Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: LIDA approves Lucas James Broadway-Bowen mixed-use project for tax exemptions.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922

    LIDA approves Lucas James Broadway-Bowen mixed-use project for tax exemptions.

    The project entails an 18,000 square-foot mixed-use facility featuring 8 apartments and 7,200 square feet of retail space. Declaring that all the details of the project, including INPLAN Study were in the packet presented them, LIDA Consultant Paul Leone suggested the application go to vote.

    LIDA Chair Kevin Lemaster declared he had a problem doing that as the applicant said he had the money to do the project on his own and was already in the process of constructing the building. “It is a good project, one that will go on the tax roll, and the businesses will open. The applicant is trying to upgrade the project which is not what the IDA is for,” Lemaster voiced. “Why is the applicant eligible for an IDA.”

    Leone requested applicant attorney Alessi respond to Chair Lemaster.

    Alessi: At the public hearing Mr. James said he was prepared to go forward with the project. However, he was asking and seeking the benefits of the IDA program in order to complete the project to the condition he has determined that would be in the best interest of this project. So the answer to your question is will the project be built, yes, most likely. Will it be built to the degree that Mr. James had proposed without the help of an IDA, no, probably not. It is a question of completion to the level of design.

    Lemaster: We are not here to give away taxpayer money to improve / upgrade a project design.

    Alessi: Mr. James project was approved by the town board as designed and to comply with that design he is seeking IDA approval.

    When asked whether he could identify the coffee shop client, Alessi declined to identify the interested party. Member Leary (also Town Board member) interjected that he could. “Paperwork came in for a Tim Hortons, said Leary. He added that it was not approved by the Town Board and that a ‘Special Use permit’ would be required. “Another public hearing will be required and that all will be discussed,” said Leary. “People in that area specifically did not want a Tim Hortons. The cost to put up a Tim Hortons is quite expensive – over $1 million. We are going from a total retail project cost of $900,000 to over $1 million for just the coffee shop. This change was not accepted by the Town Board. The special use permit has to go through the whole process.”

    Alessi was unaware of the Tim Hortons application. Project sponsor Lucas James addressed the board saying his attorney was not aware of all facets of the evolving project. He did put in for a special use permit for that location, saying he didn’t know if it were relevant at this board, but at the town board. Leary said it was very relevant as it affects the cost of the project and may cause the need for another project proposal.

    Member Shannon McNichol interjected that the added expense would be Tim Hortens’ responsibility. James agreed saying he is only responsible for the shell. His budget doesn’t change one bit.

    Leary: Are you going to put in another application considering all the changes.

    Member David Rinow: We are at the point of voting here. This doesn’t change anything. They are not out of their bounds because it’s a Tim Hortons.

    Leary: Of course it does. There is a cost that goes in where this project may exceed the limits set for retail.

    Rinow asked for LIDA Attorney Zanner’s legal option. Zanner said the option is to vote or table it for more information. “This is new information to the board. The other thing to consider is that the town board has to issue a permit for the project.”

    James interjected that he would need a special use permit for any coffee shop that would come in. So that has nothing to do with tonight’s vote. “My price to build the building is not changing one bit. It doesn’t change my numbers. I am building a shell.”

    Leary: The town board has to consider whether this will even be built at this point. This will probably require another SEQR (restaurant) because of the volume of traffic it will bring to the area. We will have to have another public hearing to see what the neighbor’s think. This was supposed to be some small coffee shop. I recommend we table this until we see the numbers.

    Member Kevin Peterson: Does this change the guidelines for the requirement that no more than 33% can be retail.

    Zanner: I can’t say. You are taking evidence from the applicant that says it will not.

    Ruda: If you don’t get the Tim Hortons special use permit, will this kill the project, or will you build the shell and look for another client?

    James: Look for another client. To be frank, I don’t think changing the client changes the product at all. I still need a special use permit. I chose Lancaster to build in because I was told if the project fell within IDA requirements I would qualify and be approved for this funding. Getting this funding was a major contributor to what is here and what it will be. If I don’t get approval, it will be difficult to take. I will downgrade but I will finish this. I can’t even go for financing before I have this approval.

    Lemaster: Mr. James says he has the money to do the project. He wants an inducement to improve his project. Those tax breaks come from our taxpayers’ pockets. They are suffering enough with the economy we are in. I want to return to where we were – creating development that also creates jobs and one that is in the best interest of the community.

    Member McNichol: I read where creating jobs was secondary to economic development; to think of the best interests of the consumer.

    Lemaster: for me job creation is primary. Without jobs the consumer has no money to spend.

    Amotion was made to table the resolution for further review. Lemaster and Leary cast the only ‘yes’ votes.

    A motion was made to approve the project. Lemaster and Leary cast the only ‘no’ votes.

    LIDA Consultant Leone asked for legal clarification from Attorney Zanner on what had just been voted on. Member Leary interjected and asked Zanner: Without looking at the figures we don’t even know this complies with the law. If it turns out it doesn’t comply with the law, what are the ramifications?

    Zanner: Good question. If the applicant doesn’t meet the requirements, and I am speaking to the retail components, where the benefit goes over that limit, this board has the ability to recapture those benefits. You can take back the sales tax exemption, the mortgage recording tax exemption, and the PILOT. That is built into the resolution and will be built into the project agreements.

    Leary: At what point will we see these numbers?

    Zanner: Once they finish the project, they will have to execute a project cost affidavit to break out the numbers. They are saying the numbers they are presenting are correct. And that’s what this board is relying on.in making their decision,

    Leary: And if Tim Hortons throws any money into this location?

    Zanner: I don’t think Tim Hortons is relevant because this is a shell project, as it was with the coffee shop.

    Comment

    Back to the town board and the issuance of a ‘special use permit’ where Tim Horton relevance will be considered.

    Where many residents had the impression that last year’s LIDA board, as this year’s, was going in another direction to approve applications based on projects that were in the best interest of the community over that of the developer, the board approves taxpayer funded tax credits for an apartment – retail mixed-use project. Developer and consumer best interests are served. An upscale, market rate apartment development and consumers with bucks in their pockets get public assistance.

  2. #2
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    I was wondering if Shannon McNichol could take her oath of office now prior to anyone else being appointed?

    Section 62 - Constitutional oath upon appointment

    The refusal or wilful failure of such employee to take and file such oath shall terminate his employment
    UNTIL such oath shall be taken and filed as herein provided.

    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVS/62

    Georgia L Schlager

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,660
    What an absolute joke.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I was wondering if Shannon McNichol could take her oath of office now prior to anyone else being appointed?

    Section 62 - Constitutional oath upon appointment

    The refusal or wilful failure of such employee to take and file such oath shall terminate his employment
    UNTIL such oath shall be taken and filed as herein provided.

    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVS/62

    As you are a member of the Town Ethics Board, I would be interested in hearing your opinion whether McNichol should be allowed to when she knew well enough to sign an oath pledge card when first appointed to LIDA in March 2022, was appointed to LIDA in 2023 and did not do so in the allotted 60-day period, while missing 6 meetings in her 13 appointed months as LIDA member.

    LIDA attorney Kevin Zanner declared McNichol a ‘holdover’ until such time a replacement was appointed and entitled to a seat until then. Seriously? No oath of office pledge administered, missed the December 2022 meeting, the January, February, and March 2023 meetings, gave no notice as to reason or whether she was still interested in being a LIDA member, but is still considered a ‘holdover’. Not only seated but participating in the meeting and voting? I guess Supervisor Ruffino had it right when saying flaunting the constitution was just a ‘technicality.’ Rules and laws, but not enforceable?

    Why has no one asked McNichol whether she was able to fulfil her obligations attending the other organizational functions and boards she sits on? Just musing.

    And what’s with McNichol and Ruda belaboring the point that a LIDA member missed 4 meetings in 2022 and there was no replacement call for that individual. No mention was made that the reason for the absences were the result of open-heart surgery and rehabilitation. Member Rinow was willing to sit there and become members Ruda and McNichol’s punching bag. Apples-to-oranges for absence reasons. Ruda and McNichol were aware of Rinow’s absence.

    A once united board has become divided, favoring different mission agendas. It appears the enigmatic Rinow has cast his lot with the liberal ‘all economic development is good’ agenda – worthy of public funded ‘inducements.’

    Looking forward to the April 17th Town Board meeting and hoping a lot of misinformation gets cleared up before things really start getting ugly!

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    As you are a member of the Town Ethics Board, I would be interested in hearing your opinion whether McNichol should be allowed to when she knew well enough to sign an oath pledge card when first appointed to LIDA in March 2022, was appointed to LIDA in 2023 and did not do so in the allotted 60-day period, while missing 6 meetings in her 13 appointed months as LIDA member.

    LIDA attorney Kevin Zanner declared McNichol a ‘holdover’ until such time a replacement was appointed and entitled to a seat until then. Seriously? No oath of office pledge administered, missed the December 2022 meeting, the January, February, and March 2023 meetings, gave no notice as to reason or whether she was still interested in being a LIDA member, but is still considered a ‘holdover’. Not only seated but participating in the meeting and voting? I guess Supervisor Ruffino had it right when saying flaunting the constitution was just a ‘technicality.’ Rules and laws, but not enforceable?

    Why has no one asked McNichol whether she was able to fulfil her obligations attending the other organizational functions and boards she sits on? Just musing.

    And what’s with McNichol and Ruda belaboring the point that a LIDA member missed 4 meetings in 2022 and there was no replacement call for that individual. No mention was made that the reason for the absences were the result of open-heart surgery and rehabilitation. Member Rinow was willing to sit there and become members Ruda and McNichol’s punching bag. Apples-to-oranges for absence reasons. Ruda and McNichol were aware of Rinow’s absence.

    A once united board has become divided, favoring different mission agendas. It appears the enigmatic Rinow has cast his lot with the liberal ‘all economic development is good’ agenda – worthy of public funded ‘inducements.’

    Looking forward to the April 17th Town Board meeting and hoping a lot of misinformation gets cleared up before things really start getting ugly!
    I am not a member of the town's ethics board. What I posted was a question of which someone might know the answer. I thought it was refreshing to hear Member Rinow
    state that he was in agreement that the board seat was hers until the town board decides otherwise. They have not decided so she is still a voting member.

    I wonder with the my way or the highway attitude of Councilman/LIDA member Leary whether there will be a totally new LIDA board next year with the exception of he and Member Lemaster.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    I am not a member of the town's ethics board. What I posted was a question of which someone might know the answer. I thought it was refreshing to hear Member Rinow
    state that he was in agreement that the board seat was hers until the town board decides otherwise. They have not decided so she is still a voting member.

    I wonder with the my way or the highway attitude of Councilman/LIDA member Leary whether there will be a totally new LIDA board next year with the exception of he and Member Lemaster.
    My bad for listening to someone giving me information without personally looking into whether you were on a committee. Can’t trust anyone today, eh?
    Regarding your new-found admiration for LIDA member Rinow and once again charge of Leary being a bully, and Lemaster being gone in 2024:

    Despite making it known in 2022 that he preferred it not being a Tim Hortons, Mr. James is now claiming the coffee shop client is Tim Hortons and that he is being told it is being favorably received by the public. I am not hearing that. Mr. Rinow supported James’ claim that the client being Tim Hortons doesn’t change anything, saying, “It doesn’t matter if it’s Joe’s Coffee Shop or Tim Hortons.” It certainly does regarding traffic, noise, environment, fire, police, etc.

    The applicant had to get the property rezoned and during Planning & Town Board meetings he never mentioned the need to get an IDA – mentioning at a LIDA meeting that he would never make that information known.

    At the LIDA public hearing he declared if did not get the IDA he would complete the project but have to degrade apartment interior fixtures – cabinets, countertops, flooring, etc. At Tuesday’s meeting he now changes his story to exterior components – siding, stone, etc. He presents new information at every meeting, claiming his project is evolving – so much so his own attorney is being left in the dark.

    LIDA attorney Zanner advised the board it had two options. It could vote the project up or down, or table it for further review considering the new information the board had received from the applicant, considering it’s impact on getting a ‘Special Use Permit’, and based on the credibility of the information provided by the applicant.

    Leary and Lemaster motioned and voted for tabling and were outvoted 5-2. The 5 dissenting voters then voted approval to grant Lucas James near $250,000 in taxpayer funded tax breaks.

    It is a good project but one not warranting IDA consideration – apartment-retail. The 5 yes voters are redefining the LIDA mission purpose. And you are chastising Leary and Lemaster for daring to hold James accountable?

    Leary the bully? I see Ruda as the bully wanting to have her way, and some of the board members are drinking her Kool-Aid.

    Hopefully this decision gets more scrutiny at the town board level. This is not the direction I thought this board was headed. It is a good project, but not one deserving public assistance.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. LIDA tables Lucas James project application vote until April meeting
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2023, 01:37 AM
  2. Broadway under construction Bowen to Transit
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 21st, 2017, 10:44 PM
  3. Bowen Broadway intersection
    By Lancastermom in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 4th, 2017, 01:14 AM
  4. LIDA approves tax break for senior housing project
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 12th, 2013, 07:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •