Lockport NY

Zoning variance issues come up here from time to time so I thought I would quickly (?) explain how judgments are made following to NYS law. There are two types with different criteria for each.



1) Area Variance - the board must balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. They shall consider

- whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant
- undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties
- whether the request is substantial
- whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects
- whether alleged difficulty is self-created


2) Use Variance - To allow a use not otherwise allowed in zoning an applicant must demonstrate hardship. Such demonstration includes all of the following for each permitted use:

- cannot realize a reasonable return - substantial as shown by competent financial evidence
- alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to substantial portion of the neighborhood
- requested variance will not alter essential character of the neighborhood
- alleged hardship has not been self-created.

For both cases the board shall grant the minimum variance necessary and may impose reasonable conditions.

The LUSJ reported that the common council softened the zoning laws as applied to existing non-conforming front yard parking.

LOCKPORT — The Common Council amended local zoning law this week to allow replacement of “nonconforming” front yard driveways — without a variance. Currently, when a property owner has an old stone, blacktop or concrete driveway area in a front yard, it’s considered a legal nonconforming driveway. That’s because front yard parking is banned in the zoning code.


When the owner wants to fix up that non-conforming driveway, he’s directed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, which the zoning board frequently won’t grant. Over the past few years the board has been deluged with parking variance requests and has taken the stance it must uphold the ban on front yard parking, even where it’s been going on for years...


...A one-paragraph, two-sentence addition to “parking restrictions” in the zoning law now allows property owners to replace existing, nonconforming driveways with the same or better surfaces, as long as they’re not increasing the size of the driveway. Instead of paying $135 to apply for a variance hearing, the property owner can simply get a resurfacing permit for $25."

They also state a recent Zoning Board of Appeals case:

...Property owner Doug Roberts of Waterman Street got a variance to resurface a nonconforming side-yard driveway on a split vote of ZBA members in July. He’d actually already had the work done and was directed to the ZBA after-the-fact for the variance; at the hearing, members debated the propriety of sanctioning “illegal” work, with at least one member saying Roberts should be required to remove the newly resurfaced area....

It was a tough case as 1) the broken concrete/asphalt driveway was replaced with a nice new stamped concrete one and 2) that it was on the side of the house, which the city codes still consider "front facade" when applied to a corner property. The topic of creating a situation where people will just let these parking pads deteriorate in order to keep them was discused at length.

The law change makes sense. Two items to be careful for are what people try to pass off as "existing" parking pads and the quality of the replacement work.

In related news, the counsil agenda for this week was not posted at eLockport after I made reference to them before the last meeting. Go figure.

Housing Visions LLC will be before the zoning board next Tuesday (22nd) in a special session addressing some aspects of their plans for the Genesee St area.

LUSJ reporting the list:

ousing Visions wants the city’s OK to construct new multi-family residences on old lots that are smaller than modern zoning code allows. Also, in most cases, Housing Visions would create parking space at the rate of one per living unit, while the code requires two per unit.

Housing Visions is seeking permission to:

• Demolish and rebuild a four-unit house with four parking spaces at 163 Genesee St., where a three-unit house currently stands.

• Demolish and rebuild a four-unit house with four parking spaces at 182 Genesee St., where the existing apartment house changed hands three times since 2004, according to assessment records.

• Construct a new, four-unit apartment house with four parking spaces at 84 Locust St., a vacant commercial lot at Locust and South streets.

• Construct a new, six-unit house and community center with an accessory garage and eight parking spaces at 95 Locust St. The property is zoned for commercial use.

• Construct two new, four-unit houses with four parking spaces each at 261 and 267 Genesee St., both vacant lots.

• Rehabilitate the existing apartment house at 271 Genesee St. and provide one parking space per living unit.

• Rehabilitate the existing two-family house at 281 Genesee St. and provide one parking space per unit.

The targeted lots on Genesee are between Washburn and Pine streets.

 A comment on another post addressed the parking issue:

that project for Genessee st sounds great except the parking situation. As a rental owner the biggest thing to getting good tenants is to provide parking. If you don't have enough parking you don't get the good tenants, you get the ones that can't afford cars usually without jobs. Couldn't they reduce the amount of units in each building, or even take one of the lots and make it parking? This would be a tough decision for me to make, do you bend the laws on required spaces to get new houses, which will help for the short term but end up a long term problem or risk not getting the improvements by forcing it to be done the right way?

 The parking requirement is sure to be a polarizing issue. I was actually surprised to see the desire for only one spot per residence and I was happy to see it. For the new builds I was worrying that we would get non-descript buildings on oversized lots covered with excessive dirty parking. It was nice to see site plans that actually respect the urban nature of area and that will add long term value to it instead of short term gains.

HV has developed enough housing to know that this requirement will work in gaining good tenants. I believe that there will be a market for one car people/families in brand new quality residences. Less parking would also avoid long-term crashers at the properties. I'd also have some concern about large dedicated lots. For reference the lot on Harvey is a big dirty lot mid-block that adds nothing to the appeal of the street, except a place to add more cars while they sit idle and sitting there looking ugly.

Anybody else have any thoughts? DT and the surrounding area will grow again by increasing density and having a large quantity of people interacting 24/7. Paving and thinning it out will only continue to hollow it out and lower values.

Update 12/21 Buffalo News article. The article mentions a community parking lot. Also anyone know of the "one man urban renewal" mentioned in the comments?