Following a public hearing with nearly 70 people in attendance Wednesday, Kathryn Fogle, 4th Ward alderman, was the only member of the Common Council to vote in favor of rezoning the Bewley Building’s parking lot.
While some attempted to frame the issue as strictly a legal designation, most residents who spoke immediately acknowledged that the zoning question wouldn’t exist without PathStone Development’s intent to renovate the 1929 Bewley Building into 100 affordable apartments.
The same confusion about whether the apartment building would create “Section 8” housing resurfaced, with Joshua Fraass, director of real estate development for PathStone Development Corp., responding that the term “has been used as a weapon against this request.” Like others at the microphone, Fraass spoke about the potential for the Bewley Building to remain vacant if the proposed project did not move forward.
“A vacant building does no favors to the City of Lockport,” he said. “The insinuation that a vacant building is better for Lockport is extremely misguided. How has that worked out for the Lockport hospital, the F&M Building, the infirmary, and the mall on Main Street, and many, many other buildings?”
Coming late in the line of speakers, Fraass also presented aldermen with two copies of letters from the city’s building inspection department in 2023 that stated that both 4 Market St., the Bewley Building, and 26 Market St., the parking lot, were to be zoned for general business.
The Common Council conducted a review of all zoning in 2025 and approved the plan currently in place.
In an interview earlier Wednesday, Marcus Wyche, 2nd Ward alderman, said he would only focus on the zoning matter at hand.
“I’m not making a decision based on the project,” Wyche said ahead of the vote. “It’s the parking lot. There was a comprehensive plan that should have supported that. We’re going backwards right now to get something that never should have changed. … I would say that the parking lot should match. I think people think we’re voting on the Bewley Building and PathStone, and that is not the case. There is no rhyme or reason why it’s separated.”
Wyche said he changed his position later in the day and voted against the rezoning out of concern that it could start a process of undermining the entire comprehensive plan.
“Changing that could have a trickle-down effect,” he said following the vote. “Anybody else who came forward could have a legitimate gripe. Nothing against PathStone. The door isn’t closed for them.”
Kevin Kirchberger, alderman at large, had brought up the same issue following earlier council actions on the Bewley Building proposal. Like some members of the city’s planning board, Kirchberger said he was concerned that a change for one property could be viewed as spot zoning, which could prompt legal action against the city.
Many speakers against the rezoning and the PathStone housing project expressed concerns about it increasing the number of low-income residents.
Liz Maiolo, owner of Pecoraro Salon on Walnut Street, said, “I’ve seen this city just disintegrate.” Maiolo said she is frustrated by sometimes seeing “five or six wheelchairs across from Lock 34.”
“It sickens me,” Maiolo said. “Other businesses have moved out because of all the riff-raff that’s around.”
Perhaps the most heated testimony came from resident Jessica Dirks, who supported the creation of additional housing.
“People like myself, a young professional, want to move out,” she said. “Providing people with homes will make the place better for tourists. It really is a win-win. PathStone has done everything right, and we’re not going to get another opportunity like this. This generation is watching. Please don’t disappoint me.”
Following the vote, Matt Martin, property manager for the Bewley Building, said, “The city and council clearly want a vacant building.”