LOCKPORT – The Lockport City Council on Wednesday approved a controversial concept plan for developing duplexes and other facilities at the Broken Arrow Golf Course.

The council voted 6-3, with the condition that its vote was not a "rubber stamp" for the development, saying it wanted to see issues raised by neighbors addressed. The concept plan includes building 26 duplexes and a banquet hall and cultural center near Broken Arrow Drive.

The concept plan outlines the site development; additional votes would be needed to approve the preliminary and final plans. Broken Arrow Golf Club owners intend to redevelop the par-3 golf course, but it only has one entrance and exit access road.

Many residents who live in the subdivision near Broken Arrow and Apache drives were concerned that development would increase traffic congestion, which would pose a safety hazard and delay emergency vehicles.

Safety and density concerns

Michelle Pollos, whose home is located on the course, reiterated Wednesday resident pleas to reject the plan. She said she had a petition against the plan with 220 signatures.

“Why should the business come before our safety in our neighborhood?” she said.

Besides traffic congestion, neighbors expressed concerns about overcrowded schools, a drop in property values and drainage for houses that back up on Par 3.

Michael Chen, the golf club’s general manager, said the owners want to develop the land for financial gain, but declined to give further details on what those gains could be.

“The original plan back several years ago, a long time ago, was to put up a convention center. We have scaled down,” he said.

He said a traffic study is being done by a separate company and he expects its completion by mid-January. While the owners do not intend to have another road in the new development, he said emergency vehicles will have access to another roadway not accessible by the public.

Concept plan opponents

Fourth Ward Alderman Robert Perretta, 4th Ward Alderman Denise Marynowski and 2nd Ward Alderman Kelly Turner voted against the concept plan.

Marynowski said it’s not the city’s responsibility to make a business profitable and asked Lockport officials how they could justify increasing the density of a subdivision with one entrance and exit access road.

Turner said the subdivision was never designed to handle the
development Broken Arrow Golf Club owners are proposing. He said if a tornado or another disaster struck, the main roads would clog instantly.

“We’ll have [the Chen family’s] needs versus the needs of 440 families. This is not like developing something in the downtown,” he said.

He also was concerned that once the concept plan was approved, the developers could sell the property because its value will go up with the new zoning. Developers also can use concept plans in court to resist further changes to the plans, he said.

City Attorney Tom Thanas said the concept plans would not be binding, as long as the record showed that approval is not the final decision.

Concept plan supporters

Third Ward Alderman Jason VanderMeer, 3rd Ward Alderman Darren Deskin, 2nd Ward Alderman Brian Smith, 1st Ward Alderman Pete Colarelli and 1st Ward Alderman Kris Capadona approved the concept plan, and Mayor Steven Streit also threw in his support.

Many of them said they wanted to see safety issues raised by residents addressed later, as well as specifications from Lockport’s Planning Commission.

“There is no doubt this is not going forward unless you guys meet a lot of these requirements,” Streit said.

Colarelli said it’s necessary to hear all sides in the debate and more research must be done.

“That’s the thing about tonight. If we don’t allow this to move forward, we’re not really allowing that property owner to investigate thoroughly what’s possible, what’s not possible, what’s safe, what’s not safe,” he said.

The Details

City Council and Planning Commission conditions for Broken Arrow plans:

• Reduce or eliminate variances in residential portion of the development plan.

• Conduct a traffic study and show the traffic generated will not negatively impact the subdivision.

• Provide engineering documents showing development will not cause flooding.

• Justify the change in land use since the location is designated as park land.