11/29/10
The LUSJ has reported that the claim has been filed. Next up: CPS visits to question family about endangering the welfare of their 11yr old child by not properly supervising them. Actually, both scenarios are rediculus.
7/4/10
The Buffalo News reported today on a Notice of Claim against Niagara County for an injury that allegedly happened on the old Flintkote Site on Mill St.
"Notice of claim will be filed against Niagara County this week on behalf of an 11-year-old girl who fell from a decrepit building at the former Flintkote plant and broke her jaw.
Denis Bastible of the Cellino & Barnes law firm said he will file the mandatory preliminary to a lawsuit by Katie Sargent, of Chapel Street, who was hurt June 10 at the hazardous waste site, which the county has owned since 1999..."
I feel bad for the kid having to deal with the experience and the injuries. But I don't care if there is a hole in a fence or a sign has some weeds in front of it. 11 years is old enough to realize the risk you are taking and that you are not supposed to be there in the first place. If a kid is not old enough to making these decisions then why are they allowed out on their own?
If one can file a suit against the county in this instance, would counter suits by the county against parents for not properly raising their children to stay out of locations they do to belong at and not raising them to properly access risk be reasonable?
In either case no. A child learned a lesson the hard way (like most of us probably did growing up).
Visitors
The LUSJ is reporting that I will continue to be spending my grocery money in Erie County for at least another year.
Legal papers filed this past Monday with the Rochester-based Fourth Department, Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, show Smart Growth wants a rehearing on a portion of its earlier appeal to that court, which claims the town planning and zoning boards violated various laws by approving the Supercenter site plan and associated documents.
If the Fourth Department declines to recommend the waiver question to the Court of Appeals, Smart Growth may then appeal to the court directly. An attorney with knowledge of the process said Wednesday that Smart Growth didn’t have to ask the Rochester court for a referral, but in doing so is able to cause a lengthier delay in Supercenter development.And so it goes. If it has been kicked out and the confirmed by the appellate court how can they ask for another rehearing? Maybe the town would have it easier just changing the law in question? ;)
In other news Niagara Falls has a nice new one with wide aisles, skylights etc. If anything this delay will ensure we have the most up to date store layout which has changed a lot since the one in Clarence went up.
Having a place to do a majority of grocery shopping near home is the big missing key for us right now. I know we will not be getting a Wegman's ever, but at least get the new Wal-Mart Supercenter going. Aldi and Sav-a-lot prices are not worth the experience and the prices at Tops and Quality just aren't worth it.
Maybe the city could strike a deal for the farm land between Summit and Ruhlman?
Post and Comments from last year.
UPDATE (07/17/09):
The Buffalo News now has an article with some additional information.
Mark Davison, a motions clerk for the Appellate Division, said the court is in its summer hiatus and won’t consider the case until September. He said the soonest a decision could be issued is Oct. 2.
Town Attorney Daniel E. Seaman said that although Wal-Mart hasn’t moved to complete its purchase of the Lockport Mall on South Transit Road and is not doing demolition work, the retailer is working behind the scenes to advance the project. “Everything will come together at once,” he predicted
Davison said further oral argument in the case will not be allowed. The judges will make their call based only on the papers submitted by Seaman and Smart Growth’s lawyers, Daniel A. Spitzer and Jill L. Yonkers of Buffalo’s Hodgson Russ firm.“If they find something they’re interested in, they’ll just run with it,” Yonkers said
The plaintiffs zeroed in on two aspects of the June 5 ruling. First, the Appellate Division ruled that there was no need for Wal-Mart to obtain a variance from the town’s rule that no more than 75 percent of a lot in its commercial corridor may be covered with buildings, parking lots or “other impervious surface areas.”
However, Smart Growth asserts that the town and Wal- Mart agreed such a variance was needed, but the town never actually granted it, and neither side submitted an argument about it to the court before June 5.
The other point is that the town’s waiver procedure, allowing the Planning Board to give applicants a pass on certain requirements of its Commercial Corridor Overlay District, confuses the functions of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
In effect, the plaintiffs argue, such waivers are variances given by a board that lacks the power to grant variances, and thus, they violate state law. That’s why the Court of Appeals should take the case, Smart Growth asserts.
From the Buffalo News article:
LOCKPORT—Oral arguments in the appeal of a lawsuit aimed at blocking construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter here are scheduled for April 3 in the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, Rochester.
“Everything’s ready,” Town Attorney Daniel E. Seaman said. “That should be a hard-and-fast date.”
A decision would be expected within 30 days after the arguments, Seaman said.
Lockport Smart Growth, a citizen group, is challenging the legality of the town’s approvals for the Wal-Mart, to be built at the Lockport Mall site on South Transit Road. Smart Growth lost last year before State Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Kloch Sr., and filed an appeal.
Older Walmart post with site plans etc: Smart Growth v Walmart (2008-11-23)
LUSJ reporting on the possible appeal from Smart Growth against the Walmart reuse of the old Lockport Mall site:
LUSJ Article
Here are the Town's pages on the project:
Town Wal-mart Information Page
Once upon a time there were a few good threads on this subject on the LUSJ forums. Unfortunately, those get removed after a certain amount of time. I'll relay out my thoughts on the project here and ask you to do the same, be it for or against the project. Please keep your comments respectful.
1) The Walmart building will still be smaller than the section of the mall that is being demolished.
Here is the link to the proposed site plan for the mall site:
Proposed Site Plan
2) I feel that the reuse of a property that brings new development back inward restrengthening the current town business district "smart growth". Walmart's usual plan of building on cheap land on the outskirts ends up pulling new development out to it, causing vacancies in older plazas. I was surprised when they took this development route.
3) "Made in China" arguments apply to all major retailers. Go into Target, Kohls, Kmart, etc and try to find "Made in the USA" items. Even in Tops, walk down the utensil isle and look to see where they are all made. Quite a few items in Walmart give options to pricier "Made in the USA" items and cheaper "Imported goods". I'm pretty certain that items like Bounty paper towels all come from the same place.
4) Traffic concerns seem to stem more from traffic management over actual traffic numbers. The signals 100ft apart at Shimmer and the HD plaza appear to back up traffic more than relieving it. As for accidents, it is a very basic intersection. The intersection of Rt 78 and 93 has its fair share of accidents too. Not much you can do with people who choose to ignore signals.
5)The existing Walmart site can be easily broken up to house some smaller businesses. HD plaza still has opening for businesses. The existing site can not house the Super Center though.
6)There will be basically no change in views for those living around the property:
Proposed View or Rear from Surrounding Properties
Being such a large building, it is best suited to be at the rear of the lot, with out parcels up to the street at the front of the lot. Only so much can be done with a 200,000 sqft building.
What is the true fight here? What are your thoughts?
UPDATE: 11/25/08 - fixed links
UPDATE 11/26/08 - New Renderings 09/2008 from Town Website
Wal-mart Transit Road Elevation
UPDATE: 12/04/08 - LUSJ +BuffNews articles stating decision on appeal expected by April.