The Committee on Legislation on July 29 voted to send a proposed zoning map amendment for 379 Pataruski Drive to the Common Council without recommendation following a public hearing that produced divergent views from residents and neighborhood groups.
The zoning amendment would change the parcel's current N3R (urban neighborhood residential) designation to N3E to create a transitional zone toward the N1S urban core zoning east of the site, proponents said. The parcel is a 1.2-acre city-owned lot at the corner of Pataruski and Memorial Drive that contains a three-story former American Legion building.
Crystal Middleton, director of planning and zoning, did not present this item; the project was described on the record by Shantina Moore, Senior Architect, City of Buffalo Division of Buildings, and Bruce Przyzlick, project manager for an engineering firm working on the project. Moore described the site as a “1.2 acre parcel” with “a 3 story blonde brick structure” a former American Legion post containing a kitchen, gymnasium, lounge, offices and storage spaces. Moore said the proposed N3E zoning “will provide a better transition to the N1S zoning immediately to the east and southeast” and would support further development of the lot by the city.
Supporters and neighbors offered different perspectives. Chris Harley, who identified himself as representing the Central Terminal Neighborhood Association, read a prepared statement saying the association “expresses its support for a zoning map amendment to help facilitate the proposed police training facility at 379 Pataruski Drive” and thanked Police Commissioner Wright and Deputy Commissioner Oberdorf for meeting with residents.
But several residents raised procedural and legal concerns. Matthew Austin, who identified himself as a Fillmore District resident, questioned whether the planning board and council followed the Green Code’s procedures and said the building — which he referred to as the historic Plovatsky Post — is an important neighborhood anchor. Nathan Vice, a city resident, urged the council to disapprove, saying the application lacked written findings required by the Unified Development Ordinance, and that an environmental assessment under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) was not included. Vice said a community benefits agreement should be part of the record.
After public comment, the committee closed the public hearing and voted to forward the zoning map amendment to the Common Council “without recommendation.” The committee’s motion to send the item was seconded by Council Member Gallenbeck; the committee record shows no roll-call tally included in the hearing record.
The committee action sends the matter to the full Common Council for final consideration. The record presented at the committee included a site plan shown at the planning board and public comments both supporting the project and raising procedural, environmental-review and historic-preservation concerns. The application on the committee record did not include, on the transcript, a full set of written planning-board findings or a SEQR determination; residents on the record asked the council to require those items before approval.
Next steps: the Common Council will consider the zoning map amendment at a later meeting; no date was provided on the committee record.