Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Controversial zoning case returns Apartment complex project requires change
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Justin Mason at 395-3113 or jmason@dailygazette.net.

    Residents in a neighborhood off Floral Avenue are questioning why a controversial zone change request has appeared back on the Town Board’s agenda roughly eight months after they decried it during a public hearing last spring.
    In July, Tom DeLorenzo abruptly asked Rotterdam officials to withhold a decision on his proposal to change 2.7 acres near Walnut Avenue from a mix of zoning to multifamily residential. At the time, he was proposing to build an apartment complex that abutting property owners claimed would remove a wooded buffer and place the new structure within close proximity to their homes.
    Supervisor Frank Del Gallo said DeLorenzo recently asked to put the zone change request back on the agenda. He is under the assumption that the change can now be put up for a vote, since board members already conducted a public hearing on the matter.
    “All we need to vote on is the zone change,” he said.
    DeLorenzo did not return calls for comment Monday.
    But some opponents of the change are questioning whether the town can move forward with the vote, considering the amount of time that has elapsed since the hearing in June. They also note the board itself has changed since the matter was originally addressed, with Democrat Wayne Calder joining the board in January. ......................>>>>........................>>>>.....................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00900&AppName=1

Who cares? The two party system is broken, Make sure there is just one party and it won't be an issue.

this explains the secert meeting fdg had with delorenzo last week

isnt tom delorenzo an attorney also???

and

why would dpw do anything concerning the look of rotterdam

and

doesn't this vote require more ayes than normal  because of a petition?

Well this is a no brainer............
if FDG and BG vote 'yes'....the three musketeers will vote 'no'.
If FDG and BG vote 'no'....the three musketeers will vote 'yes'

Although I don't think there's been a zoning change ND hasn't voted 'yes' for.

This is starting to look like the days of old when if you were a friend of someone politically connected with the town your rezoning, development, or building would get approved by the town which is exactly why there are so many water problems, spot zoning, and a comp plan that isn't followed.

Quoted from bumblethru

Well this is a no brainer............
if FDG and BG vote 'yes'....the three musketeers will vote 'no'.
If FDG and BG vote 'no'....the three musketeers will vote 'yes'

Although I don't think there's been a zoning change ND hasn't voted 'yes' for.

       Word on the street is that WC will be voting for the zone change.  He wasn't even on the Board during the public hearing . . . . .

Is this still the same issue where FDG told the resident that 'I wouldn't live where  you do'? Those people thought it was a 'done deal' then....no?

Quoted from bumblethru

Is this still the same issue where FDG told the resident that 'I wouldn't live where  you do'? Those people thought it was a 'done deal' then....no?

Yes  -- it is --  the difficulty with this issue is that the property that the apartment complex is not all zoned the same  ----    
now -- don't attack me and say that i am defending the supervisor - but  IF the apartment complex owner chose to build the new buildings in a different position on the property    ... legally ... he would not need a zoning change .... would just have to get the site approval and building permits  ---- and apparently the new buildings in this other location would be more obtrusive  than what he is actually planning.   By locating the new buildings in a different part of the property .. because of how that part of the property is zoned -- he would need a zone change.     The apartment complex owner sincerely believes that he is trying to propose the least objectionable plan for his new construction.

Personally, I think that most of the construction along Curry Road  (from say 5 corners to Altamont Avenue looks like it was "shoe horned" in  ----   so personally ---  I am torn  -- I can see the neighbors side of the issue and the apartment complex owners side of the issue .. unfortunately we can't turn the clock back say 40 years and institute good planning principles retroactively to undo the hodge-podge development that sprung up.

As for the "i wouldn't live where you live" comment  ---   I guess I would politely respond that not everyone would want to live up on the hill where he does.     He has a nice property and house that he is proud of -- and the folks on Floral Avenue and that neighborhood have nice properties and houses that they are proud of.  There really is no need to belittle other peoples' homes.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Yes  -- it is --  the difficulty with this issue is that the property that the apartment complex is not all zoned the same  ----    
now -- don't attack me and say that i am defending the supervisor - but  IF the apartment complex owner chose to build the new buildings in a different position on the property    ... legally ... he would not need a zoning change .... would just have to get the site approval and building permits  ---- and apparently the new buildings in this other location would be more obtrusive  than what he is actually planning.   By locating the new buildings in a different part of the property .. because of how that part of the property is zoned -- he would need a zone change.     The apartment complex owner sincerely believes that he is trying to propose the least objectionable plan for his new construction.

Personally, I think that most of the construction along Curry Road  (from say 5 corners to Altamont Avenue looks like it was "shoe horned" in  ----   so personally ---  I am torn  -- I can see the neighbors side of the issue and the apartment complex owners side of the issue .. unfortunately we can't turn the clock back say 40 years and institute good planning principles retroactively to undo the hodge-podge development that sprung up.

As for the "i wouldn't live where you live" comment  ---   I guess I would politely respond that not everyone would want to live up on the hill where he does.     He has a nice property and house that he is proud of -- and the folks on Floral Avenue and that neighborhood have nice properties and houses that they are proud of.  There really is no need to belittle other peoples' homes.

So delorenzo is back to square one all over again?

Hey Ronnie boy put the coke bottle glasses on again....The engineer said that Delorenzo can't do what he threatened to do because it wouldn't fit!!! The guy is once again trying to strong arm his way in...just like when he was a part of the Degorgio/constintino mess!

Say no to this nonsense... Luckily a supermajority is needed because the petition was presented by the homeowners.

Quoted from bumblethru

So delorenzo is back to square one all over again?

It didn't get approved last year -- so he is kind of stuck in the "middle square" .. not exactly "square one"


Quite honestly -- there are other pieces of land in Rotterdam for sale -- I know of a 5 acre site that would be great for apartments ---  I don't see the reason to "shoe horn" in more apartments on that site.    That is just my opinion.

If you ever drive up to Altamont --- across from the fairground entrance is Brandle Meadows --- that is a quality multi-family development ----  our town zoning and building ordinances should be written in such a way as to attract and REQUIRE   that kind of development ... not the hodge-podge  shoe-horned in building projects that we have seen for 40 years or so.

Quoted from bumblethru

Is this still the same issue where FDG told the resident that 'I wouldn't live where  you do'? Those people thought it was a 'done deal' then....no?

        Yes, same project.  Residents never thought it was over.  The buildings are non compliant with R-3 MFRH.  Town code requires an additional amount of property for each bedroom over 4 in a bldg.  Applicant has 3 bldg.s, good for 12 BRs.  He has 84 bedrooms onsite.  Overdeveloped by a factor of 2 or more!  This was the report of the Town Designated Engineer.  FDG didn't want residents to get their hands on it, but they FOILed it.

so four votes to pass?

Quoted from black spidey

Hey Ronnie boy put the coke bottle glasses on again....The engineer said that Delorenzo can't do what he threatened to do because it wouldn't fit!!! The guy is once again trying to strong arm his way in...just like when he was a part of the Degorgio/constintino mess!

Say no to this nonsense... Luckily a supermajority is needed because the petition was presented by the homeowners.

Spidey -- take your nastiness and verbal abuse --- and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  I have had enough of your abusive mouth.

gonna tell your aunts on me?