Local hotel owners unite against Holiday Inn Express
Local hotel owners are united in their opposition to the proposed four-story Holiday Inn Express that could become their new neighbor.
One by one, the owners gave their reasons why to the Town of Batavia Planning Board Tuesday night. They cited serious traffic concerns and opposed a building that would tower over others. They claimed another hotel would negatively impact their businesses and, ultimately, the local job market.
The proposed "franchise hotel" would have, according to architect Mark Tiedemann, of MWT Architecture, "...80 rooms with a small meeting room space along with a dining space/breakfast area and an indoor pool."
Developer Michael Patel was not present. He also owns the Hampton Inn in Batavia and is an investor in Chase Hotel Group.
"He doesn't live in our community -- he's not from the area," said a hotel owner.
More than one owner complained that the Hampton Inn continually undercuts the prices of its competitors, starting a "price war."
Rashi Dev, owner of the Comfort Inn in Batavia, said her hotel will be the most negatively affected if the Holiday Inn Express is erected at four stories high next to her two-story building.
Hotel owners agreed that demand for their services has dwindled in this troubled economy. Some have had to lay off a number of employees and they admitted working long shifts as their own front-desk attendants, even having to clean rooms.
"We're already overpopulated," said Vibhu Joshi, owner of Days Inn and Super 8. He explained that the number of hotels at exit 48 proves to be the highest concentration off the thruway from Syracuse to Pennsylvania.
"Currently, all the hotels here are struggling in a bad economy and this will hurt even more... the county and the state because the demand will not increase. The supply would be increasing."
The proposed project touts the creation of 19 jobs, but hotel owners questioned whether they are full or part time, and whether or not they will be seasonal. They also pointed out that Patel is known to "share" employees from facility to facility and said that the "new" jobs would most likely be given to those already employed at the Hampton Inn.
Dev informed the planning board of a few parking lot troubles she already encounters with her close proximity to the Hampton Inn, and asked that traffic and parking be looked into further. It was pointed out later by Tom Warth, of Hiscock and Barclay -- hired to represent the existing hotels, that the traffic studies should be conducted during the peak hotel season in the summertime.
Planning Board Chair Kathleen Jasinski tried to assure the concerned business owners that, "This is all so preliminary and it's the first the planning board is hearing of it tonight... If we need to have another public hearing on the matter, we will."
After listening to the genuine concerns and issues of the hotel owners and even a few hotel employees, Jasinski seemed certain that another public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
The planning board agreed to serve as lead agency on the project and to go through the SEQR process beginning March 15 -- after the applicant provides a traffic study. Jasinski said she couldn't comment on whether the study would be considered adequate if it turns out it wasn't conducted during peak hotel season.
Besides parking and traffic, height was a big concern.
Tiedemann said the building's height shouldn't negatively affect those around it because westbound Thruway traffic can't see the buildings behind the Route 98 bridge anyway. And eastbound traffic would see it behind the others from the opposite direction.
Jasinski warned that, "Unfortunately, we deal with only the land use. We just determine whether or not the project is the right use for the land and that area. We are not involved in the economics -- they have already gone through that with the GCEDC and they've gotten their tax incentives and it's all worked out."
When Warth pointed out that, "Actually, they don't (have it all worked out) because they are waiting on the planning board."
Jasinski replied, "Well they are going to wait a little bit because we have a lot to do."
Although a 40-foot height variance was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the project was incorrectly categorized as one not requiring a SEQR review. In fact, the zoning board cannot grant a variance until a SEQR is completed, so its decision is invalid.
"I don't see any reason to allow another hotel but just in case it turns out they have the right to be there, I would like to see that you don't give the varience for additional height," Joshi charged the planning board. "
"Show the reason - if there is supply and the need is there for a higher building, so be it... but why grant the unfair advantage when everyone else is at the same height? They are the ones getting tax benefits, they will lower all the rates to take the business from us and put us in jeopardy and they sell the bulding and run."