on 1/10/02. In Part 3, Evaluation of the
Importance of Impacts, in the section titled "Proposed
Action", and in the subsection titled "Land Use-
Commercial", all recommended land use changes are listed,
including recommendations to change a number of areas from
Residential to General Business (Page 19).
The only mention of the Paul
Road/Chili Ave/Chili Center Area in the SEQR documentation is under
the category "Land Use - PNOD" where it refers to the area of land
which includes the 36 acres previously recommended for commercial
zoning as Restricted Business. This passage states:
Consistent with the recommendations made in the Master Plan, this land was indeed officially rezoned to PNOD by the Town Board in October of 2003.
If the Master Plan Update Committee was recommending that the properties in question be considered for General Business use, this would have to be identified in the SEQR documents as well as at the Public Hearings that were held on the proposed updates to the plan. No such documentation was provided in the SEQR Application. The information above shows that it was PNOD that was recommended. And no such recommendation for GB was mentioned at any Public Hearing. As a matter of fact, the Public Hearing minutes also refers to the properties in question as being recommended for PNOD.
Proof that the Master Plan Update never recommended that the properties in question be rezoned to GB can be found in the minutes of the August 15, 2001 Public Hearing on “The Town of Chili Comprehensive Master Plan 2010 Update”. The properties in question are only briefly mentioned, but this discussion also supports the fact that the recommendation was for PNOD zoning rather than GB:
Gary McLendon, Staff Writer
for the Democrat and Chronicle in his April 13, 2001 article titled
"Panel
defends zoning changes: Chili Master Plan
Committee says town's rural character will be kept"
reported: A zoning overlay district is proposed for the Chili Center Area that will foster further commercial development."
And the Master Plan itself states:
Paul Road (east of Chili Ave) The Chili Center Subarea includes another area where a mix of Planned Neighborhood Overlay District and General Business District would be used leaving the wetland area and the single family residences toward Archer Road. A PNOD District is recommended to replace the existing restricted business and single family residential zones in this area." (from Chapter 5- Plan Update Synthesis and Implementation, February 2001. 5-6) There is no other passage in the Master Plan that is more definitive or clearer than the paragraph above as to what the Master Plan is recommending for the properties in question. I challenge anyone to point out anything in the Master Plan which is equivalent in its clarity that contradicts this paragraph.
Additional paragraphs referring to the area in question: “Amend the zoning map
for…the area on the South side of Paul Road, between Archer and the
wetlands that parallel Chili Avenue, changing the zoning from
restricted business and single family residential development to
correspond to the mixed residential development proposed in the
plan”. (Chapter 5-17) Once again, a recommendation
to rezone to GB is never mentioned. So someone might want to ask the question:
The answer to that question may have to do with the work done by one of the subcommittees that worked on the plan. One of these subcommittees, which was Chaired by Beverly Griebel, did make this recommendation. But as you can see in the passage below, this recommendation was rejected for very good reason. Note that the speaker, Ron Brand, was the paid consultant who worked with the committee on the Master Plan Update. This paragraph is from Page 5 of the 3/1/01 meeting minutes of the Comprehensive Master Plan Update Committee, their final meeting before holding their Public Information Meeting:
Perhaps the discussions about the subcommittee recommendation is the source of this confusion. It is difficult to know for certain. But one thing is certain: The Master Plan recommended PNOD for these properties and the reasoning behind this recommendation is very clear in the above paragraph. There may have been some confusion about the way PNOD could be implemented. Perhaps someone in the group thought that you could apply a PNOD over property that is zoned GB (which is incorrect). Clearly the priority was to provide a transition to protect the adjacent residential properties and neighborhoods to the east and north. The Master Plan recommended PNOD to provide this protection.
As the discussion continues, there appears to be some confusion, as they seem to be talking about applying PNOD over GB or perhaps in its place. It is difficult to know for certain. But the final decision to apply PNOD from Wegman’s up to 300 feet before Archer Road is agreed to on Page 6: (see below)
Then later, on page 17 of these same minutes, the decision regarding PNOD is once again confirmed:
At the April 5, 2001 meeting, which is the Comprehensive Master Plan Update Committee's Public Information meeting, here is what Ron Brand said to the citizens of Chili about these properties and what the committee was recommending:
"Other
recommendations of the plan for land use changes call for a Planned
Neighborhood Overlay (PNOD) approach to the Chili Center area, which
regulations were drafted about a year and a half ago."
At the next and final meeting, before sending their recommendations on to the Planning Board the Comprehensive Master Plan Update Committee met on May 10, 2001. At this meeting, Mr. Brand explains to the audience the committee’s rationale for recommending PNOD zoning. He states:
"Planned Neighborhood Overlay (PNOD) is a unique approach to developing a neighborhood and developing an overall plan for that neighborhood and showing that overall plan for before the zoning is changed...So the overlay approach has many different uses in Chili, and it is an approach that adds additional prerequisites to development because of the sensitivity of the areas that we have looked at... You are providing for additional uses to be allowed, but you're also providing additional standards for those uses to be allowed so that they do not create adverse impacts on the neighborhood."
Clearly the kind of commercial development being recommended for these properties is not what would be associated with a General Business zoning. It is a "mixed use" approach which utilizes an Overlay District (PNOD).
Nowhere in any of the discussions or documentation do we find a specific recommendation to change the underlying zoning beneath the PNOD overlay from Restricted Business to General Business.
Another compelling fact is that John Nowicki, who was a member of the Master Plan Update Committee that made its recommendations in 2002 and is now a member of the current Planning Board , voiced his disagreement with North American Properties (NAP) at the December 12, 2005 Planning Board Meeting when NAP claimed that their rezoning request was consistent with the Master Plan. They specifically referenced the Future Land Use Map and the Master Plan as supporting a rezoning of those properties to General Business. John Nowicki disagreed . The Planning Board's chairman, Jim Martin, also disagreed with NAP. And finally, Dennis Schulmerich, Town Board member and liaison to the committee also voices his skepticism about NAP's claim and says that NAP’s proposal “seems in direct contrast with our Master Plan”. No one on the current Planning Board expressed their agreement with NAP.
And ironically, Mr. Fallone himself, who owns 36 of the 52 acres that NAP is trying to have rezoned to General Business is on record confirming the PNOD recommendation in the Master Plan. At the October 15, 2003 Town Board meeting, Mr. Fallone and his representative, Don Carpenter made the following remarks:
More recently, Mr. Fallone was represented by Mr. Caruso at the 3/31/05 Planning Board meeting to discuss his development concepts for this same property.
MR. CARUSO: “The next slide is one that I tried to present to you in a larger format, but this is the entire blow up this area right here (indicating)… The zoning in the area generally tends to go from commercial at the Wegmans area, to residential which is Clay Hill and the Vistas. We looked at the key stone parcel, which is the PNOD you just recently approved and it was rezoned at the Town Board level. The reason is that the PNOD is that transition zoning that you were looking for, which has its elements of -- the elements of commercial development along its westerly line, transitions to high density residential to single-family residential here (indicating). The Villas parcel is a key parcel why it was rezoned to PNOD…So basically what we did was just generally looked around the area and said are there any recommendations to the zoning change that would benefit the area at this time? We really didn't see one.” (Page 1)
And then later on:
MR. ROBINSON: “I'm Tom Robinson, from Environmental Design and Research in Rochester, EDR. Very pleased to be here tonight and working with John (Caruso). It is great to coordinate projects. EDR is environmental scientists, landscaping, architects, civil engineers and surveyors. We tend to get involved in projects with specific challenges with environmental features or historical features. That is why Bob (Fallone) approached us and together we have been developing the site plan that addresses the PNOD, the Planned Neighborhood Overlay Development trying to achieve mixed use, balanced appropriate uses in the Town of Chili. The key factors are transitions from existing features and off-site features. There are single-family residences on the other side of Paul Road. We're establishing … something that will make an appropriate transition with the context across Paul Road.” (Page 15)
Even the owner of one of the properties in question seems to acknowledge the need for PNOD type development in this area and the fact that this area was recommended for such development.
At a recent Town Board meeting, the out of town developer, NAP, pointed to a black and white Future Land Use Map and claimed that this map (see below) shows the area in question as recommended for rezoning to General Business. But on this map, the area in question has dark black shading that does not correspond to anything in the key. It also does not match any other area that is known to be zoned as GB, including the nearby Wegman’s property and Chili Paul Plaza. This map is vague at best and proves nothing. Yet NAP claims it is proof that their interpretation of our Town's plan is correct. Also note that the property in the smaller circle is also colored in that same dark black color. This represents the land on the West side of Coldwater Road between Chestnut Ridge and the I-490 Interchange. Does the developer claim that this land is also recommended by the Master Plan for rezoning to General Business? Such a recommendation was also never approved in 2002 as part of the Update to the Master Plan. Clearly this map proves nothing as it is vague and full of inaccuracies. It raises more questions than it answers!
It is interesting that this out of town developer believes that their interpretation of our Town’s Comprehensive Master Plan is correct and dismisses anyone else’s point of view. NAP even had its attorney claim that their interpretation could defeat a legal challenge! NAP makes these claims despite the fact that long-time Chili residents who actually worked with the committee that wrote the plan, or who voted as a member of the Board that approved the plan, or have worked extensively over the years utilizing the plan are skeptical at best about NAP’s claims. (i.e. Ginny Ignatowski, Dennis Schulmerich, Mike Slattery, Mary Sperr, Jim Martin, John Nowicki, Mike Nyhan,etc).
Consider the statements below by Ginny Ignatowski, Town Councilwoman and a member of the committee that developed the 2002 Update to the Town's Master Plan; and Mike Nyhan, Chairman of the committee that developed the 2006 Update recommendations:
From the
September 6, 2006 Master Plan Update Public Hearing: COUNCILWOMAN
IGNATOWSKI: … "When I read through this, basically it
struck me pretty much reaffirming the Master Plan we currently have
with some additional suggestions. That is the impression that I had.
I would imagine that the majority of the people that are here this
evening are probably here because of the parcel of land that is
between Wegmans and The Fathers House. While this is not a rezoning
public hearing, it is certainly a -- the plan for that area. Two
years ago, the developer came forward to this Board with the
interpretation that this Master Plan was to have it be a mixed use
PNOD overlay for transition. The Planning Board understood that to
be the interpretation, as did the Town Board, and we went ahead and
voted for it. Before I begin with a comment, I want to make it
clear, because I did have some conversation with some of the members
of this Committee that was also this Committee's interpretation that
that particular parcel as stated in the Master Plan was to be a
transition from the heavy commercial that is existing in Wegmans
down to The Fathers House. I would just like to have that be very
clear to myself and probably other people." MR. NYHAN: "Yes, that's correct. As we reviewed the current Master Plan, that was our interpretation that the current Master Plan stated they wanted a -- to go from commercial to the Restricted Business area with the PNOD overlay, with the transition into Residential. That is what the current Master Plan -- that was the understanding of our current Master Plan."
Everywhere you look, the facts verify that Restricted Business with a PNOD overlay is what was recommended for this area to encourage a transitional, low-intensity mixed use commercial/residential development for these properties. A recommendation to rezone to General Business was never a part of the Master Plan Update approved in 2002.
Written by Jordon Brown
|
