Gardner Estates

The developers of a proposed housing development off Stringham Drive have been given an 11-page document by the Town of Batavia Planning Board and asked to respond within 60 days to issues and questions the board still has about the project.

The "scoping document" is an essential part of the environmental review process and the project, known as the Gardner Estate Subdivision, cannot go forward without passing the environmental review.

"Scoping involves looking at what they need to do to meet (the environmental review guidelines)," Board Chairwoman Kathy Jasinski said.

The scoping document asks for information on such things as the purpose and need of the project, type of ownership and compliance with current zoning as well as impacts on traffic and water.

Gardner Estates is being proposed by Rochester-based Nathaniel Development Corp.

Originally, the company was proposing apartment complexes, then, when that met with resistance from the community and the board, Nathaniel proposed condominiums. After that proposal was rejected, they developed a plan for single-family homes, which is under review now.

From the start, Nathaniel has seemed intent on building low-income housing in the area, which neighboring residents oppose and doesn't necessarily fit into the town's master plan.

The town needs more middle-income housing, and the Stringham Drive area was intended to provide parcels to accomodate that type of growth -- especially if the Genesee Valley Agri-Business Park proves successful.

However, Jasinski noted that Nathaniel has been willing to mold its plans all along to address board concerns, so Nathaniel might very well turn in a satisfactory scoping document.

If the developer meets the requirements of the environmental review process, there will be little the board can do to block the project.

"We have to abide by rules of zoning," Board Member Paul McCullough said.  "We can’t look at it and say 'In my heart of hearts, we don’t want X.' If it doesn't say that in the book of rules, tough. We have to abide by the rules."

Residents who live around Clinton Street Road will have another opportunity to make their case for or against the proposed Gardner Estates housing development that could end up in their neighborhood.

Odds are, residents will continue to oppose the project that they say could drastically alter the character of their community.

Refer to previous story here.

Another public hearing will be held at the next Town of Batavia Planning Board meeting on April 19 after the town board voted unanimously to reopen the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) for the project on Wednesday evening.

Members of both boards feel that two issues deserve further study -- the debate between a cul de sac or a new roadway and the possibility that the project could end up using public funds for low-income housing.

"We as a board feel that there will be adverse environmental impacts," Town Supervisor Greg Post said, agreeing with a previous decision from the planning board.

The Town of Batavia Planning Board meeting on Tuesday evening was crowded, with a turn out of more than 40 people.

Two neighborhoods were concerned about two agenda items -- Genesee Country Automotive on West Main Street Road and the proposed Gardner Estates housing development on Clinton Street Road.

Larry Abaire was there because he had reapplied for a special-use permit to continue doing business as Genesee Country Automotive on his property at 3282 W. Main St. Road. His permit was revoked by the board about six months ago.

A few neighbors at the meeting spoke in favor of Abaire and his neighborly qualities, willingness to compromise and business practices.

But one man had a completely different view.

Steve Licht has owned property bordering Abaire's on the west side for 31 years.

"Since the last millennium, I have had a junkyard next to my house," Licht said. "I've consulted the board regarding what defines a junkyard in this town and his property certainly meets the criteria."

He cited scraps of metal laying about, dismantled cars and trucks and an overall mess at the property.

"Continuing to reissue special-use permits is nothing more than giving license to continue this same mess -- and it is a junkyard," Licht said.

He questioned whether Abaire had a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the newer building on his property and claimed that business is, in fact, conducted inside.

Abaire said the building is used for storage and admitted he didn't have a CO.

When the board informed him that operating without a CO is a violation that needs to be rectified before his special-use permit can be considered, Abaire didn't take the news very well.

He claimed that board members and Code Enforcement Officer Bruce Gerould were "twisting things around" and that his situation would be overlooked if he were "anyone else with a lot of money in this town."

Abaire argued that he's been doing business without a CO for decades, why does he need one now?

"This stuff should have been brought up a long time ago -- 20 years ago," he said.

Town Attorney Kevin Earl said that Abaire should feel, "lucky he got away with it for this long."

Abaire was asked to pursue the CO and then reapply for the special-use permit.

As for the proposed Gardner Estates housing development on Clinton Street Road, the decision was made to reopen the State Environmental Quality Review application so more accurate information to be included.

Refer to previous story here.

Board members agreed that two issues on the SEQR need to be clarified -- whether the developer will be seeking public funds and willl a cul-de-sac be incorporated into the project.

"If these two issues are changes from what information the board had or was led to believe concerning the two issues -- when a negative declaration SEQR was taken -- then further consideration is necessary, " explained Planning Board Chair Kathleen Jasinski.

"The public funding and/or low-income housing is a big issue -- and we now know it for a fact that is the case -- because the impact of that can be very significant, not only to our community and town, but especially to the neighborhood adjacent to it," Paul Marchese said.

After that statement, nearly everybody there clapped their hands.

After a heated meeting got confrontational, the Town of Batavia Planning Board agreed to table consideration of a proposed housing development until the next meeting on March 15. At issue, is whether to reopen the environmental review for "Gardner Estates."

Board members already approved the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), declaring the development would not negatively impact the surrounding area.

But, after a few discrepancies and minor changes to the project arose, Planning Board Chair Kathleen Jasinski invited the applicant, Frank Andolino, president of Nathanial Development, to come to the meeting to clarify a few points.

Instead, Andolino sent his attorney, James Bonsignore, of Fix Spindelman Brovitz & Goldman.

"I'm very disappointed," said Jasinski to Bonsignore as he sat down before the board.

"Not disappointed that you're here, but that he (Andolino) isn't."

It was clear throughout the meeting that most board members had an uneasy sense about the proposed Gardner Estates project. The newest proposal from the applicant is to build single-family homes off Clinton Street Road. Previous proposals included plans for apartments and/or duplex housing.

Board members basically told Bonsignore that they felt a little swindled when it came to two issues. (A) Planning for a cul-de-sac versus a road to connect with Clinton Street Road, and (B) the developer's funding sources.

Board members want to see what the state Department of Transportation has to say about the road options, so Tuesday evening focused on funding.

Most members of the board agree that they have asked many times in the past if the developer planned to use conventional or public funds. The latter would only be granted if low-income housing were part of the plans, hence their concern about the source of funding.

At past meetings, they were led to believe that public funds would not be used to finance the project.

"Whether or not this project is publicly funded has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this application meets the zoning requirements for the division of land," Bonsignore said.

He acknowledged the question had been asked repeatedly but would not characterize the answers given. He claimed that at all times the question was "improper," and answers were "for informational purposes only."

A board member pointed out that they weren't called "improper" at the time and the replies indicated the project would use conventional funding.

Bonsignore told them "You can't reopen SEQR because you having second thoughts or you're regretting the determination...We said we intend to pursue conventional funding but we absolutely did not exclude the possibility of public funding.

"We never misrepresented anything. This is not a trial, and if this is how we are going to be questioned I am going to leave."

One board member cited two problems he had with public funds being used to build Gardner Estates. Chiefly, there's already an overload of public housing in the area. Secondly, the funds should not be "wasted" on building public housing in a community that already has plenty of it.

When the board agreed to table the issue, polite apologies were exchanged but there seemed to be a lingering distrust of the mysterious developer (who no one on the board has ever met or spoken with) and his intentions.

Board Member Lou Paganello said he has repeatedly tried to get information about the company and has come up with nothing but a Web site.

"I wasn't given any information about the company at all -- not just for the financing but for the reputable company that supposedly it is," Paganello said. "When you're talking about a project that concerns a town, you would think that you could come up with some information or a call or a letter and nothing happened. Nothing at all."