Developer pitches loft conversions at former St. Francis schools, asks city to sell adjacent lot for parking

David Sutton, a developer, asked the Tonawanda Common Council during the informal session to consider selling a vacant municipal lot at 20 Adams Street to provide parking for a proposed adaptive-reuse project that would convert two former school buildings into apartments.

Sutton said the buildings — identified in his remarks as St. Francis of Assisi properties at 144 Broad Street and 76 Adams Street — are “beautiful, underappreciated, underutilized” and could be converted into about 40 high‑end, loft‑style apartments that would return the properties to the tax roll. “My goal is to bring them back to life, put them back on the tax roll, and fill them with high end or luxury loft style apartments,” Sutton said.

He told council members the project’s viability depends on securing nearby parking. Sutton said local zoning requires roughly 1.5 parking spaces per unit but that he would prefer two spaces per unit to accommodate guests and overflow; for roughly 40 units that translates to a target of about 60–80 spaces. Sutton said the city-owned lot he identified in his handout as “Parking Lot B” (addressed by him as 20 Adams Street) is 100% vacant and could be part of the solution. He also described other privately owned parcels he and his team were pursuing, and said one privately owned parking area associated with a Seymour Street building would likely be economically infeasible to buy.

Sutton described a contract under review by the diocese and said his purchase offer for the school buildings is contingent on finding adequate parking. He told council he has a contract that will go to the bishop for approval and that, if approved, the purchaser would receive a 30‑day due‑diligence period. He said he had discussed the concept informally with the mayor and would submit a formal written proposal if council indicated interest.

On design and approvals, Sutton said the final layout would be subject to planning‑board review and to easement and right‑of‑way constraints. He said he would likely close or reduce one curb cut, provide landscaping (he suggested 5–10% of the lot could be landscape), and that the final design would be conditioned on planning‑board approval. He also said he planned to abandon the existing large boiler systems and install individual HVAC units for apartment units and that if any shared systems needed to remain for the church he would work that out with the diocese.

Sutton said he must complete Phase I and Phase II environmental investigations as part of his financing and due diligence because the buildings sit near an adjacent property that raised environmental questions. He described flexibility on overnight public parking, saying he would be “open to” agreements that preserved some overnight parking if the project created a surplus. He also said he might pursue leases with nearby private property owners and referenced an option to approach a local business owner, identified in the discussion as Joe Dallas, for leased spaces and shared maintenance costs.

Council members and staff asked multiple questions about parcel ownership, how many municipal spaces currently exist, and winter overnight parking rules that restrict on‑street parking from mid‑October through March. During the exchange the council noted the city’s direct-sale process for property would require publication for three consecutive weeks if the council and mayor decided to proceed with a sale.

Next steps described on the record: Sutton said he would submit a formal written proposal to the mayor and council, continue environmental and design due diligence, and pursue negotiations over adjacent parcels or leases; council members directed staff to provide parcel assessments and noted the city’s sale process. No formal council vote on a sale or transfer occurred during the meeting.

What this means locally: If completed, the project would return two formerly tax‑exempt school buildings to the tax rolls and add downtown housing stock that Sutton described as targeted at young professionals. The plan’s immediate obstacle is parking: the developer needs assurances that roughly 60 parking spaces (his stated target) can be secured by purchase or lease to meet code and market expectations.