Holiday Inn Express

A special use permit and site plan were approved for a proposed Holiday Inn Express on Tuesday night by the Town of Batavia Planning Board and a spokesman for the hotel owner said the only step remaining is to secure a building permit.

However, an attorney for a group of hotel owners who oppose the project say the fight isn't over.

Attorney Thomas Warth said the conditional use permit may not be valid because for approval, a project on this particular piece of property must be compatible with an industrial park, not overly increase traffic on local roads and not be on a road ill-suited to retail operations.

“It fails on all those counts," Warth said.

But with the approval in hand, Buffalo attorney Corey Auerbach said his client is ready to apply for a building permit and start construction in June.

There had also been objections raised about the lack of a left-turn lane on Route 98, but Kenmore-based architect Mark Tiedemann said the turn lane is not required.

"We have a credible expert who says it’s not a requirement and doesn’t need to be mitigated at this time," Tiedemann said. "There was a traffic report done in 2007 that said no turn lane was required and there's been nothing added (to the complex) since then."

Warth said the site plan is also open to challenge because it shouldn't have been approved without a variance for parking.

"I think this planning board approval is invalid until they address the parking issue," Warth said.

As for next steps, Warth said he would rather not take the matter to court, but instead try to talk the matter through to a suitable resolution.

"Right now their approval is very vulnerable if it were to go to a court action, but I’d rather save the time and money and address it by having them do the right thing at the board level," Warth said.

The Holiday Inn Expres, being developed by Michael Patel, would add 80 rooms to the current hotel stock and the other owners say they already have too many vacancies.

Tiedemann said he's been involved with previous hotel projects in the area and each time one comes up, the occupancy rate is about the same as it is now, and after each new hotel is built, it doesn't go down. He also noted that in the past two years, two hotels have changed hands.

"I know all of the Patels and they don't invest in things that lose money," he said.

The Town of Batavia Planning Board decided Tuesday that a proposed Holiday Inn Express would not have a negative impact on the environment if it were to be built next to the Hampton Inn on Federal Drive.

"What we did tonight was to say the project will not effect the community environmentally," board Chair Kathleen Jasinski said. "At our next meeting on April 19 we will review the site plan and see if they get ... permission to build the project."

Board members completed the mandatory State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) document with project architect Mark Tiedemann, of MWT Architecture, present to answer questions.

The SEQR document asks yes or no questions about whether the proposed project would negatively impact certain aspects of the environment such as bodies of water, endangered or protected species, etc. In this case, most answers were easily answered "no," according to Tiedemann.

One question was "Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?"

Board Member Don Partridge suggested the answer be no and looked to the others for objections. When none were made, Partridge began to move on to the next question but was interrupted by attorney Thomas J. Warth, of Hiscock & Barclay, out of Rochester. Warth represents other local hotel owners who strongly oppose another hotel in what they claim is an already saturated market.

"It has a much larger footprint," Warth called out.

Board Chair Kathy Jasinski responded by saying that Warth's issue will be addressed when the board reviews the site plan later this month.

"This evening is on the SEQR and how it will react to the land and right now having a hotel where there has been a building already won't affect the land," Jasinski said.

When asked about the impact traffic, Tiedeman said developer Michael Patel had SRF Associates complete a traffic study. It concluded that a small to moderate impact on traffic could be expected, but mitigated by putting in a left-hand turn lane for Route 98.

The SEQR question regarding traffic impact was ultimately answered yes.

Another SEQR question was "Is there likely to be public controversy related to the potential adverse environmental impacts?"

Board members agreed that there most certainly would be public controversy because many community members have already voiced their opposition to the project as a whole. Hotel owners are concerned about the economic impact another hotel would have on their businesses.

Tiedemann politely argued, "Competition technically can't be a controversy related to any environmental impact. Environmental impact would be water, sewer, gas, traffic, any one of those."

Jasinski replied "Our board usually takes a stand on the side of our community and there will be a public controversy over this. I don't think we can ignore that fact."

Partridge documented on the SEQR that, "...the major controversy has been competition-oriented and is noted."

He added that personally, he didn't think it was a project-altering issue.

Jasinski concluded that every "yes" answer to an impact on the environment at the project site could be mitigated. She asked that the developer get in contact with the Department of Transportation about a possible turning lane on Route 98.

The motion was made by Partridge, and seconded by Board Memeber Paul McCullough, that a negative declaration is appropriate for this project. The board agreed unanimously.

Local hotel owners are united in their opposition to the proposed four-story Holiday Inn Express that could become their new neighbor.

One by one, the owners gave their reasons why to the Town of Batavia Planning Board Tuesday night. They cited serious traffic concerns and opposed a building that would tower over others. They claimed another hotel would negatively impact their businesses and, ultimately, the local job market.

The proposed "franchise hotel" would have, according to architect Mark Tiedemann, of MWT Architecture, "...80 rooms with a small meeting room space along with a dining space/breakfast area and an indoor pool."

Developer Michael Patel was not present. He also owns the Hampton Inn in Batavia and is an investor in Chase Hotel Group.

"He doesn't live in our community -- he's not from the area," said a hotel owner.

More than one owner complained that the Hampton Inn continually undercuts the prices of its competitors, starting a "price war."  

Rashi Dev, owner of the Comfort Inn in Batavia, said her hotel will be the most negatively affected if the Holiday Inn Express is erected at four stories high next to her two-story building.

Hotel owners agreed that demand for their services has dwindled in this troubled economy. Some have had to lay off a number of employees and they admitted working long shifts as their own front-desk attendants, even having to clean rooms.

"We're already overpopulated," said Vibhu Joshi, owner of Days Inn and Super 8. He explained that the number of hotels at exit 48 proves to be the highest concentration off the thruway from Syracuse to Pennsylvania.

 "Currently, all the hotels here are struggling in a bad economy and this will hurt even more... the county and the state because the demand will not increase. The supply would be increasing."

The proposed project touts the creation of 19 jobs, but hotel owners questioned whether they are full or part time, and whether or not they will be seasonal. They also pointed out that Patel is known to "share" employees from facility to facility and said that the "new" jobs would most likely be given to those already employed at the Hampton Inn.

Dev informed the planning board of a few parking lot troubles she already encounters with her close proximity to the Hampton Inn, and asked that traffic and parking be looked into further. It was pointed out later by Tom Warth, of Hiscock and Barclay -- hired to represent the existing hotels, that the traffic studies should be conducted during the peak hotel season in the summertime.

Planning Board Chair Kathleen Jasinski tried to assure the concerned business owners that, "This is all so preliminary and it's the first the planning board is hearing of it tonight... If we need to have another public hearing on the matter, we will."

After listening to the genuine concerns and issues of the hotel owners and even a few hotel employees, Jasinski seemed certain that another public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.

The planning board agreed to serve as lead agency on the project and to go through the SEQR process beginning March 15 -- after the applicant provides a traffic study. Jasinski said she couldn't comment on whether the study would be considered adequate if it turns out it wasn't conducted during peak hotel season.

Besides parking and traffic, height was a big concern.

Tiedemann said the building's height shouldn't negatively affect those around it because westbound Thruway traffic can't see the buildings behind the Route 98 bridge anyway. And eastbound traffic would see it behind the others from the opposite direction.

Jasinski warned that, "Unfortunately, we deal with only the land use. We just determine whether or not the project is the right use for the land and that area. We are not involved in the economics -- they have already gone through that with the GCEDC and they've gotten their tax incentives and it's all worked out."

When Warth pointed out that, "Actually, they don't (have it all worked out) because they are waiting on the planning board."

Jasinski replied, "Well they are going to wait a little bit because we have a lot to do."

Although a 40-foot height variance was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the project was incorrectly categorized as one not requiring a SEQR review. In fact, the zoning board cannot grant a variance until a SEQR is completed, so its decision is invalid.

"I don't see any reason to allow another hotel but just in case it turns out they have the right to be there, I would like to see that you don't give the varience for additional height," Joshi charged the planning board. "

"Show the reason - if there is supply and the need is there for a higher building, so be it... but why grant the unfair advantage when everyone else is at the same height? They are the ones getting tax benefits, they will lower all the rates to take the business from us and put us in jeopardy and they sell the bulding and run."

If Steve Hyde said it once, he said it at least a half-dozen times Tuesday during a public hearing on providing tax incentives for a proposed Holiday Inn Express in Batavia: The Genesee County Economic Development Center wants the input of other hotel owners on the potential economic impact of the proposed project.

"We are most interested in your views on what’s going on in the marketplace so we can share that with the board and they can give it thoughtful consideration," said Hyde, CEO of the GCEDC, near the end of a sometimes slightly contentious public hearing.

About a dozen local hotel operators attended the 4 p.m. meeting.

Typicall at such hearings, members of the public speak, officials listen with little or no response and the meeting ends. But Hyde repeatedly engaged speakers, either with questions or by challenging them to deliver more facts.

"If you have additional facts from validated sources that can justify your position, you should present that to us," Hyde said. "We hear you loud and clear but we need you  to provide us with verified facts."

The meeting opened with Mark Masse, VP of operations for GCEDC, presenting an overview of the proposed project and the proposed tax incentives the GCEDC can help deliver.

The developer is Michael Patel and an investment group, Chase Hotel Group, which operates in four states and eight markets. Previously, Patel owned and developed Comfort Inn in Batavia and he currently owns Hampton Inn in Batavia.

The proposed hotel would have 80 rooms and cost $3.5 million to develop.

When completed, the hotel will employ 19 full-time equivalent staff members.

Under the tax abatement proposal, Patel and Chase Hotel Group would receive $112,000 in sales tax exemption, a mortgage tax exemption of $37,500 and a property tax abatement over 10 years of $400,136.

These are taxes, according to Masse, that won't be generated if the project isn't built. 

There will be no tax reduction -- meaning no abatement of existing taxes -- for existing tax liabilities on the property.

If the project is built, it should generate more than $800,000 in sales tax over 10 years and $38,700 over 10 years in fire district fees.

The total economic benefit to the community over 10 years is estimated at more than $8.5 million.

Local hotel owners took issue with these numbers saying the figures don't account for lost business, not to mention the potential closure, of existing hotels.

"You say after the Hampton Inn opened there was an occupancy increase," said Chan Patel, owner of the Clarion Inn on Park Road (formerly the Holiday Inn). "I can prove to you that over the next two years, my occupancy went down by 10 percent."

The operators who spoke said they've all seen occupancy rates drop as new hotels have come into the market and they don't see how a market with a 48-percent occupancy rate in market with 1,000 rooms will benefit by adding 80 more rooms.

Jayesh Patel, owner of Travel Lodge, Batavia, argued, as did other hotel owners, that more rooms will mean that all of the hotels will wind up charging lower rates. The Holiday Inn Express, he said, with the benefit of tax breaks, would then have an advantage over established hotel owners who are paying all of their taxes.

"If the developer has faith in the market then they should spend money out of their own pockets rather than out of taxpayer pockets," Jayesh Patel said.

Rashi Dev, owner of the Comfort Inn, said if Michael Patel believes there is such a need for more hotel rooms in Batavia, why is he charging rates at his other property, the Hampton Inn, that are as low or lower than similarly priced hotels in the area.

"The Hampton Inn should have rates $5 or $10 (per night) higher than us," Dev said. "If he's so confident in the market, why does he need to decrease his rate?"

There were no GCEDC board members present at the meeting. GCEDC staff will present the feedback from the public hearing to the board prior to the board voting on the proposal at its March 3 meeting.

Hyde said any factual information hotel owners can provide at least two weeks prior to the March 3 meeting will also be presented to the board and that hotel owners will be given a chance to speak at the March 3 meeting.

Today, Town of Batavia also announced a public hearing on the project with the town's planning board at 7:30 p.m., Feb. 15.

Top photo: Steve Hyde; inset, Chan Patel; bottom, Mark Masse opening the meeting.

There will be a public hearing at 4 p.m., Tuesday, in Batavia's Town Hall, 3833 W. Main St. Road, on a proposal to provide tax subsidies for the construction of a Holiday Inn Express on the north side of the Thruway.

The hearing is being conducted by the Genesee County Economic Development Center.

The public is invited to attend and provide feedback on the proposal.

GCEDC did not have information to release to the media today in advance of the meeting on exactly what is being proposed.

In response for a request for more information, Media and Marketing Manager Rachael Millspaugh wrote in an e-mail: "There is no additional preliminary information on the project except what was discussed at the December 2010 board meeting. We will have a project summary available at the public hearing. The GCEDC Board will be reviewing and acting on the request at this Thursday's regularly scheduled meeting."

Local hoteliers are so opposed to a planned Holiday Inn Express -- just north of the Thruway, off Route 98 in the Town of Batavia -- that they've hired a lawyer to make their case to local officials.

Thomas J. Warth (pictured), of Hiscock & Barclay out of Rochester, tried to make the case against the new hotel before the Town of Batavia Zoning Board on Tuesday night. But after a spirited discussion, the board voted unanimously to grant the new hotel permission to exceed local height requirements by 10  19 feet.

With local occupancy rates averaging 45 to 50 percent, hotel owners say there is no need to build another 40, let alone maybe 80, rooms (the final plans have not been presented yet).

The $3.25-million project, located at 8360 Commerce Drive, next to an existing Hampton Inn, will make use of a banquet facility already constructed at the location and include an indoor pool, fitness area, lobby and meeting space.

The developers are seeking tax incentives from the Genesee Economic Development Center. The proposed site is part of a previously prepared industrial park, so the developer will save on construction costs by going into a "shovel ready" complex.

The government-backed cost savings, combined with variances to current zoning laws, are giving the new competition too much help, local hotel operators complain.

"Why can't they live with a 40-foot height if we can survive with a 40-foot height?" asked Vibhu Joshi, owner of Days Inn and Super 8. "The new hotel is getting all kinds of goodies and all kinds of variances. I can see maybe a use variance, but why a height variance?"

Hotel owners are concerned that the height variance will allow the developer to put in even more rooms, though it wasn't clear from the application whether the additional 19 feet was for another story on the building (making it four instead of three) or if the extra height was just needed for elevator shafts.

"The additional rooms in this marketplace will have a significant impact on everybody else," said Richard Lewis, acting manager of the Travel Lodge, which recently underwent significant renovation.

Zoning Board Chairman Gary Diegelman mentioned a couple of times during the meeting that economic issues are not part of the zoning approval process. He said the owners will need to raise those concerns with the planning board, which will have final say on the variances.

Warth argued that even economic issues aside, the developer -- who was not represented at the meeting -- has not made a case for why the height variance is needed.

Diegelman said, "point taken," but added later, "I don't see any (neighboring) businesses here objecting to the height variance."

The project will go before the planning board at a future meeting, but that agenda has not been announced yet.