Housing project receives lump of coal at meeting

by Larry Austin
Niagara Wheatfield Tribune, December 21, 2006

Julie Mills of Wheatfield makes a point as Belmont Shelter Corporation vice president Mike Riegl listens at Tuesday’s town meeting. (photo by Larry Austin)

At a boisterous four-hour meeting Tuesday night in the Wheatfield Community Center, an estimated 400 people, mostly opponents of a planned affordable housing complex in Wheatfield, booed and heckled developers from the Church at Shawnee Landing and Belmont Shelter Corporation.

The developers left disappointed in their inability to get their message across regarding the Town Homes at Shawnee Landing, a planned 64-unit complex of townhouse-style apartments off Shawnee Road. The $9.2 million project includes 1, 2, 3, and 4-bedroom apartments in the vicinity of Shawnee and Klemer roads.

Mike Riegl, vice president of Belmont Shelter Corporation, said the meeting “definitely didn’t go as well as I had hoped it would.” He said he hoped residents would leave with the understanding that the development process took place in an appropriate manner according to all applicable rules and regulations.

Riegl said he was also hoping to allay many of the stereotypes and misconceptions of the opponents.

The community meeting came in response to an anonymous flier sent in the mail that incited about 50 residents to attend a Dec. 11 town board meeting, at which time they bombarded the town board with questions regarding the Church at Shawnee Landing project. Residents were surprised to learn the the project would include what some called “low-income housing” in a neighborhood of homes valued at between $200,000 and $400,000.

Town Supervisor Timothy Demler quickly called a meeting with residents, the town board, and the developers. During the meeting Tuesday, Demler said Wheatfield will withhold building permits townwide for three weeks in response to the Town Homes at Shawnee Landing development.

“I think we do have the authority for a short term to issue an executive order to withhold all building permits,” Demler said to the crowd. His comment received an ovation. The town would not issue building permits and any work to continue for a period of three weeks until the town board could review the comments and pertinent information.

Asked after the meeting, Demler said: “I want to review all the building permit issuances for current projects running to make sure that everything is within the purview of the planning board. That, I can do.”

Demler characterized the hubbub as a matter of miscommunication. The town’s perception of the plans and what was approved were two different things, he said.

Demler said of the matter, “The truth is, (the developers) didn’t switch plans officially. They didn’t do that. Everybody says, ‘We want you to stop it based on that fact that they deceived.’ They didn’t.”

Originally, the church came to the town in an informal session with the prospect of a senior housing project, Demler said. The town supported the proposal, but when the official plans were submitted, the plans were changed because the federal government, a major funding source, required them to do so.

Demler said the meeting was to hear responses from the church, the town boards, and the residents, and he reminded the residents that a deadline is set for Dec. 26 for an environmental impact statement review. Residents may comment on the project by letter to town hall.

Opponents raised several objections.

•Some said they would not have built their homes there if they’d known there would be apartments nearby.

•”Low-income does not bring good things to a community,” one said.

•Traffic and egress. Julie Mills of Wheatfield said she wanted a new, up to date, traffic study. Steve Kishel of Trail’s End said he and his son did their own traffic study, which confirmed an excess of traffic. “You are literally on guard, you are petrified” of the traffic that uses residential outlets to get to Niagara Falls Boulevard.

•Another woman suggested Demler look up the dictionary definition of “supervise.”

None believed that the objection to the project was racially motivated.

The Rev. Bob Heisner said he’s worked with children for 20 years at the Niagara Futures Center on Niagara Falls Boulevard in Wheatfield. The program works with children from the inner city of all races.

“What I’ve experienced is an overwhelming support for my programs and encouragement,” Heisner said. “We are not a racist community.”

Riegl said Belmont addressed the concerns raised by the planning board.

“We feel that all issues have been reasonably addressed and we’re willing to discuss those with an anybody who wants to discuss them,” Riegl told the audience.

Riegl said Belmont, based in Buffalo, has developed hundreds of such units across Western New York. The complex is the same as other rental projects in Wheatfield, except for one difference: certain levels will apply. Rents will run between $400 and $600 a month, and not affordable by those dependent on welfare, Riegl said.

Likewise, the Belmont town homes will include background checks for credit and criminal history of prospective tenants, he said, but will include an extra step of verification of income levels.

“If this room is representative of the Town of Wheatfield, a full 25 percent of the people in this room would qualify to live in this rental complex that we’re proposing to develop here,” Riegl said.

“This is a project that is for people that can afford it, your janitors, your security guards, your teachers aides. These are the people that have the income in the range needed to afford the rents here,” Riegl said.

Riegl said describing the proposal as “public housing” is a “misnomer.”

Property values in proximity to similar projects do not go down as opponents claim, Riegl said, but instead are neutral and sometimes go up, a statement with which Demler later agreed in instances in the town.

Town Engineer Timothy Walck said the original plans had gone through several iterations over the approximately two-year process. He said the original plans had up to one, two, three, and four-room units.

“The code does not say, ‘look at the type of people, the age of people, the income level of people,’ ” Walck said. “So the planning board doesn’t look at that. It’s not part of their duties. They can’t look at it.”

Walck said the planning board looked at the project as compared to the zoning, which at the time was zoned R-3.

Walck said the town made the developer go through the planning process again after a change in Housing and Urban Development funding forced division of the property into two parts.

“The plans weren’t going to change, but they were separating properties, so we made them resubmit again,” Walck said. “We couldn’t approve it as one when it was going to be separated as two.”

Most in attendance expressed support for senior housing and 1- and 2-unit apartments, but not 3 and 4-units. Riegl said the essential source of funding for the project, 70 percent, is the New York State Division for Housing and Community Renewal, and the state has a priority in addressing projects for senior and the needs of family renters.

“That element is what enabled us to get to be successful getting the funding for this project,” he said of the family. “To change that now would mean the loss of the project.”

The maximum allowable yearly income to live in the project is $24,480 for a single occupancy household, and there is no set minimum, Riegl said.

“This is not subsidized housing. there’s no rental assistance here. The rents are what the rents are,” Riegl said, the difference being that rents are just slightly lower than the market rate.

The meeting’s low point came when Vic Baker, a moderator for the development of the Church at Shawnee Landing, read a message from Rev. Jerry McGlone, pastor of the Church at Shawnee Landing. Baker told the crowd: “Ponder this: God wants you to remember the poor ones this Christmas.”

McGlone’s message went on to list messages from the Gospel of Luke:

“Just because you’ve got more than somebody else, don’t think for a minute that makes you better than anybody else. Just because you’ve got some money, don’t think that you really deserve it. Just because you’ve climbed the social ladder, don’t think you can forget people who are below you. Just because you’re riding high, don’t think that God loves you best.”

Later, Baker read:

“God’s Son, the savior of the world, wasn’t born in a palace, my friends. When his parents took him home, they didn’t take him to a $400,000 house.”

The comment sent the crowd into a loud chorus of boos, drowning out the rest of Baker’s comments. Listeners said later they were insulted by the remarks and their insinuations.

Baker said the booing was a disappointment.

“I was trying to deliver the pastor’s message about the true meaning of Christmas and explain in that fashion why the church seeks to provide a mission for families with affordable housing and programs the church had hoped to provide at Shawnee Landing for those families,” Baker said.

Baker said he was sorry his remarks “were right on the subject and I’m sorry it offended people, but I believe I spoke the truth.”

“I can assure you that everything we have done and undertaken has been intended for the best interest of everyone concerned, and we’re hopeful we’ll resolve the concerns people have expressed in a way that allows the project to proceed to become a true asset to the town for generations to come,” Baker said.

“You can name any kind of actual study, draft environmental, we did it,” Baker said.

Regarding the freeze, Baker said delays in construction “can kill a project.”

Demler disagreed.

“I don’t think anything gets killed by it, I just think that it just gives us a chance to review things, not to review them to death, but simply to make sure that everybody is abiding by the agreements of the planning board and gives the public an opportunity to do their comment period with the federal government, which is deadlined on the 26th of December,” he said.

Niagara County Legislator Danny Sklarski, who represents the residents in the area of the proposed development, said he received a call from a constituent in the immediate area who is opposed to the project because of a fear it will reduce the value of the neighboring property.

Sklarski remembered a similar development proposed by Belmont Shelter in 1995 for the Graur Road in the Town of Niagara.

“There were a lot of procedures that they did not follow at the time. There were a lot of building codes that they could not meet in our town, and as a result their request was denied,” said Sklarski, a Town of Niagara councilman at that time. “They fought us. They said that our codes were too strict, and obviously they weren’t. We still do have good code enforcement procedures in place to this day.”

If the current plan undertook a significant change, Sklarski said, that would indicate to him a need for another public hearing.

“If that didn’t happen, that needs to happen,” he said. “And the residents will have another opportunity to express their concerns over the changes that are proposed.”