Amherst wins Wal-Mart lawsuit!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Even Satish-haters have to admit this is good news. That's one lawsuit the town won, and a lot of residents the town board made happy...........

TOWN OF AMHERST
Zoning change upheld at site for Wal-Mart
By Thomas J. Dolan NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: 05/01/07 7:37 AM


Amherst officials had the legal right to “downzone” a Millersport Highway property that was slated for development as a new Wal-Mart Supercenter, State Supreme Court Justice Timothy J. Drury ruled Monday.

At the center of the dispute was a 67-acre property at Millersport Highway between Smith and New roads.

For nearly three decades, the property had been zoned for use as a shopping center. But when Wal-Mart announced last year it was planning to build a 200,000-square-foot superstore, area residents organized to block the development.

In September, the Town Board voted to rezone the property. In mid-December, Wal- Mart announced it had dropped plans for Millersport Highway and would seek to build a 192,000-square-foot store in a shopping plaza off Sheridan Drive at North Bailey Avenue. A lawsuit was filed against the town in January.

Drury’s ruling was a defeat for developer Anthony Cimato, who had charged town officials with acting in “bad faith” and using the rezoning solely to block the Wal-Mart development.

Drury said that the town’s motive for the zoning was irrelevant and that town officials were on solid legal ground because they were following the town’s new master plan.

The judge also ruled there was no evidence that the town’s rezoning was the product of “malice, oppression, manipulation or corruption,” common legal indicators of “bad faith.”

[etc]

I am astonished at the ruling! Let me state that I do not shop at Walmart, nor do I encourage my wife and family to shop there. I am adamantly opposed to Walmart on many levels. BUT-the law behind this ruling is nuts! Cimato bought land, paid taxes all these years, calculated his return based on a certain zoning and BAM!-all gone. Based on flood plain maps Amherst zoned this property wrong years ago; the developer bought the land based on faulty zoning? So much for entrepreneur-ship.

Fan, what the hell does this have to do with Mohan? The BOARD (minus Billy O) made the decision.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I am astonished at the ruling! Let me state that I do not shop at Walmart, nor do I encourage my wife and family to shop there. I am adamantly opposed to Walmart on many levels. BUT-the law behind this ruling is nuts! Cimato bought land, paid taxes all these years, calculated his return based on a certain zoning and BAM!-all gone. Based on flood plain maps Amherst zoned this property wrong years ago; the developer bought the land based on faulty zoning? So much for entrepreneur-ship.

Fan, what the hell does this have to do with Mohan? The BOARD (minus Billy O) made the decision.

I remember a lot of criticism here of Mohan over the issue (don't know if it came from you)...........I suspect, based on what I've read here in the past, that if the town had lost the suit, Mohan would be blamed here. IMO, he always is, sometimes with justification and sometimes as a knee-jerk, we-hate-Mohan reaction.

But I do agree with you on the ruling itself: I was shocked! Still, municipalities all over the country have changed zoning retroactively to chase out Wal-Mart, so there is a precedent of sorts.

[etc]

I wonder if Cimato & Palumbo will/or can appeal? I also wonder if this decision would be reversed by a higher court? It ain't over 'till the morbidly obese lady sings.....

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

It is funny that the residents of WNY, or any area for that matter, want developers to act in the best interest of the community. Communities do not realize that developers are running a business. Something like this only green lights more bad but profitable development when they can.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

It is funny that the residents of WNY, or any area for that matter, want developers to act in the best interest of the community. Communities do not realize that developers are running a business. Something like this only green lights more bad but profitable development when they can.

I would have thought the fact that a town fought back like Amherst did in this case would tend to discourage bad but profitable development.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I would have thought the fact that a town fought back like Amherst did in this case would tend to discourage bad but profitable development.

There are many examples of bad but profitable development. Building a Wal-Mart is just one.

What I am thinking of is developers not paying attention to the details that effect the community but do not effect the profits of a development. What this might create is an environment where developers do just enough and not go above and beyond.

Take for example the other thread about the development on Sheridan Drive. That area needs to get redeveloped. To what extent is up to the developers not the town. The master plan is to create an overall environment. A healthy environment need synergy from all, including developers. This action might prevent the development community from wanting to participate fully is all.

[WNYresident]

I am astonished at the ruling! Let me state that I do not shop at Walmart, nor do I encourage my wife and family to shop there. I am adamantly opposed to Walmart on many levels. BUT-the law behind this ruling is nuts! Cimato bought land, paid taxes all these years, calculated his return based on a certain zoning and BAM!-all gone. Based on flood plain maps Amherst zoned this property wrong years ago; the developer bought the land based on faulty zoning? So much for entrepreneur-ship.

Fan, what the hell does this have to do with Mohan? The BOARD (minus Billy O) made the decision.

So what is the difference when a home owner buys a home knowing the surrounding area is zoned residential paying those taxes all those years and then BAM... they rezone for condo's or commercial afterwards ending up with a mini-mart next to thier home like Aurora Markets in Lancaster?

What is the difference when small local businesses who pay taxes all those years find out zoning is changed from farmland to commericial next to thier business? They were paying those taxes and basing thier business model on the current surroundings. Now that farmland becomes a bendersonville strip mall or a new super walmart?

You don't want a walmart or any more outside competition in your town anyways. Support the current businesses there now. Any new big box stores that go up just sucks money out of the community and leaves the community poorer. We want money flowing into WNY not out of wny.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

There are many examples of bad but profitable development. Building a Wal-Mart is just one.

What I am thinking of is developers not paying attention to the details that effect the community but do not effect the profits of a development. What this might create is an environment where developers do just enough and not go above and beyond.

Take for example the other thread about the development on Sheridan Drive. That area needs to get redeveloped. To what extent is up to the developers not the town. The master plan is to create an overall environment. A healthy environment need synergy from all, including developers. This action might prevent the development community from wanting to participate fully is all.

Or it might prompt them to accept smart development............otherwise, they will do exactly what suits them. Wouldn't you?

[absolivious]

.... Drury said that the town’s motive for the zoning was irrelevant and that town officials were on solid legal ground because they were following the town’s new master plan.

"...the town's new master plan." Indeed! -a master plan which, by the way, the very same town board had not adopted when they changed the zoning.

etc is quite right. The fat lady ain't come close to having sung.

[Smiley]

"...the town's new master plan." Indeed! -a master plan which, by the way, the very same town board had not adopted when they changed the zoning.

etc is quite right. The fat lady ain't come close to having sung.

I am not a Wal-Mart supporter by a long shot, but what is right is right. Appeal should be the next step. It ain't over til it's over!

[Dvoakley]

Fan, you've been silent a long time. Wasn't much to chortle about was there? As to the Cimato suit, the decision has not been made whether to carry the suit up the ladder to a higher court. So you're pronouncement of "mission accomplished" might be a bit premature. The Drury decision was not a victory for Satish. Read the decision, it is somewhat illogical. I do think a higher court review is warranted. How many times do you need to be told hate has nothing to do with it.

[joe d.]

I am not a Wal-Mart supporter by a long shot, but what is right is right. Appeal should be the next step. It ain't over til it's over!

This really isnt about Wal-Mart anymore..but about property owners rights!!
This parcel was purchased and Taxed for years as "business" Cimato deserves to be fully reimbused for the cost of litigation , overtaxation due to the change in zone, and monetary award for his loss in this investment.
What would be poetic justice.. is if a 'SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENT' was created, for all the sorrounding neighbors within ..say a 1/2 mil radius, who cried the loudest about developing this property and caused this deal to fall thru

[WNYresident]

This really isnt about Wal-Mart anymore..but about property owners rights!!
This parcel was purchased and Taxed for years as "business" Cimato deserves to be fully reimbused for the cost of litigation , overtaxation due to the change in zone, and monetary award for his loss in this investment.
What would be poetic justice.. is if a 'SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENT' was created, for all the sorrounding neighbors within ..say a 1/2 mil radius, who cried the loudest about developing this property and caused this deal to fall thru

So what is the difference here versus when a lot is changed from residential to commerial screwing the home owner next to the lot rezoned?

It's ok for home owners to get boned but not a developer?

[left wing]

So what is the difference here versus when a lot is changed from residential to commerial screwing the home owner next to the lot rezoned?

It's ok for home owners to get boned but not a developer?

The key phrase is "...homeowner next to the lot..." In this case, the owner got screwed. And if you want to be sure of how the empty lot next door will be used, BUY IT.