City of Buffalo — Common Council, Legislation Committee
A developer asked the committee to recommend that the Council overturn the Preservation Board and let it demolish a North Oak Street building, resting its case on the code's undue-hardship test. The Majority Leader said she would move to reverse the board — and added that preservation designations should require the owner's consent in the first place.
On October 27 the full Council referred an “Appeal of Preservation Board Findings” to this committee without identifying the property. It is 328 North Oak Street, and the applicant came to argue it in person.[3]
The speaker identified himself as being with a development company and as general partner of the applicant entity. His request was precise:[1]
“we're asking the committee to recommend that the council reverse the preservation board's decision of October 15th and authorize the demolition of 328 North Oak Street, subject to our commitments to document the building through professional LiDAR scanning, reconstructed in substantial conformance with that record, and reuse salvageable original materials.”[1]
The legal basis is a named provision. “our appeal here rests on the undue hardship provision of section 337-23 b1 — whether an investment property can yield a reasonable return without the requested demolition. We have established that it cannot.”[1]
And he claimed the board's own chair had conceded the premise: “The preservation board chair expressly recognized rehabilitation was financially infeasible, and there were no board members that disputed that finding.”[1]
The building's condition, as he described it: an independent engineer found “systemic structural deterioration that resulted from decades of neglect… that began long before we acquired it in 2020” — compromised brick, widespread mortar failure, separation within the masonry walls. His conclusion: “This building isn't a restoration, it would be a complete reconstruction.”[1]
He also pre-empted the obvious objection — that a developer asking to demolish a historic building is not a preservationist — by listing the company's own restorations: its headquarters on Main Street, a complete restoration of another Main Street property beside a downtown theatre, and continuing investment at a Genesee Street property “which is immediately adjacent to this property.” His framing: “We are committed to historic preservation when it makes economic sense.”[1]
And the alternative the Preservation Board had required was tried and failed. The board “asked us to explore an opportunity transfer the building to a not-for-profit, specifically Preservation Buffalo Niagara. We worked with them over a period of four months and no workable proposal came forward.”[1]
She did not treat it as a close call:
“I wanted to thank them for coming today. This is exactly why I strongly recommend that before you do preservation you get an okay from the owners and full support of this.”
And then the motion:
“at the close of this discussion, my motion will be to reverse the preservation board's recommendation.”
The second sentence is the larger story. Buffalo's landmark process does not require owner consent — this publication reported in July that a 1929 bank building was nominated by a resident, not its owner, and drew outside counsel from Albany in response. A standing position that designation should require the owner's agreement would be a substantial change in how the city preserves buildings, and it was stated here in passing.[4]
The committee did not vote to reverse. Told a public hearing before the full Council is required first, the Majority Leader asked for it to be scheduled quickly — “can't be soon… I only got a couple more weeks” — and the item was instead sent without recommendation so the hearing can be set.
So: no reversal yet, a Council public hearing to come, and a stated intention to move for reversal when it does.
That remark, made in passing while asking the clerk's office to schedule a hearing, is worth recording on its own. The Majority Leader indicated she has weeks left in the role. The meeting took place the morning after Election Day, and a member of a neighbouring town board made a comparable remark the same week about his own term ending.[5]
This publication does not report election results and takes no view on them. What is reportable is that a committee officer stated on the record that her tenure is ending within weeks, while moving to reverse a Preservation Board decision whose Council hearing has not yet been scheduled. Whether that reversal is moved by her or by a successor is now a live question about timing.
The pattern this publication reported from October 20 held. Of the items the committee advanced, not one carried a recommendation to approve.[3]
A convenience store on Broadway. The applicant for a food store licence at 1517 Broadway came to the microphone and described the plan: “we are trying to make it a convenience store.” The chair noted the district councilmember was absent and asked whether the applicant had spoken to that office; told his accountant had filed paperwork, the chair's resolution was procedural rather than substantive — “we'll have staff make sure you coordinate with his office and we'll send it without recommendation.” Sent without recommendation, with a staff follow-up promised: “We'll make sure that they talk to you.”[1]
Retail checkout staffing, after five months. This is the item that has been before the Council since before its recess. The chair's account of the process, and of his own position, is unusually candid:[1]
“this item has been before this council since before recess. We have had individuals come in in support of it, we have given opportunity for people to vote against it, to share letters of opposition… and I believe we've been pretty fair and accommodating at this point. I think five months is enough time.”[1]
Then the disposition, corrected mid-sentence: “my motion is to send this without recommendation — or actually I want to approve it, but I will send it without rec — and the motion will be to approve next week.”[1]
So a member who wants the measure passed chose to forward it unrecommended and signalled he will move approval at the full Council. That is the mechanics of a majority managing its own calendar, said out loud.
A landmark and a special use permit, both pointed at December 1. Item 1 is the proposed local landmark designation of 248 Allen Street, identified on the recording as a named building; the committee discussed setting a public hearing for December 1 and the motion as recorded was to table. Items 5 through 8 — including the special use permit at 462 Niagara for an open-air market and live entertainment — were tabled “pending public hearing on December 1st.”[1]
That 462 Niagara permit is the application this publication reported as having been tabled on October 20 after its original October 6 hearing date had already passed. It has since been recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning Board, on November 2.[6]
Seven members answered the roll and a quorum was declared: Scanlon, Golombek, Halton-Pope, Rivera, Bollman, Everhart and Wyatt. No vote tally was recorded on any disposition — every motion carried on a second — so this brief reports dispositions only and attributes no position to any member. The capture is complete, beginning with pre-gavel room talk and ending on the motion to adjourn.
The applicant seeks demolition under the undue-hardship provision of §337-23(b)(1), offering LiDAR documentation, reconstruction in substantial conformance and reuse of salvageable materials. Figures as stated: roughly $1.9 million to rebuild, about $1.6 million after historic tax credits, against a completed value of $800,000. A four-month effort to transfer the building to a preservation not-for-profit produced no workable proposal.
The Majority Leader stated she would move to reverse the board, and stated separately that preservation designations should require owner consent. No reversal was voted; a Council public hearing is required first.
Opened briefly. The chair recounted supporters appearing, opponents invited to submit letters, and concluded that five months was enough time. He said he wanted to approve it but would forward it unrecommended, with a motion to approve at the full Council the following week.
The item's substance — what the measure would require of retailers — was not described at this meeting.
The only applicant to speak other than on the demolition appeal. The district councilmember was not present; the chair directed staff to ensure the applicant coordinates with that office, and forwarded the licence without a recommendation.
The committee discussed setting a public hearing for December 1, and the motion as recorded is to table. The recording does not cleanly separate the two, so this brief reports both and names the minutes as the authority. The building is identified on the recording by a proper name that the transcription does not render reliably, and this brief does not print it.
A second food store licence, at a Main Street address rendered two ways, was also tabled.
This permit was tabled by this committee on October 20 after its original October 6 hearing date had already passed. The Planning Board recommended approval with conditions on November 2. It is now queued for a December 1 Council hearing — roughly eight weeks after the hearing date originally printed on its file.[6]
The sidewalk café licence on West Chippewa — forwarded without recommendation for the second consecutive meeting. Two property managers licences tabled. And a resolution on parking governance consolidation tabled, one of the charter-implementation measures the full Council adopted in part on October 27 and which the Civil Service and Finance committees also held the same morning.[5]
A complete capture, and a short meeting. This recording begins before the gavel and ends on the motion to adjourn, with 130 segments of which every one is distinct and 93.9% coverage within the proceedings window. That matters because this publication reported the committee's October 20 meeting as a partial capture — 4.5 minutes of a meeting that normally runs an hour. This one is 15 minutes because the meeting was 15 minutes, not because the recording failed.[3]
The applicant's figures are the applicant's. The $1.9 million, $1.6 million and $800,000 are as he presented them, derived in part from his own prior work on an adjacent property. This publication has not seen the engineer's report, the pro forma or the Preservation Board's written findings, and takes no view on whether the undue-hardship test is met — which is a judgement for the Council and, if challenged, a court. We report his case and note what has not been tested: nobody at this meeting questioned any of the three figures.
The Preservation Board's side is not here. No board representative spoke, and the board's October 15 findings were not read into the record. This publication's brief on the Preservation Board's October 29 meeting notes that the board approved the minutes of that October 15 session 8–0 — ratifying the record of the decision now under appeal — but the findings themselves are not published with either agenda.[4]
No vote tallies. As at every Buffalo committee meeting in this edition, dispositions carried on a motion and a second with no result announced. No position is attributed to any member.
Names. The applicant's surname and the Allen Street building's proper name are each rendered once and unreliably, so neither is printed. Councilmembers come from this pipeline's verified roster; the transcriber renders Golombek as “Galambic” and “going back,” Halton-Pope as “Halden vote,” Bollman as “Bowman,” Everhart as “Everett” and Wyatt as “Wynne.” Statements are attributed by office.
Pre-gavel audio. The first three and a half minutes are open-mic room conversation, including a member explaining he would not be present for a later meeting. It is not treated as record.