Dennis Vacco’s affinity to “free speech protections” depends on the client.

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on July 11, 2017
Posted in: Buffalo Law Journal Columns by AJG, Carl Paladino, Chason Affinity, Elmwood Village, Lawyer's 1st Am. rights. Leave a comment

What do Carl Paladino, school board member, developer and former gubernatorial candidate, and Mark Chason, developer and president of the Chason Affinity  Companies, have in common?

They both turned to former State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco and the firm where he is a partner, Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, for legal representation.

What is stunningly different in Mr. Vacco’s representation of his two clients?

In his current role as the lawyer representing Mr. Paladino in the proceedings to remove Mr. Paladino from the Buffalo School District’s Board of Education, Mr. Vacco is a champion of the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause.

[To learn more about the “retaliatory First Amendment claim” asserted by attorney Vacco on behalf of the controversial Mr. Paladino, please see my column, “Did Carl Paladino engage in protected free speech?” in the July 10, 2017 print version of the Buffalo Law Journal, and on-line here.]

[If you are interested in learning about the provisions Mr. Paladino may have violated, and the authority State Commissioner of Education, MaryEllen Elia, possesses to remove an individual from his or her position as a school board member, please see the brief appendix at the end of this post.]

In stark contrast to his free speech advocacy on behalf of Mr. Paladino, Mr. Vacco appeared oblivious to a lawyer’s First Amendment rights when he argued several years ago on behalf of the Chason Affinity subsidiary, Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties LLC, for a gag order restricting the freedom of speech of his opposing counsel in a civil lawsuit.

Affinity was plaintiff in litigation brought to extinguish deed restrictions from 1892 on Chason Affinity’s properties at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Forest avenues in the City of Buffalo. I was the opposing counsel who had displeased Mr. Chason (“Of course, if it wasn’t for him there would be a beautiful development on Elmwood.”), and, as a result, was aggressively pursued by a handful of lawyers at the Lippes Mathias firm, including Dennis Vacco. They sought – through the use of a Temporary Restraining Order – not only to bar my communications with Kaleida Health, a non-party health care provider, but also to prevent me from contacting the City of Buffalo regarding property maintenance violations at Affinity’s Elmwood Avenue properties. Their accusations against me bordered on the preposterous, and included baseless claims that I had violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

1115-elmwood-replace-deteriorated-roof

dscn1469

The judge who oversaw – and, even aided and abetted the Vacco team in their efforts to stifle me – was the now-disgraced John A. Michalek.

The events that transpired in “His Honor’s” courtroom from November 2012 through March 2013 are detailed in the Appellants’ Brief that I prepared to challenge the temporary restraining order and subsequent “permanent” order issued by Michalek at the behest of Dennis Vacco and his colleagues at Lippes Mathias. The series of court orders precluded me from communicating with Kaleida Health, concerning the subject matter of the deed restriction lawsuit.

In the end, I spent 409 days – from November 20, 2012 through January 2, 2014 – with my First Amendment right to free speech restricted by the “gag order” pursued by Mr. Vacco on behalf of Mark Chason’s development company. Fortunately, on January 3, 2014, the New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ruled unanimously that the lower court had “abused its discretion” when Michalek prohibited me from communicating with Kaleida Health, and struck down the impediment to my free speech. “Justice” Michalek’s orders were so clearly contrary to the court rule relied upon by the lower court, that the appellate court didn’t need to address the constitutional issues raised in the appeal. [Note: Courts prefer not to render decisions based on constitutional claims if lesser laws or regulations can provide the basis for their rulings.]

I find the contrast between Carl Paladino’s words that the former State Attorney General finds worthy of First Amendment protection, and the letter-to-the-editor that I wrote that led to the prior restraint of my free speech rights, so striking that I’ll set them out here:

CARL PALADINO’S COMMENTS IN DECEMBER 23, 2016 EDITION OF ARTVOICE THAT DENNIS VACCO CHARACTERIZES AS “LOW AND UNNECESSARY”:

What do you want for 2017?

Carl Paladino DEVELOPER, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, POLITICAL ACTIVIST:

  1. Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford (sic).  He dies before his trial and is buried in a cow pasture next to Valerie Jarret, who died weeks prior, after being convicted of sedition and treason, when a Jihady cell mate mistook her for being a nice person and decapitated her.
  2. Michelle Obama.  I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.

…

ARTHUR GIACALONE’S LETTER TO THE EDITOR, PUBLISHED 09-10-2012 IN THE BUFFALO NEWS, THAT MR. VACCO CLAIMED IN OPEN COURT WAS “SCURRILOUS” (in other words, vulgar and evil):

August 28, 2012  

Re: Affinity is a risky choice for Kaleida/Gates Circle

Dear Editor:

            Chason Affinity’s proposal to re-use the Millard Fillmore Gates Circle Hospital site as a veterinarian teaching hospital may well be “visionary.” But more than an inspired idea will be needed if Kaleida Health is to reach its laudable goals for re-use of the prominent landmark.

            The expressed purpose of Kaleida’s million-dollar development competition was to “get the best ideas and the most capable developers to do something great” with the hospital site – great for the neighborhood, city, developer and Kaleida. For that goal to be met, Chason Affinity will need to substantially up its game from its performance the past several years at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Forest avenues.

            In 2007, with vague plans to construct student housing, a Chason Affinity subsidiary signed a contract to buy several century-old buildings at Elmwood and Forest. A year-and-a-half later, despite a risky financial market, a group of unhappy neighbors, and deed restrictions prohibiting “any business establishment,” Affinity proceeded with the purchase, spending nearly $2 million for eleven parcels. When the developer subsequently announced its vision for the “gateway to the Elmwood Village,” it proposed construction of a 6-story, 175,000 square-foot “mixed use” project poorly suited for the neighborhood, rather than the creative re-use of the quintessential “Elmwood Village” properties.    

            Unable to convince the adjoining owners to approve its project, Affinity is now in court seeking to extinguish the restrictive covenants that protect its neighbors. During the intervening years, the developer’s properties have been allowed to deteriorate in plain sight of residents, commuters and tourists. Affinity has been recently cited for code violations at eight of its properties.

            Chason Affinity may have won the competition, but Kaleida may want to think long and hard before designating it the developer of the Gates Circle site.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                           Arthur J. Giacalone

In case you are curious, Kaleida Health did end up rethinking its approach to the former Millard Fillmore Gates Circle Hospital site “after Chason Affinity was unable to recruit a veterinary school as previously planned.” [See Kaleida Health Press Release issued 09/24/2013.]

With all due respect,

Art Giacalone

APPENDIX:

The “SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT” of the City of Buffalo Board of Education provides the following: “As a member of my Board of Education, I will strive to improve public education, and to that end I will:… (g) Abide by the District’s Code of Ethics.

The “CODE OF ETHICS FOR BOARD MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT” expressly states: “V. REQUIREMENTS … (h) Confidentiality Requirements of Public Information and Records: (i) No board member or employee shall disclose confidential information acquired by them in the course of their official duties to further their personal interests or the interests of anyone in his/her family. (ii) No Employee or Board Member shall disclose the following matters discussed in executive session: (4) Discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation; (5) Collective negotiations under the Taylor Law;…

Section 306 of the state’s Education Law empowers the Commissioner to remove a school officer (including a member of a board of education), after a hearing (with the right of representation by counsel), “guilty of any willful violation or neglect of duty under this chapter, or any other act pertaining to common schools or other educational institution participating in state funds, or willfully disobeying any decision, order, rule or regulation of the regents or of the commissioner of education.” Section 2559 of the Education Law confirms that “for cause shown” – and after giving notice and opportunity of defense – the commissioner of education may remove any member of a board of education for “willful disobedience of any lawful requirement of the commissioner of education, or a want of due diligence in obeying such requirement or willful violation or neglect of duty.”

Also, Section 805-a of the state’s General Municipal Law [GML] expressly states that “No municipal officer or employee shall: … (b) disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties or use such information to further his personal interest.” A “municipal officer or employee” is defined to include “members of any administrative board, commission or other agency” – whether paid or unpaid – and, “municipality” expressly includes a school district. GML Section 805-a(2) provides the following: “In addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any person who shall knowingly and intentionally violate this section may be fined, suspended or removed from office or employment in the manner provided by law.”

Disappointed by Councilmember Joel Feroleto

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on June 27, 2017
Posted in: City of Buffalo, Elmwood Village, Green Code, Political Contributions. 2 Comments

Perhaps my expectations were too high.

Delaware District Councilmember Joel P. Feroleto has an impressive pedigree. His mother, the Hon. Paula L. Feroleto, was elected a State Supreme Court Justice in 2004, and has functioned as the Administrative Judge for the 8-county Eighth Judicial District since 2009. His father, John P. Feroleto, is a well-respected personal injury lawyer, known for his hard work and trial skills.

Perhaps my desire to see the growth of a new generation of leaders on the City of Buffalo Common Council – elected officials willing to provide a counter-weight to Mayor Byron Brown’s developers-before-residents approach to governing – created a false sense of hope.

No matter the reason, I am thoroughly discouraged by Joel Feroleto’s handling of Chason Affinity’s proposed mixed-use “1111 Elmwood” project at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Forest avenues. I expected the Common Council’s only lawyer to fight for the integrity of the zoning and development process, and to attempt to preserve the letter and spirit of the City’s most significant piece of legislation in many years – the Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO), known informally (and, misleadingly) as the “Green Code.”

rendering-of-affinity-project

[Full disclosure: For large portions of the past ten years, I have represented and assisted in various ways residents and property owners on Granger Place and Forest Avenue fighting to preserve the character of their historic Elmwood Village neighborhood and prevent the demolition of century-old buildings.]

recently-updated

The sources of my disappointment in Joel are many. Here’s a partial list:

Timing of political contributions. On September 7, 2016, Chason Affinity’s team of consultants officially submitted the developer’s application in furtherance of the “1111 Elmwood” project. In addition to site plan approval from the City Planning Board, and variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), the proposed development could not proceed without obtaining two important approvals from the Common Council: a rezoning of two Forest Avenue parcels, and a restricted use permit to allow demolition of eleven existing structures.

Within 20 days of the 1111 Elmwood project filing, Councilmember Feroleto received the following contributions from the Chason Affinity team: $500 from the property owner, Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties; $500 from Chason Affinity’s architectural firm, Camina Wood Morris; and, $250 from Chason Affinity’s lawyers, Bond, Schoeneck & King. None of these contributors had donated to Joel’s councilmanic campaign prior to the filing of the 1111 Elmwood application.

Joel also received a September 19, 2016 donation of $500 from Gerald Buchheit. The general contractor for Chason Affinity’s proposed Elmwood/Forest project, RP Oak Hill Building Co., happens to be Buchheit’s partner in developing Queen City Landing, the controversial 23-story, glass-and-steel tower on Buffalo’s Outer Harbor. [Note: Councilmember Feroleto voted to approve the restricted use permit for the 23-story tower in June 2016, despite the fact that the proposed Green Code called for a 6-story building height maximum for the Fuhrman Blvd. site.]

Given an attorney’s obligation to be keenly aware of even the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, it would have been admirable and appropriate for Joel – in his role as the only lawyer on Buffalo’s Common Council – to give back the donations he received from the Chason Affinity team in light of the pending 1111 Elmwood project.

Note: Speaking of political contributions, Councilmember Feroleto received a $1,000 contribution from Mayor Byron Brown’s “Brown for Buffalo” campaign in October 2015. That’s one way for a city’s chief executive to convince a legislator not to rock the proverbial boat.

Refusal to take leadership role. I contacted Joel and Councilmember David Rivera (whose district also includes a portion of the Elmwood Village) early in October 2016. [I did not know at that time of the political contributions to Feroleto from the Chason Affinity team.] I urged the two legislators to take two steps to help preserve the unique character of the Elmwood Village:

First, have the Common Council seek “lead agency” status under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to ensure that potential adverse impacts of the proposed project would be fully and objectively analyzed. My email message to Feroleto and Rivera included the following statement:

“It would not serve the residents of Buffalo for its legislative body to allow critical determinations that may impact the Elmwood Village for decades – and severely impact the character of the city’s most attractive neighborhood – to be made by another entity, no matter what justification you may put forth.  Being lead agency on this one project should not require an overwhelming amount of time or effort – there are experienced residents who will gladly assist you.  And, importantly, pursuant to SEQRA, as lead agency, the Common Council has the authority under the SEQRA regulations, to retain an outside consultant to review the project sponsor’s DEIS at the expense of the project sponsor:  “… [T]he lead agency may charge a fee to the applicant in order to recover the actual costs of … reviewing the draft and/or final EIS.”  [See 6 NYCRR 617.13(a).]”

To my chagrin, Joel provided the following excuse for not seeking lead agency status: “The Common Council already has too much on its plate.

Second, promptly commence the proper steps needed to lawfully enact a moratorium on development, either city-wide or in select neighborhoods such as the Elmwood Village, until the proposed Green Code was enacted and placed into effect. [I even offered to prepare the first draft of the necessary papers.]

I never received a response in any form from Councilmember Feroleto regarding a moratorium. He most likely found the thought of taking this bold step too controversial, and contrary to the Mayor’s wishes.

Parroting of the developer’s positions. For the past half year or so, conversations with Joel regarding the Chason Affinity project became increasingly frustrating. Whether the Councilmember initiated a topic, or replied to my perspective on pertinent issues, the words that came out of his mouth consistently echoed Chason Affinity’s positions (although the Councilmember would not publicly confirm that he was in favor of the project). For example:

*** Although the State Office of Historic Preservation concluded that the proposed demolition of the 11 century-old building would have a significant adverse impact on the Elmwood Village Historic District (East), [see SHPO’s 12-19-2016 letter] Joel took the position that the actual impact would not be great because none of the individual building has substantial architectural or historic significance.

*** Although none of the existing structures on Chason Affinity’s property, the adjoining Granger Place and Forest Avenue residences, the commercial buildings across Elmwood Avenue from the proposed 1111 Elmwood site, or the single-family homes on the east side of Elmwood Avenue north of Forest Avenue, exceed two-and-a-half stories in height, Joel insisted that Chason Affinity’s 4-story, 315-foot wide building would not be out-of-scale with the adjoining neighborhood because the stepped-back upper floors and various facades along Elmwood Avenue would give the impression from street level of multiple, three-story buildings.

photos-with-captions

picasa

DSCN1109

*** Despite the fact that the various projects proposed by Chason Affinity during its eight years of owning the properties at the southeast corner of Elmwood & Forest never complied with the existing zoning laws, and never reflected the character and scale of the Elmwood Village, Joel praised the developer for being open, transparent, and willing to compromise.

Affinity schematic 10-16-2010

Lack of willingness to fight for the integrity of Green Code/zoning process. During the weeks preceding the recent public hearing before the ZBA regarding the proposed 1111 Elmwood project, I sent emails and supporting documentation to Councilmember Feroleto of a number of significant defects in Chason Affinity’s application that had been ignored by the city’s Planning Department, including, for example, the following:

(i) The developer had failed to follow the proper procedures – including a public hearing before the City Planning Board – when it allegedly consolidated its ten (10) Elmwood Ave. parcels into one 321.5-foot wide lot in the fall of 2016. Under the Green Code/UDO, no more than 2 lots can be combined on Elmwood Avenue if they had not been consolidated prior to the enactment of the Green Code.

(ii) The Green Code/UDO requires a project sponsor to “select” one building type it proposes to construct, and then comply with the standards for that building type. Chason Affinity’s proposed project violates this requirement by treating its proposed structure as both a “Commercial Block” building where convenient, and “Stacked Units” building where a Commercial Block building is inappropriate.

(iii) The Green Code/UDO requires the ground floor of a “Commercial Block” building – the type of building allowed on the Elmwood Avenue portion of the Chason Affinity property – to consist of “retail or service uses” only. Despite this mandate, 153-feet of the Elmwood Avenue frontage of the proposed project contains residential condominium units, and not the required commercial uses.

Joel never addressed these issues in his replies to my emails, and, to my knowledge, never publicly discussed or acknowledged these defects in the Chason Affinity application. Disturbingly, Councilmember Feroleto appears not to care that what many residents consider the Common Council’s most significant legislative accomplishment in decades – the Green Code -was being disregarded by Mayor Brown’s planning staff.

Preference for Penhurst Park elites and popularity polls.

Our state’s highest court made it clear nearly a half-century ago that zoning determinations must be “more than just a Gallup poll.” That reminder fell on deaf ears as Joel – finally breaking his public silence – endorsed the Chason Affinity project at the June 21st ZBA public hearing. According to a Buffalo News article, “Feroleto noted that ‘there is significant support’ in the ‘immediate neighborhood’ around the project, citing letters and petitions to the ZBA from 80 percent of homeowners on Penhurst Place (sic)…”

Councilmember Feroleto’s embrace of the position taken by Penhurst residents – whose enclave of high-priced homes lies outside of the Elmwood Village boundaries and is protected from any direct adverse impacts associated with the demolition, construction, or operation of the Chason Affinity project – rather than the concerns expressed by adjacent Granger Place and Forest Avenue residents, or the plight of the students and non-affluent tenants being displaced by Chason Affinity’s eviction notices, says volumes about Joel, his values, and how he arrives at his decisions as an elected legislator.

DSCN2304

I could go on, but I have more important things to do.

With all due respect,

Art Giacalone

Motions to re-argue – who’s keeping score?

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on June 14, 2017
Posted in: Buffalo Law Journal Columns by AJG, Judiciary. Leave a comment

The June 12, 2017 print version of the Buffalo Law Journal published my column – titled “Motions to re-argue – who’s keeping score?” – where I humbly discuss my “batting average” when making these sensitive requests to a judge who has rendered a decision I believe is wrong. I also offer some reflections on a handful of motions that I think might provide insight into the judicial mindset.

The column is available to the public on-line at the BLJ website.

Hope you’ll find the piece informative, at least mildly entertaining, and, perhaps, a bit disturbing.

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

Why won’t Buffalo City Hall enforce the Green Code?

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on June 7, 2017
Posted in: Byron Brown, Chason Affinity, City of Buffalo, Development, Elmwood Village, Green Code. Leave a comment

[A version of this post was published by The Public on June 14, 2017 under the headline, “Elmwood-Forest and the Green Code.”  You can read it here.]

The City of Buffalo’s long-touted new zoning law – the Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO) or “Green Code” – has been in effect citywide for two months. Is that too short a time period for members of Mayor Byron Brown’s planning staff to familiarize itself with its provisions and apply its requirements to Chason Affinity’s proposed “1111 Elmwood” project at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Forest avenues?

Or, are we just seeing more of the same from the ninth floor of City Hall? That is, are the staff members of the Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning (headed by Executive Director Brendan Mehaffy), and the city’s Division of Planning (under the leadership of Nadine Marrero) being willfully indifferent or blind to zoning, planning and environmental requirements that might slow down or derail a proposed development project?

I’m not in a position to know with certainty whether it is ignorance, indifference, incompetence, or some unidentified reason. What I do know is that Chason Affinity’s project is not being held to the requirements of either the former zoning ordinance or newly-enacted Green Code/UDO. While an excellent report by WBFO’s Chris Caya diplomatically includes a question mark in its headline – Does proposed Elmwood Village project violate the Green Code? – the answer, in my opinion, is a clear and unequivocal YES!

Please note, I am not saying – as many well-intentioned individuals have argued – that Chason Affinity should be prohibited from proposing a project that requires “variances” from the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance. Both New York State law and the Green Code/UDO mandate that a property owner or project sponsor have access to the variance process – that is, the ability to apply to the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA] in an attempt to demonstrate at a public hearing that he/she should be relieved of a particular requirement in the zoning code.

I’m saying that there are provisions of the Green Code/UDO that Chason Affinity’s proposed project violates, and that the city’s planning staff are, intentionally or otherwise, disregarding those requirements and allowing the application process to proceed without addressing that non-compliance.

If you are interested in the details, please read the letter that I sent on June 5, 2017 to James Comerford, Jr., Commissioner of the City’s Department of Permit & Inspection Services [who is empowered under the Green Code/UDO to provide “written interpretations” of the UDO provisions], and Ms. Marrero [who, as “Zoning Administrator,” is the person who makes a “determination of completeness” when a project sponsor applies for a discretionary approval under the UDO from the Common Council, City Planning Board, or Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)].  Here’s a link to that correspondence: Letter to Comerford-Marrero re 1111 Elmwood 06-05-17

And here is a quick summary of the primary areas of non-compliance that I believe the Mayor’s planning staff has so far ignored:

Issue No. 1 – Combination of lots

The Green Code/UDO’s “Elmwood Village Standards” include the following provision: “No more than two lots in the Elmwood Village, existing at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, may be combined for the purposes of new construction in an N-2C or N-2E zone.” Chason Affinity’s Elmwood Ave. property is located in an N-2C zoning district, and consists of 10 lots, extending 321.5 feet.

Chason Affinity claims that it combined these lots in 2016, but has not provided any public support for that assertion. There was only one lawful way in 2016 for the project sponsor to consolidate its lots: obtain approval of such consolidation from the City Planning Board after a public hearing. Zoning Administrator Marrero has stated in a recent email that consolidation of the Chason Affinity parcels was not completed through the Planning Department, but, apparently, through “Assessments.”

Despite the apparent failure of Chason Affinity to lawfully combine “more than two lots”, Ms. Marrero has allowed the proposed 1111 Elmwood project to proceed before the Planning Board and – as currently scheduled – the ZBA on June 21, without addressing this significant issue. While Chason Affinity’s 10-lot combination extends over 320’ on Elmwood Avenue, the two-lot limitation would restrict the Elmwood Ave. frontage – and, the length of the building – to less than 82 feet – and would eliminate the need to demolish 8 of the ten of the existing century-old buildings.

Exh 76 - Front yards 1095-1121 Elmwood

Issue No. 2 – Chason Affinity’s hybrid “Commercial Block”/“Stacked Units” building

The Green Code/UDO is clear. A project sponsor must “select” which allowed building type it proposes to construct, and then comply with the standards for that building type. This form-based approach to zoning was an integral feature of the new zoning code. But Chason Affinity has failed to comply with this requirement, and is attempting to have its building treated as both a Commercial Block building where convenient, and Stacked Units building where a Commercial Block building is inappropriate.

The most disturbing aspect of this issue is that the Zoning Administrator and City Planning Board are allowing the project sponsor to get away with this flagrant disregard of this basic Green Code/UDO requirement.

Issue No. 3 – Conflicts with “Commercial Building” and “Stacked Units” requirements

Whether or not the intention of the Green Code/UDO is to permit a “hybrid” building, the residential-only portions of the proposed monolith – the southern portion of the Elmwood Ave. frontage, and the portion of the building located at 605 and 607 Forest Ave. – violate a number of the requirements for a “Commercial Block” building and “Stacked Unit” buildings.

City Hall has treated the Chason Affinity application as “complete” without requiring the project sponsor to apply for additional variances despite the following examples of non-compliance with Green Code/UDO requirements:

(a) The residential-only portion of the building located at 605-607 Forest Ave. violates the following “Stacked Units” requirements: (i) there appears to be no “shared entry”;  (ii) it lacks a second side yard (which would make it a free-standing structure); and (iii) it appears to lack the required rear yard.

BGC Stacked Units dark0001

(b) If the “condominium portion” of the building on Elmwood Avenue is a Commercial Block building, as claimed by Chason Affinity, it currently violates the “Commercial Block” requirement that the ground floor consist of “retail or service uses.”

(c) If, in fact, the “condominium portion” of the building on Elmwood Avenue is meant to be a “Stacked Units” building, it violates the Green Code/UDO’s exclusion of “Stacked Units” in the N-2C District. It also lacks the required “shared entry” and second side yard.

Please contact City of Buffalo officials and demand compliance with the Green Code/UDO

Zoning, planning, and environmental laws are meant to be applied as written, not as a project sponsor or Mayor Brown’s Administration wants to interpret it to expedite or ease a project’s construction.  If you agree with this sentiment – whether or not you support or oppose Chason Affinity’s project – please contact the following officials by phone, email, letter, or in person, to demand that the law be objectively and fully applied:

Mayor Byron Brown: bbrown@city-buffalo.com; 716-851-4841

Brendan Mehaffy, Executive Director of Office of Strategic Planning [and, Nadine Marrero’s boss]: bmehaffy@city-buffalo.com;  716-851-4769

Nadine Marrero, Director of Planning/Zoning Administrator: nmarrero@city-buffalo.com; 716-851-0172

James Comerford, Jr., Commissioner of City’s Department of Permit & Inspection Services: jcomerford@city-buffalo.com; 716-851-4972

Timothy Ball, Esq., Corporation Counsel: tball@city-buffalo.com;  716-851-4343

Joel Feroleto, Esq., Delaware District Councilmember: jferoleto@city-buffalo.com; 716-698-1207.

Thank you for your advocacy!

With all due respect,

Art Giacalone

Medical aid in dying: Should NYers have the option?

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on May 31, 2017
Posted in: Buffalo Law Journal Columns by AJG. Leave a comment

The May 29, 2017 print version of the Buffalo Law Journal published my column – titled “Medical aid in dying: Should NYers have the option? – where I explain the “what” and “why” of this medical term of art, and the predicament of terminally ill patients in NYS who find the final stages of life unbearable, but currently have no way to achieve a peaceful death.

The column is available to the public on-line at the BLJ website.

I hope you find the piece informative. If you wish to learn more regarding this topic, I recommend that you visit the website of End of Life Choices New York at http://endoflifechoicesny.org/.

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

P.S. The Buffalo News reported on the May 30, 2017 oral argument at New York State’s highest court regarding efforts to make medical aid-in-dying legal in NYS.

Fight to stop Queen City Landing’s 23-story tower continues

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on May 30, 2017
Posted in: City of Buffalo, Development, Gerald A. Buchheit Jr., SEQRA, Waterfront. Leave a comment

On May 30, four City of Buffalo residents – Margaret Wooster, Jay Burney, Lynda K. Stephens and James E. Carr [referred to as the “Wooster Appellants”] – continued their legal battle challenging the procedures and quality of the city’s environmental review for the 23-story glass-and-steel tower proposed for the site of the former Freezer-Queen facility on Buffalo’s Outer Harbor.

Bird's Eye View from Fuhrmann Blvd.

As lawyer for the Wooster Appellants, I served a “Motion to Reargue” asking the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, to reconsider its May 5, 2017 “Memorandum and Order” which affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of my clients’ lawsuit.  [Click here to read the Appellate Division’s decision with my “sticky notes”:  Wooster-Riverkeeper Annotated 05-05-17 AD4 Decision.]

The Motion to Reargue alleges that the appellate court “overlooked or misapprehended” a number of legal and factual points when it rendered its May 5th ruling.   You can read the arguments raised on behalf of the Wooster Appellants in the following document:  AD4 – Wooster REARGUE Supporting Affirmation.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department – which is the intermediate state appeals court serving the Western New York area – will rule on the motion (including whatever papers it receives on behalf of the project sponsor, Queen City Landing, LLC, and the City of Buffalo) on or after June 12, 2017.

With all due respect,

Art Giacalone

 

 

Buffalo’s Green Code: Historic Revision or Hype?

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on May 18, 2017
Posted in: Buffalo Law Journal Columns by AJG, Byron Brown, Green Code, Uncategorized. Leave a comment

The May 15, 2017 edition of the Buffalo Law Journal published my column – titled “Buffalo’s Green Code: Historic Revision or Hype?” – where I compare promises made by Mayor Byron Brown’s administration and the actual ordinance that went into effect citywide on April 3, 2017.

The column is available to the public on-line at the BLJ website.

I hope you’ll enjoy the piece.

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone