Town Board Rezones 1282 Stony Point
Board Members' Comments

Supervisor Peter A. McMahon
   This was a very difficult issue. As often happens, there were very strong feelings on both sides.
   A couple of things helped me decide to vote in favor of the rezoning. First, there will be iron clad restrictive covenants, in favor of the neighbors, filed with the Erie County Clerk. These covenants restrict the uses of the property, under the R-3 zoning to 3 residential apartment units. They do not permit any commercial use or any expansion of the structure. The building footprint has existed on that site since I was a child growing up in the neighborhood. I honestly believe that the traffic impact, from 3 apartments, will be significantly lower than it was for either the doctor's office or the physical therapy practice.
   Second there were a number of allegations made about illegal construction and multiple apartments being occupied. While I did not visit the building myself, two members of the Town Board did. Their tour established that there was only one occupied residential unit, that the wine merchant was in the process of moving to a new office on Love Rd. and that no construction which required any permit had been done.
   Last and perhaps most important to me is the fact that an occupied building, limited to residential use, is much less likely to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood than a vacant building would have. In addition, an occupied building is much more likely to be well maintained than a vacant or partially vacant building. In this regard, I think that the alternative was posed a greater risk than the rezoning.
Councilmember Mary S. Cooke
Click Councilmember Cooke/Letter To Editor.
Councilmember Gary Roesch
   My decision was based upon a considerable amount of time that was spent with the residents. Two years ago when the owner requested rezone, my initial reaction was that it was a good move - to remove a commercial zone in a residential area. I was amazed that the residents were not in favor of the request. I met with the residents over a three-month period. We researched how this "now conforming" use was obtained. We pulled the file on 1282 Stony Point - looked at previous Town Board minutes and researched definitions. Definitions such as "special use", "non-conforming", "professional services" and various zoning restrictions. I had a very positive feeling that we were close to a resolution, then during one meeting a neighbor brought to our attention a rental property behind her. She described the condition and made the point of rental properties and absentee landlords not caring for their property. That ended the meeting and the residents agreed that professional services and one apartment is what they wanted.
   The compromise that the owner agreed to make, a maximum of 3 apartments, removal of the professional services was in my opinion the best for the neighborhood. There are numerous rental properties in residential neighborhoods that most neighbors do not even know are rentals. I did not think it was justified to use one example to influence my decision.