City of Buffalo Zoning Board of Appeals·September 16, 2026
Three members, 22 cases, two hours. The one that filled the room — Evergreen Health’s bid to buy and gate the public lot at 80 Midway — was tabled and sent back for a joint-use compromise with the neighborhood. Denied: a Folger Street short-term rental, a never-open Brinkman “bookstore,” an Englewood third unit, a Lakeview lot merger. Approved: the Statler’s Bills banner, the Evergreen signs, and a dozen routine variances.
The lot behind the Bailey Avenue storefronts at Midway and Thornton has been a parking lot since the 1940s and city property since sometime after that. Evergreen Health, whose new Evergreen Health Hub is nearly built on the corner of Kensington and Bailey, is under contract to buy the Midway half of it — roughly a quarter acre, 60 by 180 feet, 33 spaces — repave it, and put a fob-controlled lift gate on it for the 65 employees who will work in the building. Because a parking lot with no principal use on the same parcel is not a permitted use in the N-3C zone, the purchase needs a use variance, the hardest kind to get (see the box below). Corey Auerbach[*] of Barclay Damon made the case: accessory parking is allowed within 1,320 feet of the use it serves, and this lot is much closer than that; the only reason it needs a variance at all is that nothing else sits on the parcel. He submitted an appraisal from KLW Appraisal Group putting the site's adjusted value at $24,000 after roughly $47,000 of demolition to make it buildable for any permitted N-3C use — the “dollars and cents” proof of no reasonable return that a use variance requires — and argued the hardship is not self-created because the city lot predates the Green Code. The Thornton half stays city-owned and public.
Then the neighborhood spoke, and it was not the neighborhood Evergreen had been describing. Bob Cohen[*], third-generation owner of United Men's Fashion at 3082 Bailey (“since 1929 … 97 years”), said his grandfather and other merchants bought the four Midway and Thornton parcels in the 1940s and made them a lot for businesses and residents alike; the city bought it later “to ensure it would be open for all,” and in the late 1970s designated it for snow-emergency parking. Evergreen, he said, had “dominated the lot every day” through months of construction “with no complaints from us” — because first-come, first-served works. “It's fine, they don't have to own it.” The owner of the barbershop and salon at 3076 Bailey said his ten employees and his elderly and disabled customers would be pushed onto side streets once the gate went up. The pastor of Mount Calvary Holy Church at Midway and Hutchinson said his congregation had used the lot for overflow for 53 years, had hosted Evergreen's community meetings in its own building, and had never heard about the lot: “Our only problem would be the lift gate.” The treasurer of the Hutchinson–Midway block club and a second church and block-club representative asked the board to deny the variance so the city would keep the leverage to negotiate a community benefits agreement. “If they purchased the property and the city doesn't own that part anymore, that's final.”
Auerbach's answer was that Evergreen “is not coming in to take something away from the community” and would keep working with the church on Sunday overflow, but that a lot it owns, improves and insures needs access control: “just because they can put it down, they can also keep it up.” The board's questions went to the sequence. The building, one member confirmed, is 36,000 square feet and has not changed size — “so you've gone through this whole process to this point, meeting with the neighbors and the church … how does this come up at the end?” Auerbach conceded the purchase “was not in the mind's eye of Evergreen Health” when the project went through the Planning Board; using the lot was in the transportation demand management plan, owning it was not. Asked what actually changes for the neighbors if the pavement and lights are the same, he said certainty: 65 employees and about 40 visitors a day, and the alternative is those employees parking on Bailey in front of other people's businesses. Evergreen's representative said other Kensington lots are privately owned and nobody would rent or sell. The lot, when the merchant was asked, ran about 80 percent full before construction, mostly with Bailey Avenue customers and employees.
In deliberation, the presiding member said he understood the ask but “personally” did not see the justification: the lot would neither gain nor lose spaces, and private parking “goes without saying” as a wish for anyone building a building. Another member said the building is “a great improvement to that neighborhood, without question,” that the city “has an obligation to improve that lot” (he had gone to look; it is “in pretty bad shape”), and that with Evergreen, the city, the council district and the neighborhood groups all at the table “there is opportunity … to come to some compromise.” His motion: table the item and ask the applicant to convene all parties, including the City of Buffalo and the neighborhood organizations, on a joint-use arrangement agreeable to everyone. Seconded, carried 3–0, after the SEQR negative declaration was adopted. It can return in two weeks or in October, whenever Evergreen has held the meeting. The building opens in early December either way; the paving season, someone noted, is probably gone.
Board: Thomas Dearing (presiding — “I'll be chairing the meeting this afternoon”), James Hornung Jr., Janice McKinnie. The minutes list James Lewis, Chairman, absent. Three members sat and voted on every item; every recorded vote was 3–0.
Staff: an Office of Strategic Planning staffer, John Fell[*], read the ground rules; the City Clerk's representative swore in each speaker.
The docket: 22 cases — 2 extensions, 17 area-variance hearings, 3 use-variance hearings (the presiding member counted “23 items”; the board's voting sheet, it emerged in deliberation, “only goes up to number 20”).
Format: all hearings first, testimony limited to three minutes, then every decision in a block at the end; applicants were told to check the city website the next day.
Almost everything on Wednesday's docket was an area variance: the use is allowed, but a dimension is wrong — a driveway two feet too wide, a fence a foot too tall, a lot wider than the zone permits. State law makes the board weigh the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the neighborhood on five factors (character of the neighborhood, whether there is another way to get the benefit, how substantial the request is, environmental effects, and whether the problem is self-created — which counts against but does not bar). That is why every approval motion recites “the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, primarily because…”
A use variance asks to do something the zone does not allow at all — a short-term rental without an owner in the house, a bookstore in a residential zone, a stand-alone parking lot. The applicant must prove unnecessary hardship on all four prongs: no reasonable return from any permitted use, shown with “dollars and cents” evidence; a hardship unique to the property, not the neighborhood; no change to the essential character of the neighborhood; and a hardship not self-created. Miss one and the board must deny. Three use variances were heard Wednesday: two were denied for failing the test and the third, Evergreen's, was the only one with an appraisal — and it was tabled on the merits, not the paperwork.
21 Folger Street. A couple doing business as Community Realty 716[*] bought the house on Folger in May from the husband's mother — his childhood home, in the family 50 years — and asked to run it as a non-owner-occupied short-term rental in the N-3R zone, where the Green Code allows short-term rentals only with the owner living on site. They own 13 other Buffalo rentals, all doubles and multi-units on long-term leases; this is their first single-family and their first short-term attempt. Their hardship case was arithmetic: to make their return on the purchase they would need about $2,500 a month, which they did not believe a long-term tenant would pay, and they had listed it for 30-day-plus stays in the meantime. It would sleep seven. “Why not just sell the house?” a member asked. “We provide a service in the city of Buffalo,” came the answer. Asked whether they had understood the city's rules when they bought, the reply was “not really.” An Airbnb host who lives at her own property rose to say the owner-occupancy rule exists for a reason: renters lie about being from out of town, “you get kids that try to throw parties,” and “when that happens at my place, I can shut it down.” The applicants answered that they live nearby, drive past daily, and have “close ties” with the police district and had “ran it by the councilman.” The board adopted the negative declaration and denied the variance: the applicant “has not demonstrated that the zoning code has caused the applicant unnecessary hardship.”
38 Brinkman Avenue. The owner does not live in this house either. Two rooms of it hold books; a tenant lives in the back, behind a door he boarded over to separate the units. He called it “a library or book storage” and said it has never been open: “Somebody called me, do you have this book? Yes, I have it … I give them, that's all I do.” A periodic inspection turned it up; the inspector said he needed something, so he applied for a use variance to “permit bookstore” in N-3R. Letters from the imam and president of Masjid Baitul Aman were in the file, and so was a document the docket itself labels “Financial evidence variance 38 Brinkman — THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT.” The neighbor at 42 Brinkman spoke in his favor — “the quietest neighbor you could ever ask for, especially when it's rarely open” — and worried only about parking if it ever got busier. It will not. “As much as I would like to approve this … he failed every test there is for the use variance,” Dearing said, and the motion to deny listed them: no demonstrated hardship, no financial hardship, a self-created problem not unique to the property, and no evidence of an inability to earn a reasonable return. Negative declaration adopted; 3–0.
Every case on this docket arrived with a Notice of Denial (the city abbreviates it NOD) from the Department of Permit and Inspection Services. It is not a verdict on the project; it is the paperwork that creates the board's jurisdiction. When a permit application does not meet the Green Code — the driveway is 14 feet where 12 is the maximum, the fence is six feet where four is allowed forward of the house — the permit office denies it and writes down exactly which sections fail (“496-8.3.2.B”). That notice is what the applicant appeals to the ZBA. So the agenda's language — “In excess of maximum driveway width” — is the permit office's finding, quoted; the ZBA's approval is an order to issue the permit anyway. Several applicants Wednesday learned about the process backwards: the pad or fence went in years ago, a citation or a routine inspection produced the denial, and the hearing was their first contact with the code.
200 Englewood Avenue. The owner, a landlord of 34 years who lives ten minutes away and has held this house since 2013, wanted to convert the attic into a third unit, over the N-3R density limit. His reasoning was about tenants, not money: he had rented to students and found it “extremely difficult” — three days earlier he had watched two kegs go into a house across the street — so he cut the first-floor rent from $1,730 to $1,250 and rented to two locals with full-time jobs, and he wanted to do the same upstairs and in the attic: “someone who wants to make it a home instead of four guys bringing kegs of beer.” He described his departing student tenants in unflattering terms. The third unit would need a $20,000 sprinkler system, an exterior stair and a headroom fix. The board asked about code violations; he said none beyond a fallen gutter and a railing an inspector had mentioned the day before. The board denied it: the applicant “didn't sufficiently demonstrate that adding more units to the residence would allow for better tenants” — which was, in fairness, the whole argument.
9–25 Lakeview Avenue. This one was docketed as a routine lot combination — three parcels in N-2R that together exceed the maximum lot width. Then the applicants explained why: one partner had bought 9 and 21, the two together bought 25, and beyond saving on taxes and user fees “we're also planning a development across the three lots” — a condo complex, approximately 32 units, four stories, under a New York State affordable-housing program. Had they talked to the neighborhood? “We just have to sign up, that's it. We haven't talked to anybody.” A member noted the combined lot would fit three or four single-family homes and that the project as described would need “probably more variances.” “Absolutely.” The board denied the combination, citing “the lack of involvement of the neighborhood regarding the intentions of the applicant and the significant impacts it could have on the surrounding neighborhood.” The two other lot combinations of the afternoon — 22 & 26 Lemon Street, where a couple who grew up watching the house discovered from their tax bill that the fenced yard was a second parcel, and 333 Wyoming Avenue, where a couple bought two city lots next door after “a lot of activity there” scared them and now pay about $800 a year in user fees to garden them — were approved with the board's standard reasoning that a yard already kept as one should not pay double.
Buffalo's Green Code (Chapter 496 of the City Code, the Unified Development Ordinance, in force since 2017) replaced use-based zoning with form-based neighborhood zones. The letters on Wednesday's agenda:
The recurring rule of the afternoon, from Table 8C and §496-8.3: a residential driveway may be no wider than 12 feet at the street, and cars may not park forward of the front facade. Six of the 22 cases were about exactly that.
35 McCarthy — approved, then not. A husband and wife appeared by phone, barely audible, to ask for a parking pad beside their driveway, running back between their garage and the neighbor's — about 11 feet by 33 — so he could park the trailer for the lawn-care and snow business he is starting instead of unhooking it on the street each night. Two cars in the garage, a stepfather's car, a work vehicle: “a lot of chaos all the time with my trailer.” In deliberation Hornung moved to approve, reasoning the pad would sit behind the front of the house. Dearing was not sure it could: “I didn't see where it was going to be able to get behind the house.” The board pulled up the aerial photo, found the neighbor's fence and a bump-out on both houses, and concluded a trailer on that grass would sit forward of the front facade whatever the drawing said. “I'm gonna withdraw my motion,” Hornung said, and moved to deny instead: the parking area “would leave the trailer forward of the front facades.” 3–0.
42 Ada Place — approved, over two neighbors. The owner's advocate — the same Airbnb host who had spoken on Folger — said a handyman poured the driveway two years ago “one foot too wide,” nobody cited it, the city itself installed the apron, and the owner came to the permit office voluntarily when someone asked if she had a permit. “To have her tear up the driveway for one foot … just seemed a little too extreme.” A resident of 40 years across the street said the seven-foot fence and the driveway went in “between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m.,” called the result “a wrought iron fence that's fit for Texas … the most beautiful house on the street that is taking up parking from the people on the street,” and doubted anyone with that much property did not know about permits. The owner of 46 Ada, next door, said the fence stands so close to her house that a snow blower cannot pass. The board separated the two: the fence was not before it. A member who had visited called Ada “a very unique street, extremely unique” — narrow, with parking scarce enough that traffic was hard to negotiate — and the wrought-iron fence “very nice.” The pad, staff said, is 18 feet, six over the limit, not one. Approved, “primarily due to the unique nature of the street.” Later, a caller identified as being from Ada Place told the board “about four people tried to get on and you wouldn't let us in”; the hearing had closed.
247 Georgia Street — tabled for an explanation. The owner could not get his microphone to work when the case was called; the board moved on and came back ten minutes later. He said he is a partially disabled veteran moving into one unit of the corner house as owner-occupant this fall (he also has a Washington, D.C. residence and other properties in the area), that the existing pad on the Georgia side belongs to the tenant's unit, and that he was asking for a second one as both an area variance and a reasonable accommodation for a service-connected disability. The ask is three variances in N-4-30: a second driveway, a curb cut within 60 feet of the intersection, and parking in the corner side yard. A neighbor spoke against it — “there's already too many driveways” on the block, more “car-centric infrastructure” is hard on children walking. In deliberation Dearing called it “a pretty significant ask” and said the disability was asserted but never explained; the board tabled it with a request that the applicant come back and say what the issue is and how the pad addresses it.
The three that passed cleanly. 79 Pomona Place: a 26-foot pad the owner and friends poured three years ago on the lot next door after the house on it was demolished, used by him, his upstairs tenant and a disabled neighbor on a street with no winter parking; approved. 992 Fillmore Avenue: the owner hired a concrete contractor who was already doing city sidewalks on the block, trusted them to pull the permit, and got a stop-work order instead; the pad is 14 feet, and he asked for “just two more feet.” Approved with a condition that the apron and curb cut not exceed 12 feet. 92 Pooley Place: called twice, nobody; tabled.
The Green Code's parking rules for houses are about the street wall, not the car. Parking “forward of the front facade” is prohibited because a car or trailer in a front yard breaks the line of porches and lawns the code is written to protect; the 12-foot limit exists so a single driveway, not a paved yard, meets the sidewalk. The board applied that consistently Wednesday even when it wanted to say yes. It approved pads that were wide (Pomona, Ada) or built without a permit (Fillmore) where the paving sat beside or behind the house, denied the McCarthy pad the moment it saw the trailer would be in front of the facade, and attached a 12-foot condition to Fillmore so the width does not carry to the curb. The distinction most applicants missed: a wide pad in the side yard is one variance; a wide apron at the street is another, and the board is much less willing to grant the second.
Four cases were tabled Wednesday, and the word means something narrower here than at the Common Council. A tabled appeal is neither granted nor denied; it stays on the board's docket and is called again at a later meeting — the next is in two weeks, the presiding member said, or October. Two tablings (27 Ashland, 92 Pooley) were for no-shows: the board called each address twice, in the room and online, and moved on. Two were substantive: 247 Georgia comes back when the applicant explains the accommodation he is asking for, and 80 Midway comes back when Evergreen has met with the city and the neighborhood. Nothing is built, and no permit issues, while a case is tabled.
3070 Bailey Avenue. Before the parking fight, Evergreen's attorney presented the sign package for the Hub: monument signs to steer patients to the 18 on-site spaces (a monument sign is normally allowed only where the building is set back 15 feet, and this one is built to the sidewalk “as an urban architecture”), wall signs on the Bailey and Kensington facades in excess of the per-frontage count and area, and flag signs along the street. The building has two named tenants — Evergreen Health and Community Access Services — plus a pharmacy, offices and a second-floor community space. Signs are channel-lit. The haberdasher next door asked only whether any sign would direct patients into the lot behind his store; no, the attorney said, exclusively to the 18 spaces on site. Negative declaration adopted; all four variances approved, “due to the newness of the building and the necessary need for those visiting … to know exactly where to park.” One member wondered aloud whether a wayfinding sign is needed if the parking lot across the street is not approved; it was clarified that these signs point to the on-site 18.
107 Delaware Avenue. Diana Koenig[*] of Phillips Lytle appeared for the Statler's developer, docketed as Jemal's State LLC[*], for a temporary banner sign facing Niagara Square promoting Gatorade's partnership with the Buffalo Bills — roughly 110 by 120 feet, up for six months, covering numerous windows, and lit at night from fixtures staged inside the building and two LED lights beside the banner, none attached to the historic exterior, none flashing. A similar banner went up in 2024; this one is on a different face and “will include Josh.” Installation was to begin September 20 and finish by the 24th, with the clock running from completion; the developer asked for six months “to cover the whole entire season, obviously to support the Bills.” “So when they go to the Super Bowl,” a member offered. Three variances — banner area, display period, and obstruction of windows — approved with a negative declaration, “primarily because this is a temporary installation that will not have a permanent impact.”
11 Armbruster Street — a detached garage on “the last property in a residential zone” (N-4-30) before the D-C Flex district, for an owner who is rehabbing the house to rent and owns the surrounding parcels; adjacent neighbors he does not own sent letters of support, and the same builder, Atlantic Garages, is putting up a bigger garage by right across the street. Four variances (accessory structure not subordinate, over 50 percent of the required yard, over height, second driveway) approved with a negative declaration, “primarily due to the isolated nature of the property and the support of the surrounding neighbors.” Represented by Michael Anderson[*] of Abstract Architecture.
306 Carolina Street — homeowner Patrick Healy[*] tore off a rear addition and a side addition that had no foundations and wants to rebuild both correctly; side-yard and build-to-percentage variances approved for “the minor nature of the variances requested.”
62 Brownell Street — the owner of 56 Brownell bought the lot next door, had his boat broken into and his grills stolen, and put up a six-foot fence four or five years ago; cited for gate height. Approved because the fence sits “slightly behind the front facade.”
36 Tennyson Avenue — an over-height rear fence to screen the noise and lights of the Mighty Taco whose lot backs onto the property from Delaware Avenue. Approved.
1707 Hertel Avenue and 54 High View Terrace — one-year extensions of previously granted variances. The Hertel developer, Jacob Stiller[*] of Forward Development (East Aurora), is still “finalizing the capital stack … in this current economy” and is under contract, not yet in title; nothing in the approved plans has changed. The High View owner needs more time for a garage addition.
Every recorded action, in docket order. Three members sat — Thomas Dearing (presiding), James Hornung Jr., Janice McKinnie — and the city's vote record shows every motion passing 3–0 with no abstentions; Chairman James Lewis is recorded absent. On the tape, hearings were closed by motion after each case and the decisions were taken in a block from 1:50 to 2:19 on the recording. Mover and seconder are as the city's items record states them; where the minutes or the tape differ, the row says so. Item numbers and the agenda's docket text are the city's (CivicClerk agendaId 1205). “Neg dec” means the board adopted a SEQR negative declaration before acting.
Moved McKinnie, seconded Hornung. Hornung noted he had not attended the July meeting; the presiding member briefly considered tabling so two could approve, then proceeded.
Applicant is under contract to buy, not yet owner; delay attributed to assembling financing. Board confirmed plans and permits are unchanged from the variance as granted. Record discrepancy: the items record lists McKinnie as mover and Hornung as seconder; the summary minutes list “Mover: None,” seconder Hornung. The tape does not resolve who moved.
Owner appeared; no change to the approved variance, more time needed. Moved McKinnie, seconded Dearing. The docket's attachment is titled “54 High St”; the agenda item and street index read High View Terrace.
Existing 26-foot pad, self-built about three years ago on an adjoining lot the owner bought after the house on it was demolished; standard 12-foot apron. Holds three vehicles. Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie. Tape note: the approval motion as spoken cites the pad being in place “without issue for the last five years”; testimony was three years.
Abstract Architecture for the owner (contractor Atlantic Garages). Last residential parcel before the D-C Flex zone; neighbors' letters of support in file. Negative declaration adopted, then all four variances approved “primarily due to the isolated nature of the property and the support of the surrounding neighbors.” Moved Dearing, seconded Hornung.
14-foot pad poured by a contractor who did not pull the permit; stop-work order followed. Approved with one condition: the apron/curb cut may not exceed the 12-foot code requirement. Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie. Record note: the city labels this motion “Rec. Approve w/Conditions,” a committee-style label; the ZBA's approval is the decision.
Community Realty 716. Purchased May 2026 from the applicant's mother; 13 other long-term rentals in the city; needs ~$2,500/month for return. One public speaker opposed (an owner-occupant short-term-rental host). Negative declaration adopted, then denied: applicant “has not demonstrated that the zoning code has caused the applicant unnecessary hardship.” Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie.
Yard already fenced as one; owners learned from the tax bill it was two parcels. Approved “because they're already maintaining both yards and they should not need to pay the double fees.” Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie.
Non-resident owner since 2013; argued a third unit would let him rent to non-students. Denied: benefit outweighed by detriment, “primarily because the applicant didn't sufficiently demonstrate that adding more units to the residence would allow for better tenants.” Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie. The motion on tape said “200 Englewood Street”; the docket and street index read Avenue.
Owner (remote, after audio failure on first call) asked for the pad as an area variance and a reasonable accommodation for a service-connected disability; one neighbor opposed. Tabled with a request that the applicant return and explain the disability-related need and how the pad addresses it. Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie.
Homeowner replacing unfounded additions removed after purchase; immediate neighbors supportive per the applicant. Approved “primarily due to the minor nature of variances requested and the lack of real impact on adjacent properties.” Moved Dearing, seconded Hornung. The docket lists the zone as N-2R; the presiding member read it as N-4-30 on tape.
Called at 34:53 and again at 1:48:20; no applicant in the room or online. Tabled. Moved McKinnie, seconded Hornung.
Six-foot fence on a lot the owner of 56 Brownell bought next door, up four or five years, built after thefts from the yard; cited for gate height. Approved “primarily because the fence is slightly behind the front facade of the house.” Moved Hornung, seconded Dearing.
Hornung first moved to approve both variances (1:59:39), reasoning the pad would sit behind the front of the house; after discussion and an aerial-photo check showing the trailer would sit forward of the facade, he withdrew the motion (2:03:37) and moved to deny. Denied: detriment outweighs benefit “primarily because the expanded driveway/parking area would require the trailer to be forward of the front facade of the dwelling.” Seconded McKinnie. The city's record shows only the denial. The agenda's “McCarthy Dr.” is “McCarthy Street” in the city street index; the agenda spelling is kept here.
Remote applicant; rear line abuts a Mighty Taco fronting Delaware Avenue; fence to screen noise and lighting. Approved “primarily due to the negative impact of the adjacent commercial use.” Moved Dearing, seconded McKinnie.
Non-resident owner keeps two rooms of books, distributed on request; a tenant occupies the rear. One neighbor spoke in support. Negative declaration adopted; denied on all four use-variance prongs: no demonstrated unnecessary hardship, no financial hardship shown, self-created and not unique to the property, no evidence of inability to realize a reasonable return. Moved Dearing, seconded Hornung. The docket's own attachment title reads “Financial evidence variance 38 Brinkman — THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT.” The minutes print the “hearing closed / negative declaration adopted” lines twice for this item.
Existing driveway, two years old, built by a handyman without a permit; owner self-reported. Two neighbors opposed (one across the street, one adjoining at 46 Ada), chiefly over a seven-foot fence that was not before the board and the pad's effect on street parking. Staff: pad is 18 feet, six over the 12-foot limit. Approved “primarily due to the unique nature of the street and the difficulty presented to residents on-street parking.” Moved Dearing, seconded Hornung. After the hearing closed a remote caller said several people had tried to join and could not; no further testimony was taken. Flagged for contested testimony.
Applicants disclosed a planned ~32-unit, four-story condo development under a state affordable-housing program and no neighborhood contact. Denied: detriment outweighs benefit “primarily due to a lack of involvement of the neighborhood regarding the intentions of the applicant and the significant impacts it could have on the surrounding neighborhood.” Moved Dearing, seconded McKinnie.
Called at 1:04:54 and again at 1:48:43; no applicant. Tabled. Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie.
Owners bought the two adjoining lots from the city and garden them; ~$800/year in duplicate user fees. One neighbor asked about future use and thanked the board for the notice. Approved “primarily because it's already been treated as one parcel.” Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie.
Barclay Damon for Evergreen Health Services; sign vendor present. One neighboring merchant asked a question; no opposition. Negative declaration adopted; four variances approved “due to the newness of the building and the necessary need for those visiting … to know exactly where to park in the parking lot that is designated for 18 parking spots.” Moved McKinnie, seconded Hornung.
Five public speakers (a Bailey Avenue merchant, a neighboring barbershop owner, the pastor of Mount Calvary Holy Church, the Hutchinson–Midway block club treasurer and a church/block-club representative) opposed the private, gated conversion; none opposed the building. Negative declaration adopted. Tabled on Dearing's motion with a request that the applicant convene all parties — including the City of Buffalo and the neighborhood organizations — to reach a joint-use compromise agreeable to all; may return at the next meeting (two weeks) or in October. Seconded McKinnie. Flagged as the meeting's most contested item.
Phillips Lytle for the developer (docketed as Jemal's State LLC). ~110 × 120-ft Gatorade–Bills banner facing Niagara Square, six months from completion of installation (planned September 20–24), lit from inside the building and two LED fixtures, nothing attached to the exterior. A supplemental letter dated September 14 is in the file. Negative declaration adopted; variances A, B and C approved “primarily because this is a temporary installation that will not have a permanent impact.” Moved Hornung, seconded McKinnie.
Motion to adjourn at 2:19:12 on the recording, immediately after the Statler vote.
What the record shows and what the tape shows. This brief is built on the city's structured agenda with recorded votes, its summary minutes, and the audio of the city's posted video, read against each other. They agree on every disposition. The differences are small and are noted in the rows: the minutes list no mover for the 1707 Hertel extension while the items record lists McKinnie; the 992 Fillmore approval carries the label “Rec. Approve w/Conditions” in the city's record, though the ZBA's approval is the decision, not a recommendation; the 79 Pomona motion as spoken said the pad had stood “five years” against testimony of three; the 35 McCarthy record shows only the denial, not the approval motion that was made and withdrawn before it; and the minutes print the 38 Brinkman hearing-closed and negative-declaration lines twice. The minutes give the meeting place as Room 912 and the “OPS Conference Room”; the strip above follows the notice. The presiding member said “23 items”; the docket has 22 plus the minutes. The roll call on tape is garbled (“we have four”); the minutes record three present and Chairman James Lewis absent, and Thomas Dearing announced he would chair. Timecodes are recording positions, not clock times; the meeting was called to order at 1:58 on the recording and adjourned at 2:19:12.
Corrections applied. Board members' names are corrected against the roll-call roster (Whisper gave “Tom Deering,” “Jasmine Kenney,” “Janice McKinney,” “Jim Thornton,” “Jim Mooney,” “G morning” and others). Street names were validated against the city street index: “Turtle/Hurtle Avenue” is Hertel, “Armory Street” is Armbruster, “Lennon/Lemmon Street” is Lemon, “Gerrard Street” is Georgia, “Berkman” is Brinkman, “Delbert Avenue” is Delaware, “Wayne Avenue” is Midway, “Englewood Street” is Englewood Avenue and “Thornton Street” is Thornton Avenue, each resolved by the docket address. The agenda's “35 McCarthy Dr.” is “McCarthy Street” in the index; the agenda spelling is kept. Quaker Road (the Hertel developer's East Aurora address) is out of town and left as heard. The cross street named for 1707 Hertel was not intelligible and is omitted. Entity names follow the docket: Evergreen Health Services, Community Access Services, Masjid Baitul Aman, and the Statler's developer as the attachment titles it, “Jemal's State LLC” (heard on tape as “Jamal Stadler LLC”). “Barclay Damon” and “Phillips Lytle” are the law firms as heard (“Berkeley Damon,” “Phillips Idol”) and are flagged. “Mighty Taco” was heard as “muddy taco.”
Names. Applicants' representatives, staff and business or institutional speakers named here appear only in the audio and carry [*]: the Office of Strategic Planning staffer, the Forward Development principal, the Abstract Architecture representative, the Community Realty 716 principals, Evergreen's attorney and facilities representative, the United Men's Fashion owner, the Statler's attorney, and the 306 Carolina homeowner (whose surname appears in a docket attachment title; his first name does not). Private residents who spoke at the hearings — the short-term-rental host, the neighbors on Georgia, Brinkman, Ada and Wyoming, the block club officers, the pastor, the barbershop owner — are not named in the city's record and are described by role. Homeowner applicants are identified by address. Several remote participants were inaudible for stretches; nothing inaudible is reported as said.
Other checks. The interests watchlist was checked against every address, applicant, entity and speaker on the docket; no match. Scanner dispatch history was not consulted for this brief; the addresses at the center of the stories are listed in the page source for the editor's cross-reference.