After receiving a recommendation for rezoning the Bewley Building’s parking lot on Monday, PathStone Development’s request to designate the parcel for mixed use can move on to the Common Council.
After hearing PathStone’s request May 18, the Niagara County Planning Board voted that there were no countywide impacts to rezoning the parking lot.
As Matt Tomlinson of Marathon Engineering, a contractor for the project, explained to the city on Monday, in order to build a fire code-compliant stairwell without altering the Bewley Building’s historic character, PathStone would need to construct the stairwell on the wall facing their parking lot. To allow the stairwell, PathStones seeks to change the parking lot zoning from light industrial to mixed-use, which would match the Bewley Building’s zoning.
With members Robert Bragg and Ashley Pietrzykowski absent, the city planning board voted to recommend the zoning change, with member Tracy Farrell voting against the resolution. The decisive vote was made after three previous rounds of rushed voting in which the planning board became confused about its own process and results. In confirming the vote after the meeting, Megan Brewer, the board’s secretary, erroneously said the vote was unanimous, with board members needing to reconfirm Farrell’s opposition.
Farrell later said her concern was that the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning had just been approved by the Common Council in 2025.
After closing the public comment period, the board’s action on PathStone’s rezoning request began with difficulty in obtaining a motion. After several requests by Jeff Tracy, board chairman, Farrell provided a motion to not recommend the rezoning, which was seconded by Marshall Roth. John Taylor, Larry Bouchard, Tracy and Roth himself voted no on the matter.
With board members believing that the vote had actually approved the zoning, David Blackley, corporation counsel, told the planning board that this was not the case and that they needed to make another motion.
Without using a roll call, a subsequent vote to recommend the rezoning failed to gain the four votes needed for a quorum.
The board discussed whether the matter should be tabled, but were told by Blackley that they needed to make a decision that evening.
Farrell made a motion again not to recommend the rezoning, with Taylor, Bouchard and Tracy voting against.
Blackley recommended that the board enter into executive session. When they returned, the public comment period was reopened at PathStone’s request.
Charlie Oster, vice president of real estate development for Edgemere Development, a consultant hired by PathStone, said, “Even if this project never happened, there’s good reasons to have this rezoning.”
Kevin McDonough, a board member of the Greater Lockport Development Corporation (GLDC), agreed.
“What else are you going to do with this building without a parking lot?” McDonough said. “It’s time to get some genuine development into downtown. Tourism is not enough.”
McDonough said development like renovating the Bewley Building would help support the city’s tax base.”
Former 5th Ward alderman Margaret Lupo, who is a board member of the GLDC, addressed the planning board in support of the rezoning.
“If for some reason, some dream purchaser comes along with a hotel, I recommend letting the zoning go forward,” she said. “I feel there’s some kind of game playing going on. It’s not above board.”
In the final vote, Bouchard and Taylor made motions to recommend the rezoning, and Tracy, Roth, Bouchard, and Taylor voted in favor.
Speaking after the meeting, Roth said, “It makes sense to have the two (parcels) zoned together.”
“It was remarkable,” Oster said following the meeting. “It was also confusing. Even if it was a little wonky tonight, we got the result we needed.”
Oster said the Common Council must approve the rezoning before PathStone can make a final submission of its site plan to the city planning board for approval.
“It’s about how soon the council acts,” Oster said.