Apartment complex variances denied

by Joshua Maloni
Niagara Wheatfield Tribune, February 9, 2006

After three months of speculation, two turbulent Planning Board meetings and one revision of the proposal, Jeff and Jerry Williams’ plan to add on to their Village Cove/Brockway Apartments complex was rejected by the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday in the form of a dozen denied variances.

The Williams brothers sought to add 12 units to the 30 that currently exist on their 1.4 acres bordering South Seventh and Seneca streets. That action would have required 14 variances – as determined by the Planning Board at its Nov. 13 meeting – dealing with a range of issues, including setback, green space, parking, density and coverage.

Jeff said the issue came down to just four points: setback, density, parking and a playground. As to the first two items, he said the Village of Lewiston Code is “outdated” and pointed out occasions where municipal leaders have said as much. He noted there have been so many parking variances granted, “that I didn’t bother to copy them.” He also said other developers have not been asked to install a playground – one of the variances his project needed – and described his property’s available green space as sufficient.

In short, “We don’t feel our property is non-conforming,” he said.

As neighbors waved pages of the code in protest – some going so far as to walk copies up to the board as it deliberated – the ZBA went through and voted on each variance individually.

Chairman John Ritter said the board’s decision to deny the variances came down to the law. The board said the property, though grandfathered in, is non-conforming, and that Village Code Section 14A.3 and 14E Extension state no non-conforming use shall be extended.

“That’s in the book; that’s law in the village,” he said.

The two variances that were approved are subsidiary, and include waivers for the playground and for the complex’s 27 percent of green space, which is 3 percent short of what’s normally required.

Developers Clash

The matter was brought to the ZBA after the Williams’ application for a building permit was turned down, and following the Planning Board’s disapproval of the plan.

On Tuesday, that Zoning Board opened its meeting by allowing Jeff the opportunity to read from a prepared statement.

Before anything was said about the project, Jerry asked ZBA member Edward Finkbeiner to recuse himself from the vote.

“I think we’re both developers in the town,” he said. “I think he has a predetermined plan,” pointing to comments that were made at the Planning Board meeting.

Finkbeiner denied the request.

“I am an expert on (building code law). I have no predetermination except knowing the law,” he said.

Jeff asked Finkbeiner if he had plans to build townhouses in Lewiston. Finkbeiner said he did, but added, “they’ll all be in the code and I won’t ask for one variance.”

The petition to remove Finkbeiner angered Ritter, who told Jerry, “I don’t feel you can come in here and determine who can confer on this.”

Neighbors Not in Favor

In order to obtain a variance, an applicant has to prove an economic hardship exists.

In October, Jeff told the Sentinel, “To do substantial rehabilitation, we have to add,” and said, “I wanted to take something that wasn’t aesthetically pleasing and give it more of a ‘Lewiston feel.’ ”

Residents have objected to the idea that the brothers have a financial burden.

“A lot of what they’re saying about hardship is self-imposed,” Al Soluri of Seneca Street said, stating the developers knew the project’s limitations when they bought it. “It’s overdeveloped to start with.”

Soluri, a former Village Board and Planning Board member, added, “There’s never been any property granted 12 variances. They have no valid reason to have these variances granted.”

The proposal was the subject of scorn from a pocket of neighbors who complained of current tenants’ activity, and feared increased noise and traffic.

“The homeowners … enough is enough,” said Peter Hansen of South Seventh Street on Tuesday. “Where’s the respect for people who pay their property taxes, take care of their area and are good neighbors?”

Project May Still Have Life

The Williams have hinted at a lawsuit.

“We believe there’s been some procedural issues that break the law,” Jerry said Tuesday.

“It’s in our opinion that the variances should be approved,” Jeff said in October. “Otherwise, it denies us reasonable use of our property.”

On Friday, he said, “We’re only a quarter of the way through the process.”

Jeff was expecting to receive the minutes of both this week’s Zoning Board meeting and the one from October – where his proposal was tabled despite its mention in a legal notice.

He said, “We probably will be going the legal route” and once again reiterated that his complex is not non-conforming. Jeff said it’s situated in an area that features apartments, one that’s zoned R-3, or residential, multiple family, townhouse.

“Their premise (that the property is non-conforming) is inaccurate,” he said.

If the addition proposal is revisited and approved, Jeff said he wouldn’t be concerned with any potential backlash from neighbors.

“We have very, very low vacancy rates,” he said. “In the summer, we have waiting lists.”