Woodcliff neighbors say Perinton boards erred in apartment approval process

Listen to this article

A citizens’ organization is heading to court in an attempt to derail a proposed apartment community in the Woodcliff neighborhood of Perinton.

Concerned Woodcliff Residents Committee, Inc. (CWRC), filed a petition in state Supreme Court on Saturday, alleging that the negative State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination and re-zoning approvals issued by the town board and town planning board were faulty because:

They violated lawful procedure, were affected by an error of law, were arbitrary and capricious and/or were an abuse of discretion.

Rochester-based developer Mark IV Enterprises, through Woodmark Associates, LLC, on Jan. 15 received re-zoning approval on a 9.42-acre site at 390 Woodcliff Dr. for construction of a four-building, 178-unit apartment community.

Three days later the CWRC neighborhood group, through attorney Peter J. Weishaar, filed the petition in opposition. Weishaar is managing partner at McConville Considine Cooman & Morin, P.C.

The town of Perinton, town board, planning board and Woodmark Associates and Mark IV are listed as co-defendants.

The court filing contends a positive SEQRA declaration should have been issued due to potential adverse impacts on the environment. That would have required preparation of an environmental impact statement by the town and/or developer.

The petitioners say that during the SEQRA process, the town failed to include necessary parties in the review, including the Monroe County Department of Health, Monroe County Planning Department and the DEC regarding stormwater management procedures.

The petitioners also disagree that the proposed development would harmoniously fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The group contends that the town board “cherry picked” portions of Perinton’s updated Comprehensive Plan while ignoring portions that were contrary to the project.

A four-building apartment community in no way fits into the character of the Woodcliff neighborhood and instead is in stark contrast to the area’s existing residential and commercial uses, the group claims.

The CWRC filing also says the SEQRA finding was insufficient because it failed to address potential impacts on: endangered species, including the northern long-eared bat; possibly threatened species such as the monarch butterfly; and sensitive plant species which may exist on the property.

During last week’s planning board meeting, Woodmark Associates characterized as positive the discussions with the owner of the neighboring property at 370 Woodcliff over the presence of a cooling tower.

The tower used by the office building at 370 Woodcliff sits on the land owned by 390 Woodcliff and would need to be relocated for development of the apartments. At the Jan. 15 meeting, the planning board inferred that cost likely will be the responsibility of 370 Woodcliff, since the cooling tower is on the adjacent property.

But in a letter to the planning board, attorney Michael S. Flynn said the owner of 370 may have a valid claim of adverse possession because it has operated the cooling tower at that location for more than 10 years. His letter said there is also a reciprocal easement agreement addressing the cooling tower.

Flynn, of Bergstein Flynn Knowlton and Pollina PLLC, represents ROC Office LLC, the owner of 370 Woodcliff.

While the letter says ROC Office is not opposed to moving the cooling tower, it believes Woodmark Associates would be responsible for the cost.

Mark IV is no stranger to courtroom battles over development projects. Approval of Westport Crossing in the village of Pittsford was held up for more than a decade by more than a dozen lawsuits. While legal hurdles have been cleared, construction remains on hold.

[email protected]/(585) 653-4020