Share, , , Google Plus, Reddit, Pinterest, StumbleUpon

Print

Posted in:

City Plans New Phase at Colvin Estates; Marrano Eyes Lots

So much for striking while the iron is hot. Four years after the last home in the first phase of Colvin Estates was sold, the City is bidding Phase Two infrastructure work. The eastward extension of Rachel Vincent Way will add 28 new lots to the existing 24-home development.

The two dozen homes constructed by Burke Builders in the project’s first phase were sold in the $225,000 to $310,000+ range. One custom design has over 3,100 sq.ft. of living space. Sales for the Craftsman style homes, designed by Dean Sutton Architects, started in early 2012 and were handled by Hunt Real Estate’s Brian Szkatulski and Candace Koch.

Burke Builders owns six lots on the road extension and sources say Marrano Homes will buy the 22 other lots. It would mark a return to the city for the region’s largest single-family homebuilder. The company has built market-rate, affordable, and luxury homes including: infill homes in the Georgia/Prospect, Cottage/Maryland, and near East Side areas; new homes in the Walden Woods and Main LaSalle Place subdivisions; and, the pioneering Harbour Pointe condominiums in Waterfront Village.

Colvin Estates will contain approximately 127 lots at full build-out. The subdivision occupies former rail land connecting Starin and Colvin avenues between Taunton Place and St. Lawrence Avenue.

The 2014 City Capital Budget allocated $500,000 for the Phase Two infrastructure work.  Bids are due April 26.

Share, , , Google Plus, Reddit, Pinterest, StumbleUpon

Written by WCPerspective

WCPerspective

Buffalo and development junkie currently exiled in California.

View All Articles by WCPerspective
  • 300miles

    Is the city going to enforce the 30′ bike/rail right-of-way behind these houses, or will it keep looking the other way while homeowners fence it off as their own private back yards?

    • Chris Irene

      The land was bought and paid for by the homeowners so it is theirs to do with as they please.

      • Bruce Baker

        They call it an Easement and the Government can put a train through your back yard if they need to. People actually never own property , just the house that is on it. Read your contract.

        • Chris Irene

          I did read it, no mention of it. Honestly, there is no room to put a train in our backyards. The houses from Tacoma and St. Lawrence are too close. There really is not enough land.

          • Brian Eberle

            As I stated above you do not even own that land, it is still owned by the developer. If you put any improvements on this portion of land at any point you can be directed to remove it for construction of the bike path or other development.

          • Chris Irene

            Brian, there is no room for anything else other than what’s there.

          • Brian Eberle

            I know the subdivision, I used to drive past it practically ever single day. I have also done title work on properties on the street. Regardless of what you think, you do no own the rear 30′ of your back yard. I can send you a copy of your deed and the map cover for the development if you’d like. Just give me your email and I’d be happy to send it.

          • Chris Irene

            Brian, I will check my paperwork again. I’d rather not put my email out there. But thank you for the offer.

          • FreedomCM

            you can check out the lot maps for the development on the redfin map:
            https://www.redfin.com/NY/Buffalo/15-Rachel-Vincent-Way-14216/home/79245007

            the lot sizes for the south half, while they appear large, are the same 5k sf of those on the north side. The residents have indeed ‘captured’ the public ROW.

          • MatthewK

            Interesting in that several of these fences appear to be commercial installations…
            I’m at the other end of the bike path and would like to see the result if I put a fence up on park land that wasn’t mine.

          • ThichQD

            Someone should knock them over. You cannot legally build on that stretch of land. The fence installers should be alerted to that fact, but as I said, The real eatate agent was arrogantly contemptuous of the adjacent homeowners. I used to work for Marrano and they bullied people in a similar manner at almost every turn. It was disgusting. The folks on the Marrano end better be prepared.

          • 300miles

            There is easily room for a bike path, like the one they built recently connecting Buffalo and Tonawanda, which is eventually supposed to connect with the ROW space behind your property.

          • Chris Irene

            Not really.

          • 300miles

            30 feet is plenty for a bike path. The path itself will probably be 12 feet wide.

          • MatthewK

            Clearly this is a person that had a fence put in on land that isn’t theirs…

            Theres no room for anything back there…mine. LOL

          • Rich mc

            It’ll lose its ass in court.

          • ThichQD

            Now you are beginning to realize how much of that backyard is actually “yours.” If you are on the S. side of the road, it is 30 feet in from the farthest wire overhead. Developers and real estate agents leave those details out when making the pitch. I listened to the pitch for almost an hour, wish I had recorded it. It was horrifying. Would you still have made the purchase if you realized you only legally control half of your backyard? What if you knew that in the not so distant future your yard become a thoroughfare for every roller blader, walker and biker in North Buffalo on any given sunny day

          • Chris Irene

            Sour grapes?

          • Rich mc

            This was built on rail line without the infringement of any new homes. The rails to trails you speak of (for the land behind St.Lawrence/Taunton) was voted

            down better than a decade ago.

          • ThichQD

            The beautiful thing about America is that for the low, low cost of a quarter million dollars you can have your own slice of Lancaster nestled between Taunton and St. Lawrence. You can hose down your driveway on those summer mornings while listening to Sandy Beach in your flip flops, while never being more than a 2 min drive from Spot Coffee.

          • Chris Irene

            Is that a threat?

          • No_Illusions

            Because it’s public land!?

            Might as well put up the parks and roads up for sale too.

            If you want to live outside of society, I suggest buying land in the Southern Tier, not in the middle of a city.

          • Chris Irene

            That’s a ridiculous statement!

          • Rich mc

            Instead of informing folks of what the law supposedly says; why don’t you come down and I’ll take ya on a walking tour of the existing back yards as they pertain to any mythical 30′ swath. These homeowners would win in a heartbeat. Developer greed dictated the implementation of homes on both sides of the street.

          • LongGoneeee

            First image is the home of an owner who has a clue. This is the correct size of the back yard. The second image is of an owner who does not have a clue. It’s only a matter of time before all of that nice landscaping is torn up.

            At some point enough people are going to get behind the 30′ bike/rail right-of-way and force the city to take back the land. It’s just a matter of time.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d65a9ac24bf176cbd7d401e276efdb49adeed9358711d16586e92568788666bd.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cb46d7fa354dcbd7bb82a48076c67200c5b36d4289f43c4c3f3b46b7b3d9976.png

          • ThichQD

            What in the hell are tou talking about? No one is talking about the homes, its the yards. The bluff is, who in their right mind would buy those houses for that much if they were clearly informed about the yard situation. The adjacent owners on taunton have as much legal right to the area under the lines as the RVW people. But money talks and developers lie and deceive.

          • ThichQD

            Actually, I have a feeling I misundersttod you.

          • Brian Eberle

            You clearly have a limited knowledge of real estate law. The conveyancing of these parcels is perfectly clear. For the houses on the south side of the street, there is a 30′ strip of land that has been retained by the developer and an easement granted to the NFTA. I know that many owners have fenced in this land, but that does not belong to them. Just because they fence it in doesn’t mean they own it. Even to attempt an adverse possession claim it needs to be 10 years of exclusive possession.

        • Brian Eberle

          The property was actually never conveyed to the owners. The sub lots do not even include the 30′ wide strip of land to be used as the bike path. That land is still owned by Dato Development who was the developer of the subdivision.

      • MatthewK

        Not the land immediately behind the development/their homes….I believe its approx. 30 ft that was a condition of the r.o.w. being developed. an easement was required for future transportation related development.

        • Rich mc

          We live on St.Lawrence. Trust me when I say: There is NO 30′ easement between the yards on Rachael Vincent way and the back yards of existing homes on St. Lawrence. As a matter of fact, there is NO yard to speak of for most of these homes…Good luck on finding owners for the rest. For $300K people want a yard…Oh, and they’d like dry basements as well.

          • wcperspective

            There is clearly a 30′ right-of-way dedicated behind the lots on the south side of Rachel Vincent Way- look at the plot plan in the post. Google Maps shows owners fencing it off and ‘claiming’ it but they do not have title to it.

          • Chris Irene

            The developer is the one who fenced off that area. Some owners finished off the sides, but the back fence was put in by the developer/builder.

      • Chris Schmidt
        • Chris Irene

          Did you put that line there? And why does it make so much of a difference to you?

          • Chris Schmidt

            Because you stated something that is completely false. That land was not purchased by the homeowners. When the subdivision was approved, that strip was required to be set aside as a potential light rail corridor. As you can see from the County GIS mapping, there is a 30′ strip of land between the property line of the buyers of the homes on the south side of RVW and the owners along the north side of Taunton Place. So while the RVW owners may have fenced and landscaped that area, they do not own it.

          • Chris Irene

            That’s not what the homeowners were told. Why wouldn’t they have already put in the bike path or whatever they were going to do before the homes were built? There is absolutely no room for a light rail corridor. As for your gif, who puts “not yours” on a professional map? This affects you how?

    • MatthewK

      Ridiculous isn’t it? I would remove those fences sooner vs. later. Set the precedent.
      I was asked for a copy of my survey when I had a new fence installed..

      • Max Ryan

        Dude, the builder put those fences in not the homeowners.

        • MatthewK

          dude…that’s allowed then? The builder did it….it’s okay. Dude..it doesn’t appear to be each home.

          Home owners on Rachel vincent..i would have some serious issues with a builder that knowingly put a fence up on land that wasn’t mine and took money for it. This right of way has been public knowledge to anyone with access to google

    • Northernlitegirl

      The easement is in the plans.The bike path was originally suppose to extend that stretch of the right-of-way prior to being snatched up for development. According to the original agreement it must keep a 30′ easement available for a transportation corridor. It was slated in the contract of sale when Conrail turned the property over to the NFTA. Not sure what the homeowners were told, but it is just matter of time before it will be implemented in the extended plans. Fences will come down, the property will be reclaimed, through Adverse Possession. With the success of the new bike path, we are hoping it will prompt them to start working on the other end of the NB expansion soon.

  • Nothing like a piece of suburbs in the city. Who plans these developments within RR ROWs like this?

    It’s a bit of a loose comparison, but Lancaster made planning mistakes like this. Large metro areas reserve ROW for infrastructure like commuter rail or ring roads. The developments built in Lancaster didn’t account for infrastructure.

    • MatthewK

      We’re never getting commuter rail bud..
      Don’t hate because these folks have a place to park their car…
      Yards are definitely much smaller than the suburbs…they’re tiny in this development compared to other city lots.
      I live in the city..can park 5 cars in my driveway and I have a yard as well? Am I evil and should I leave Buffalo??

  • Matt Gracie

    Hopefully the Marrano home designs are a bit more urban. The ones that are there look like they were airlifted in from Lancaster.

    • greenca

      You think the Burke homes look like they’re from Lancaster? The Marrano ones will be much worse. The Burke designs are light years ahead of what Marrano builds. They’re still stuck in the McMansion and Vinyl Victorian era.

      • Heidi Gebler

        👍🏼exactly. I live there and these homes could never completely dictated by the customer. Customers of burke had free range to any design of thier choice.

  • Deb Jordan

    Beautiful Homes but unaffordable for many in the area…

    • S Mills

      Welcome to life. Everything is not affordable for everyone.

    • Matt Gracie

      They’re no more expensive than most of the neighborhoods around Hertel. Prices have blown up there.

    • greenca

      I want to live on Nottingham but I can’t afford to. That’s so unfair. If I can’t afford it, no one should have bigger and nicer homes.

      • jld5199

        OK that settles it…this area is ripe for Sect 8 housing, rent to own or Habitat fo Humanity.Too much infighting over quality, land restrictions, and style. I’m sure a low income family would be thrilled to live in this street!

    • No_Illusions

      They’re also not 120 years old…

      New houses in a desirable area are not cheap.

      Not many new detached homes in the city period.

  • Patricia Bogdan

    very sterile looking street and way out of most families price range for N Bflo

    • Chris Irene

      You know Patricia, the beautiful thing about being an American is that you don’t have to go down the street and look at those “sterile” houses if you don’t want to. The people who own those homes, have worked very hard to be able to afford them.

    • MatthewK

      LOL..have you been to North Buffalo before?
      You’ve got doubles doing for $300k…for new builds these are very well priced.

    • Max Ryan

      Sounds like you’re jealous.

  • No_Illusions

    This is a shame. The space would have been better put to use as a linear park/bike path.

    If we want more homes in North Buffalo, let’s work towards making the strip malls into something denser

  • ThichQD

    The land under the wires between Taunton and RVW is not supposed to be improved upon I thought. Although on the phone Mr. Szkatulski assured me the riff raff on Taunton wouldnt put up much of a fight in calling a bluff.

  • ThichQD

    BTW, why are these inane comments being deleted? Good squad bringing down the heat? Burke and Marrano’s heavies must have gotten to poor Mr. Irene.

    • Max Ryan

      Maybe people are just sick of you giving them a hard time about their houses.

    • Max Ryan

      Maybe he was just sick of you guys giving him a hard time. These people just wanted a nice place to live and you’re blaming them for being able to afford it.

      • ThichQD

        Thats not what this is about and you know it, although your continued deployment of words like a”afford” and “jealousy” speaks to the feeling of entitlement people feel simply because they overpaid for their house. Relax, no one is gonna tp your house or light a burning bag of dog poop on your porch. But the developers lied to you and potentially caused you a future headache with that fence. Perhaps the folks behind you rent and dont mind your fence, that is entirely possible, but as the development moves farther east into what are primarily single family homes, people are not going to put up with it. Many of these houses were recently purchased and people know the deal. Whether or not that will end up having implications on your end, who knows? Judging by these posts however, it seems as if the word is finally out on these abusive practices. And despite what the incoherent fellow from St. Lawrence says, the law is not on the side of the RVW people.

        • Max Ryan

          You know what a big reason is? I went to some of the meetings and people were mad because some were using that land behind their houses by the tracks to store their extra stuff. As far as I know, nobody feels entitled because of what they paid for their house. They didn’t have to buy them for whatever overpaid price you think they did. I don’t own a house there but I know someone who does. I was there when some building was taking place. BTW, that fence along the back of the properties on both sides were put there by the builder, my friend didn’t put any fence up.

          • LongGoneeee

            Ummm this is a lie. Satellite images show a different story. These homes closed between 9/13 and 11/13. Images show no fences around this time. Updates in 2014 show fences.

            Maybe these folks were lied to. Maybe they were too lazy to look up lot dimensions or take 15 minutes to search the internet. But the easement has always been there and the builder didn’t build the fences.

          • Max Ryan

            Ummm, no it’s not a lie. I was there, those fences were put up by the builder when all the houses were finished!

          • ThichQD

            Its fine that you had your previous posts taken down and changed your username, I would feel pretty silly about now as well if I were you too. You seem nice enough, honestly the thing has smelled like a swindle from day one. Is your cellar dry btw, serious question.

          • Max Ryan

            I didn’t change anything, that was a family member and I’ve taken over the commenting. Their basements are dry as far as I know.

          • LongGoneeee

            I am not judging. I am going off aerial photography that does not lie. Unlike you.

          • Max Ryan

            I am NOT lying! Must be nice to be all knowing, your ignorance is showing big time! I suggest you stop accusing people of things considering you know nothing about the situation.

  • UrbanLove

    suburbugly

  • 300miles

    my guess is that the developer/builder and maybe some homeowners are hoping that by squatting on the land now, the city won’t have the balls to take it back when time comes for extending the bike path. The homeowners will be portrayed as victims, having a big chunk of their backyard taken away from them after using it for X number of years… especially if they spend serious money on patios, landscaping, or even pools. This is why the city needs to straighten this out now to enforce the 30′ ROW and not wait for finalized bike path designs which could still be years away.

    • wcperspective

      Ding-ding-ding! Prescriptive easement/adverse possession is very messy.

    • BuffalosFinest

      Gotta love squatters rights. That is exactly what they’re doing.

  • Heidi Gebler

    Does anyone on this thread actually LIVE on RVW? Just wondering.

    • Max Ryan

      No, they don’t.