Grand Island residents press town board over Gulfview PDD rezoning, buffers and moratorium lapse

Residents filled public comment at the Grand Island Town Board meeting on Feb. 3 to oppose or demand stricter conditions on a proposed Planned Development District (PDD) for a 14.4-acre parcel at Gulfview, arguing the rezoning would increase density beyond what the town master plan anticipates and shrink protective buffers between existing homes and new development.

The concerns centered on whether the PDD would permit densities of “seven plus per acre” on the 14.4-acre B-1 parcel that residents said should remain consistent with surrounding R-2 and R-1 development. Jonathan Jones, who says his property adjoins the Gulfview site, asked the board to equalize buffer widths so existing homeowners have comparable protections along the riverside and Timberlink neighborhoods. “My property has a very small buffer zone compared to the size of the buffer zone along Timberlink,” Jones said. “I would like to see that buffer zone more equal all the way across.”

Residents also raised flooding and wetland concerns. A resident identified only as a member of the public asked whether recent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetland remapping and the town’s environmental assessment form (EAF) parts 2 and 3 — and a referenced negative declaration related to wastewater treatment — would affect commercial and residential development on Grand Island. “If there is so much wetland now on Grand Island, it’s going to be difficult for the homeowner, let alone businesses,” the speaker said.

Why this matters: speakers cautioned that approving a PDD to achieve higher density on an outlying parcel could create a precedent that undermines the town master plan, which the speakers said encourages higher-density development in the town center rather than along single-family neighborhoods. One commenter cited Local Law No. 2 (2016) and New York State guidance on PDDs, arguing that spot zoning and rezoning to increase density for marketing or resale runs counter to state PDD guidance. “A PDD to a land owner for the purpose of marketing or resale is not permitted,” a resident said during public comment.

Town board action and process notes: Board members discussed the item and moved to involve the planning board for further review. A motion to forward the latest project materials to the planning board was made and adopted by roll call. Councilman Thomas Kilmer said he was still canvassing Timberlake residents about buffer preferences and expected to report back. Several residents urged the board to address a related moratorium on M-1 (industrial/distribution) uses while the town’s zoning review continues; board members said the moratorium discussion remains on the board’s radar and may be revisited.

Supporting details and dissent: Multiple commenters urged stricter adherence to the master plan’s PDD standards, including compatibility with surrounding development, preservation of natural features and a requirement that a named developer (not just a landowner) have sufficient financing to complete a project. Residents warned that approving higher density outside the town center would make it difficult to deny similar future applications. Several speakers also asked for clearer flood-control measures, flagging a ravine and retention pond near properties they said currently experience flooding during large storms.

What’s next: The town board referred the matter to the planning board for further vetting and left the matter on the town’s agenda for follow-up; board members said staff and the planning board will continue to review the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, buffer design and stormwater/wetlands implications.

Ending note: Board members acknowledged public concern and indicated further review by planning staff, engineering and the town attorney will inform any subsequent decisions or conditions if the PDD moves forward.