Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Vacant Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs two side-lot sales as members press for clearer redevelopment plan
Summary
Council considered two side-lot ordinances (RL25-68 and RL25-69) to sell 193 Matthew Street and 31 Travis Avenue to adjacent owners for yard space; planners described deed restrictions and monitoring via deed restrictions, but several council members raised concerns about lost affordable housing and redevelopment strategy.
At a March 24 work session, Binghamton City Council reviewed two ordinances that would sell small city-owned parcels under the side-lot program: 193 Matthew Street (RL25-68) and 31 Travis Avenue (RL25-69). Tito Martinez, assistant director of planning, represented both items and said each would be sold to an immediate neighboring property owner for use as private yard space. Madeline Chantello, who Martinez said will take over administration of the side-lot program, attended as well.
Martinez said the owner of 191 Matthew Street applied to buy 193 Matthew Street and proposed a vegetable garden and shed. Council members noted the lot at 193 had formerly held a 13-unit apartment building whose demolition removed deeply affordable housing stock; planners said the structure had been demolished because it was not habitable and that the site is not being held for redevelopment under other programs because the side-lot application proceeded.
Council members asked how the city tracks and enforces use restrictions after a sale. Martinez said the city places deed restrictions to require green-space use or lot combination when needed. One council member asked whether the city paid for the demolition; Martinez said he believed the demolition had been funded through the CDBG budget but that he would confirm details.
On 31 Travis Avenue, council discussion focused on zoning and environmental-history questions. Martinez said the lot had been the site of a demolished duplex; council members and staff confirmed the parcel lies in a heavy-industrial zoning district, where residential construction would not be allowed without rezoning or a use variance. Martinez and other council members said a use variance would be unlikely to be granted for that location, and that the lot’s proximity to highway and industrial uses makes it a poor candidate for redevelopment as housing.
Council members and staff urged a comprehensive review of the city’s vacant-lot inventory to identify sites suitable for affordable housing versus parcels more appropriate for side-lot sales. Several speakers stressed the city should prioritize redeveloping parcels that can be converted to deeply affordable units before selling them as side lots.
