WordPress.com



Arthur J. Giacalone

17 Oschawa Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14210

Telephone: (716) 436-2646

Email: AJGiacalone@

June 5, 2018

Re: 102 Buffum Street – Special Use Permit for a School

Dear City of Buffalo Common Council:

I live and own property in South Buffalo less than 800’ from the subject parcel. I walk, bike, and/or drive on Buffum Street virtually every day of the year. I present these written comments to the Common Council regarding the proposed Special Use Permit for the Western New York Maritime Charter School (hereinafter, “Maritime school”).

I. Opposition to proposed High School, not the current Middle School.

The Maritime school is presently operating its middle school at the Buffum Street site. I do not have information on whether the required Special Use Permit (SUP) was obtained prior to commencing use of the 102 Buffum Street facility as a middle school in September 2017. If it did not, it has been operating illegally for the 2017-2018 academic year. Nonetheless, I do not oppose the operation of a middle school within the former Public School No. 70 building. The scope of the middle school activities is consistent with the activities one would anticipate in an elementary school building situated within a pre-existing neighborhood predominated by one- and two-family residences.

As I will address in greater detail, the expansion of activities at the 102 Buffum site to include a new high school building and a new athletic building – along with an additional 57 parking spaces - would not be compatible with the existing site, and, more significantly, the character and peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding residential neighborhood. For that reason, I strongly oppose any SUP that is not limited to the operation of a middle school only at the site.

II. Significant change in scope of project since City approved sale in October 2016.

On October 18, 2016, this honorable body approved the sale of 102 Buffum Street (which includes the former School No. 70), 1 Samson Street, and 123 Zittel Street to an affiliate of Ellicott Development (“Developer”). According to the City of Buffalo’s online property information, the school building was built in 1915, updated in 1990, is two stories in height, and has a gross floor area of 42,681 sq. ft.

At the time the sale was approved (as expressed in Agenda Item 16-2081), the Developer expressed the following intentions for the property:

The Developer intends to renovate the property and lease to an existing charter school. The short term renovations are estimated at $390,000 and long term renovations include a new building including a gym (45,000 sq. ft.) and an athletic field with project costs estimate[d] at $9,750,000.00…

The expressed plan to construct “a new building including a gym (45,000 sq. ft.) and an athletic field” has transformed into the current proposal – as expressed in Ellicott Development’s May 1, 2018 letter to the City Planning Board – “to construct a new 3-story classroom building” (64,913 sq. ft.) and “athletic facility addition” (24,050 sq. ft.) with “3 full size basketball courts.” The current submission makes no mention of an athletic field.

The totality of documents submitted to the City Planning Board on behalf of the Developer (not all of which, it appears, were filed with this honorable body) provide the following contrast between the current status of the 102 Buffum Street site, and the proposed plan presently under consideration:

CURRENT PROPOSED

Number of buildings 1 3

Gross Floor Area

(to nearest 1,000 sq. ft.) 43,000 sq. ft.[1] 43,000 sq. ft. (existing bldg.)

65,000 sq. ft. (new classroom bldg.)

24,000 sq. ft. (new athletic facility)

Grand Total: 132,000 sq. ft.[2]

Max. No. of Stories 2-stories 3-stories (new classroom bldg.)

Parking spaces Unknown Additional 57 spaces

No. of students[3] 81 450[4]

No. of faculty 24 75

It is indisputable, given these numbers, that the proposed project – if approved – would represent an extremely significant increase in both the scale of development and the intensity of use of the 102 Buffum site. Such a drastic change is wholly incompatible with the character of the existing neighborhood, and the ability of nearby residents to peacefully enjoy their homes and properties. Additionally, the new parking lot proposed by the developer to the east of the existing building - necessitated by a tripling of the number of faculty members populating the site - would remove a visually pleasing lawn area and, most disturbingly, 8 to 10 majestic trees. [Photos of the trees and lawn area are included in the accompanying photographs.]

III. The Developer’s failure to comply with Green Code’s “Posted Notice” requirements.

Although Buffum Street plays a daily role in my life, my residence lies outside the 400-foot “mailed notice” boundary. The Green Code protects individuals such as myself by requiring the applicant to post a sign - a minimal 12-square-feet in area – “clearly visible from and, where possible, within 10 feet of the principal thoroughfare.” Among other requirements, the posted notice must include “a description of the application type and brief summary of the approval sought.”

The Developer failed to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Green Code’s posted notice requirement.[5] Fortunately for me, I bumped into a Buffum Street resident late last week who mentioned to me her receipt of the mailed notice regarding today’s public hearing on the proposed Special Use Permit. Had I not seen her that evening, I would not have known of this public hearing. Disturbingly, neither this honorable body, nor I, know whether other interested persons (including renters who are not sent mailed notices under the Green Code) were deprived of knowledge of these proceedings as a result of the following violations of the “posted notice” provisions:

A. Despite a grassy front lawn approximately 48’ deep, the Developer not only failed to post the sign “clearly visible from” and “within 10 feet” of Buffum Street, the Maritime school placed its sign in a classroom window more than 50’ from Buffum Street, and obscured by the glare and light reflecting off the school window. Although I walk past the school almost every day, and bicycle pass it several times a week, I would never have known of the existence of the so-called “posted notice” had I not visited the site to take photographs of the existing conditions once I had learned of today’s hearing. It was only then that I saw what appeared to be some sort of sign in the front classroom’s “Rescue Window.” I could not read the sign until I walked up to the window, and, even then, glare and the window sash hid portions of the notice from me.

Note: Included in the accompanying photographs are photos depicting the “posted notice” as seen from Buffum Street through my car window, from the sidewalk approximately 48’ from the sign, and at close range.

B. In addition to the inappropriate location of the posted notice, the Developer’s sign failed to adequately describe the proposed action, using the misleading and inadequate phrase, “Building Addition,” to alert the pubic of the nature of its application. No mention is made of the requisite site plan review, or special use permit application. Also, the term “Building Addition” is hardly adequate to give the public notice of the scale of the proposed action: the addition of two buildings – one 65,000 sq. ft. and 3-stories tall, and one 24,000 sq. ft, in area - as well as the removal of mature trees and placement of a sizeable parking lot on the east side of the existing school building.

For these reasons, the public hearing process should be reinitiated to assure the public adequate notice and due process.

IV. Developer’s submission of a deficient site plan and inadequate supporting material.

It appears that this honorable body has not been provided with adequate information to allow either an informed review of the Developer’s request for a SUP, or meaningful consideration of the SUP criteria set forth at Section 11.3.3(E) of the UDO. For example:

A. The site plan lacks the following detail and information required by UDO Section 11.3.7(D):

(i) The site plan was not drawn to a scale of “at least one inch equals 30 feet.” Not only does the site plan indicate a scale of one inch equals 40 feet, it appears that the submission to the Common Council does not include [or, at least, did not include when I visited the Clerk’s Office on June 1, 2018] a full-size original or copy of the actual site plan. For that reason, much of the information contained printed on the site plan cannot be deciphered. [See UDO Section 11.3.3(E).]

(ii) The site plan fails to provide important information concerning the “context of development within 100 feet of the site” – that is, the fabric of the surrounding residential neighborhood – including:

(a) the location and scale of the principal buildings – that is, the residences – across the street from the existing school on either Buffum Street or Silverdale Place;

(b) site ingress and egress points – that is, the driveways – of the residences across the street from the existing school on either Buffum Street or Silverdale Place.

(iii) The site plan fails to depict the “established trees (six inch DBH or more)” on site.

NOTE: See the accompanying photos to obtain a sense of the density and scale of the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the aesthetic value of the “established trees.” The photos will also show the traffic problems associated with Buffum St.’s 20-foot width.

B. The packet submitted to the Common Council by “D. Comerford” does not include either a landscape plan, or the “Preliminary Topographic Survey.” The latter document depicts a circular feature in the middle of the area where the Developer proposes to “pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” The tiny print is not readable, and it is impossible to determine how the surveyor has characterized the stone perimeter forming the circle, or whether “the circle” has any historical or archeological significance.

C. The packet submitted to the Common Council by “D. Comerford” does not include the Developer’s “Transportation Plan Management Plan” or any other documents to allow the Common Council or public the ability to accurately compare the existing use of the premises to the proposed use/expansion.

These deficiencies mandate either a denial of the requested Special Use Permit, or a postponement of proceedings until a truly “complete application” is submitted by the Developer.

V. The need to issue a Positive Declaration under SEQRA and require preparation of a Draft EIS.

On May 21, 2018, the City Planning Board, conducting an “Uncoordinated” review, classified the proposed action as an “Unlisted action,” and issued a Negative Declaration. Given the Planning Board’s decision to go the “Uncoordinated” route, this honorable body must also make a Determination of Significance – that is, decide whether to issue a Positive Declaration and require the project sponsor to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS], or a Negative Declaration and end the environmental review process.

I respectfully request, for the following reasons, that the Common Council issue a Positive Declaration and require the project sponsor to prepare a DEIS that objectively and fully addresses, at a minimum, the following areas of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:

A. Impact on Land. With all due respect, the Planning Board was incorrect when it concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on land. The SEQR regulations expressly include “a substantial change in the intensity of use of land” as one of the listed “indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment.” [See 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c)(1)(viii).] The chart found at page 2 above reflects – in quantifiable terms - a substantial increase in both the scale of development and the intensity of use of the site. The Planning Board’s determination of non-significance fails to address this marked change. Also, neither the fact that a portion of the site is already paved, nor the ridiculous characterization of the east lawn and its 8 or 10 mature trees as “underutilized green space,” negates the substantiality of the proposed change in the intensity of use of the subject parcel.

B. Impact on Traffic. The Planning Board’s assessment of the impact on transportation – and reference to adequate road capacity – treats the proposed project site as if it were located on Seneca Street or a busy commercial thoroughfare. To the contrary, 102 Buffum is located three blocks from Seneca, in the heart of a residential neighborhood, where the principal public street is only 20 feet wide, cars purposely park over the curb because of the narrowness of the thoroughfare, and two of the adjacent streets (Indian Orchard and Silverdale) are one-block long dead ends. As the accompanying photos show, school buses – with only 81 students attending the school – already have a difficult time maneuvering around each other on Buffum Street. Traveling becomes difficult and even treacherous during the winter months on this typical South Buffalo tertiary street. Additionally, the unsupported premise (as expressed in the developer’s trip management plan) that 90% of the high school students will be using public transportation seems unrealistic and self-serving. The addition of 57 parking spaces will not handle the vehicles that are likely to arrive at the site on a normal school day. Furthermore, the on-site parking spaces, and adjacent residential streets, will be overwhelmed by added traffic when the Maritime high school functions as “home team” for its basketball and other varsity games.

C. Impact of Existing Neighborhood/Community Character. The above-noted substantial increase in the scale of development and the intensity of use of the site will also have a significant adverse impact on the existing character of the adjacent neighborhood and community – an element of the environment expressly recognized by SEQRA. [See 6 NYCRR 617.2(l), 617.7(c)(1)(v).] The City’s online property information and accompanying photos establish that the nearby properties consist overwhelmingly of one- and two-family residences. The Planning Board’s Negative Declaration fails to even acknowledge that fact. The “Inn/Lodge” referenced in the Developer’s papers is, in fact, a 2-story, 2,921-square-foot “group home” at 150 Buffum built in 1925.

Importantly, the three residences east of the school site all pre-date the 1915 construction of former School No. 70, and the modest homes across the street from the project site on Buffum, Indian Orchard, and Silverdale, were built during or before the 1920s. Their scale and architectural features are in harmony with the two-story existing school building, and are incompatible with the size and sterile façade proposed for the 3-story new classroom building.

Additionally, the existing character of the surrounding residential neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the sheer number of students and faculty that would be coming to the site daily – estimated at a combined 525 individuals - starting at approximately 7:15 AM when the buses and autos begin to arrive. The SEQRA regulations expressly identify as an “indicator of significant adverse impacts” the following: “the encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days, compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action.” [See 6 NYCRR 617.7(c)(1)(ix).] This is precisely what the addition of a high school at the subject parcel would do, despite the Planning Board’s conclusory statement to the contrary.

D. Impact on historical, archeological, and aesthetic resources. As reflected in the images accompanying these written comments, the mature trees and green lawn east of the existing school building are a significant aesthetic resource to this neighborhood, enjoyed by the residents who live across the street from the school property, passers-by (including me), and, presumably, the staff and students at the Maritime middle school. This important aesthetic resource – which took generations to reach its current state - would be eliminated in-a-blink-of-an-eye if the proposed project is approved, replaced by a large, noise-producing, exhaust-creating parking lot. Although the Planning Board meekly attached as a condition to its site plan approval/Negative Declaration, “All mature trees must be saved where possible,” it is inconceivable that the Developer would not claim that the vast majority of the majestic trees (with their extensive root systems) must be removed to ensure a safe, efficient movement of vehicles into and out of the parking lot.

Additionally, both the Developer’s Short Environmental Assessment Form and the Planning Board’s Negative Declaration acknowledge that the proposed action is an archeologically sensitive area. However, neither the Developer, nor Planning Board, affirmatively address the bases and nature of the “archeological sensitivity,” that is, the location of an ancient indigenous village. Within a couple hundred feet of the project site – referred to by the City as 129 Buffum – is the Seneca Indian Park, a site deemed sacred and historically used as a burial ground by the Senecas and others. Historians believe that in 1819 the first Seneca Mission house was built by Christian missionaries at the site of the former School No. 70 – that is, the subject parcel.

The entirety of the site of the proposed action has not been developed or substantially disturbed. For example, I bring to this honorable board’s attention the afore-mentioned green space to the east of the existing school building. Removal of trees and the grassy lawn and replacement by a parking lot would represent far more development/disturbance than that area has previously experienced. I urge the Common Council to request a Stage One archeological assessment of the project site prior to allowing the physical alteration of the subject parcel to ensure that any unidentified archeological or historical resources are not adversely impacted.

E. Construction-related adverse impacts. Construction-related traffic, noise, dust, etc., would have a profound impact on the quality of life of the surrounding residents. A DEIS must objectively assess these adverse impacts to establish whether they can be sufficiently mitigated for the duration needed to construct two sizeable buildings and related infrastructure.

In summary, while I do not oppose Maritime’s middle school, I urge the Common Council – for the reasons stated above - to deny the request to add a high school to the 102 Buffum Street site. If, at this point, this honorable body is not prepared to deny a Special Use Permit for expansion of the current operations to include a high school and athletic facility, I respectfully request that a Positive Declaration be issued requiring the project sponsor to address the potential areas of adverse environmental impacts discussed above. Without the additional information, data, and analysis that the DEIS would provide, the surrounding residential neighborhood would not be protected from the incompatible development the SUP process was intended to prevent.

Thank you.

Respectfully yours,

Arthur J. Giacalone

Enc. Photographs

-----------------------

[1] The City’s OARS site also shows as “Non-contrib” a 7,716 sq. ft. basement.

[2] The proposed project represents an increase in Gross Floor Area of approximately 307%.

[3] Student and faculty were obtained from Transportation Demand Management Plan, p.3.

[4] The proposed plan represents a 555% increase in students, and a 312% increase in faculty, coming to the site.

[5] I did not know of the City Planning Board’s site plan public hearing on May 21, 2018, despite the importance of this issue to me, due to the absence of a visible sign.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download