Skip to main content

Batavia Planning Board meeting over Gardner Estates gets contentious

By Brittany Baker

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."

Hannah Pribek

Have I missed previous posts about Gardner Estates? I searched the site and nothing came up. I'm unfamiliar with the project and I'd appreciate some background to the development.

Mar 2, 2011, 2:05am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Personally if the lawyer was that hostile and evasive, then I would have invited him to leave with the caveat that leaving would guarantee that the Gardner Estates would never be approved by the board.

Very suspcious that this "developer" doesnt show and or has very little in the way of a paper trail or history.

Mar 2, 2011, 7:45am Permalink
Andy Pedro

Initially these people came in under the name of Northstat which was a division of the Rochester Housing Authority. Shorty thereafter a scandle came out and the directors of Norhstar were let go because they were taking salaries from the RHA and Northstar amongst other things). (All documented by the Democrat and Chronicle in a front page article) Then this group surfaced (Nathaniel Development) and low and behold one of the guys that was let go from Northstar is affiliated with Nathaniel (HMMMMM... little fishy).

The Stringham Drive - Violet Lane community has been to all these meetings and public hearings voicing their displeasure with this project. They are not against development but are against un-neccessary development. Gregory Langden from the Batavia City Housing Authority was never consulted on this project. He has written letters, shown up at meetings and voiced his displeasure in this. The BHA has vacancies as do several other landloards in the city/town of Batavia. Why would these folks bypass the local agency to build a low-income project? More improtantly why didn't the Town Board put more stock in Mr. Langden's objections? Here is my opinion why - 1st proposal was a series of buildings housing 54 apartments and a community center. 2nd proposal was a series of duplex's with a community center. Finally the last one was 13 (?) cookie cutter homes valued in the neighborhood of $150K that would be funded conventionally and sold. (granted - the 3rd option would have been fine if they were going to sell the homes). However the minute they got an approval they applied for funding with the NYS Dept of Housing and Community Renewal for low-income housing. Mr. Langden got notification of this and let everyone know.

These people have been nothing but evasive since day one. Why is a company from Rochester coming to Batavia to build low-income housing and why are they bypassing the local housing authority to even see if there was a need or not. This whole thing stinks and the Town Board is doing the right thing by re-opening this whole can of worms. This project is unwarranted in our community.

Mar 2, 2011, 12:46pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I don't have an opinion on the merits of this project, but before the accusations of scams and such get out of hand, I'd like to say this:

Nathaniel has been around for a long time. They are a Rochester based GC firm (with offices and everything.) I've dealt with them on a business level in the past and sat in those offices. Just like every other large-scale GC firm on the planet, they can be difficult to deal with particularly when it comes to nailing down project specifics. Firms like this work on very tight margins and their ability to shuck and jive before agreeing to specifics can be maddening.

When I worked with them on a project in Orleans County, it took over two years from the first planning and design meeting to finalizing the punch lists, but the finished product was well-built and completed as advertised.

Now, this isn't a recommendation or endorsement of Nathaniel, I just wanted everyone to know that they aren't running a scam.

Mar 2, 2011, 1:08pm Permalink
Andy Pedro

Point well taken Chris. Didn't want to imply this was a scam just wanted to get the point across that they have not been forthcoming in their presentations. And curious as to why they would not consult with the local housing authority to see if low income housing is needed. It is almost like they the "big city folks" think they can get over on the "country bumpkins". I've been to the meetings... very arrogant people.

Mar 2, 2011, 1:24pm Permalink
Shawn Maher

Andy's assessment is pretty spot-on. It's a good thing the Town Board is re-opening their review.

From the start these companies haven't been transparent about their intentions. They've repeatedly said one thing then done another, avoided answering direct questions, and at times can't even be bothered to show up. From their actions it still looks like they want to build low income housing using public funds in an area that already has a surplus of low income housing.

Mar 2, 2011, 2:19pm Permalink
Paul Dibble

The town should contact the town of Greece, the developer for "Creek House Commons" or Black Swan Drive (off North Greece Rd,just north of W. Ridge) did the same shady thing,it's low income housing now. If it's public funds,a majority of the properties will be low income housing. Has Dana tried to sell the existing building lot's? The last I knew,he had to develop the property (Violet ln.) more towards clinton street rd. before he could go towards Bank Street Rd. I would be looking for a mis-typed word or "T" that didn't get crossed,and throw the whole project out and start over.

Mar 2, 2011, 2:49pm Permalink

Authentically Local