Residents press planning board over Park Grove Realty’s 50‑unit Sanborn Square proposal, citing water, traffic and contamination worries

A Town of Lewiston Planning Board public hearing drew a large turnout after Park Grove Realty introduced plans for a five‑building, 50‑unit multifamily project on about 7.59 acres in the hamlet of Sanborn. Residents raised repeated objections on infrastructure, local services and environmental safety while the developer presented technical studies and mitigation proposals.

The developer’s team, led by Tim Krilly of Park Grove Realty, said the Sandborn Square project includes five 10‑unit buildings, a roughly 2,300‑square‑foot clubhouse, 111 surface parking spaces and sidewalks. Cole Overhawk of Paso Associates described the site plan and studies the company has submitted, saying the design complies with the town’s general business district special‑use criteria and requires no variances. "We currently own and manage over 2,000 units," Krilly said in his introduction, adding the firm aims to keep the property under long‑term management.

Why it matters: Sanborn residents said the hamlet lacks the infrastructure and services that supported comparable projects in larger communities. Speakers warned the development could lower nearby home values, increase school and town tax burdens, strain volunteer emergency responders and expose future residents to legacy contamination on the site.

Residents’ claims and examples: Several speakers tied their opposition to local conditions. Wayne Bolina said reassessments have already raised home valuations and warned the project will depress resale values; another resident said the site sits across from an elementary school and asked, "The last thing I want is somebody right in my backyard." Emily Turtle and others raised a historical spill and greenhouse demolition on the parcel and asked whether groundwater and soil were safe for vulnerable households.

Developer’s technical responses: The project team said it has completed and filed multiple technical studies. Paso Associates reported a traffic impact study estimating approximately 30 new morning peak trips and 31 afternoon peak trips and recommended restriping to add a left‑turn lane into the site and installing two new signal heads on the existing span wire; the firm said NYS Department of Transportation comments were minor and addressed. On sanitary service, the plan calls for a private on‑site pump station and roughly 450 feet of private force main to reach an existing gravity sewer; a downstream capacity analysis and flow monitoring were described as ongoing with town and Niagara County review. On water, the developer said town hydro data show domestic demand can be met but that pressures dip in fire scenarios; the proposed mitigation is a booster pump that would run only for high fire flows.

On environmental safety, Overhawk said a third‑party 2025 investigation found commercial fill across the site containing arsenic and common metals typical of commercial fill. He said "a few areas were identified that will need 30‑foot by 30‑foot excavations" and that areas not hardscaped would receive a clean cap. He added that no petroleum exceedances were found in the tested samples.

Screening, management and rents: Park Grove said the property would be professionally managed with two full‑time on‑site staff supported by regional leadership, annual unit inspections and a resident‑screening process including criminal background checks and income verification. The developer said rental rates would be tied to area median income levels and cited a range discussed at the hearing of about $575 to $1,575 depending on unit size; the company also noted New York State rules require a lottery process for the funding program and that housing choice vouchers cannot be rejected solely for having a voucher.

Fire and town services: Rob Hoover, the Sanborn fire chief, spoke neutrally but warned the board to evaluate how additional demand would affect volunteer response, hydrant availability and water flows. Multiple residents said current water pressures already fluctuate and questioned whether a booster pump would mask systemic supply limits.

What the board did: At the meeting a board member moved and the board voted to open the public hearing for the item (motion seconded and carried). No final decision was made that night; the exchange focused on public comment, technical presentation and requests for follow‑up information from the developer and town staff.

What remains unresolved: Residents asked for additional soil testing, long‑term maintenance commitments for retention systems and clearer answers about sewer connection logistics, whether Croning Garage structures on the parcel will be removed, and exact long‑term management commitments if the owner later sells the property. The developer committed to provide follow‑up materials on rental rates, photos of comparable properties and the outstanding technical reports for review.

Next steps: The planning board left the record open for the public hearing and requested the outstanding downstream sewer capacity analysis, finalized sprinkler/alarm reports and clarification on environmental remediation steps be submitted for board and town engineer review before any final action.