Board hears traffic and parking analysis for proposed 244,750‑sq‑ft Medford warehouse; parking variance remains substantial

Developers proposing a 244,750‑square‑foot multi‑tenant warehouse on an approximately 18‑acre lot on Old Medford Avenue told the Town of Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals on April 30 that a reduced parking count and limited overnight trailer parking would be adequate for the site, while advisors cautioned the requested 65% parking relaxation is substantial.

The applicant, Simcoe NOA LLC, asked the board for a modest FAR variance (30.88% proposed vs. 30% allowed) and a large parking variance (the code calculation for a three‑tenant speculative warehouse would normally require 979 stalls; the applicant proposed 347 stalls, with 178 constructed and 169 'land‑banked' for future build‑out). The proposal also includes a special permit request for overnight parking of registered vehicles (24 dedicated trailer stalls) as an accessory to the warehouse use.

Town planner Michael Reed noted the parking shortfall (approximately 65% below the code requirement as applied) and flagged that multi‑tenant buildings typically require more parking than single‑tenant warehouses. The Town of Brookhaven Highway Department provided written comments saying the proposed parking is sufficient for the proposed use as described, but warned that if the land use changes in the future the parking may be insufficient.

Traffic engineer Ethan Chikoski, who prepared a parking/demand analysis for the applicant, told the board his professional assessment used Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking‑generation data for warehouse uses. Using an average benchmark, the anticipated peak parking demand would be about 91–92 vehicles; a conservative 85th‑percentile approach yields roughly 272 stalls — both within the 347 stalls proposed. Chikoski also said the 24 trailer stalls for overnight parking are sited and sized to avoid circulation conflicts.

Board members asked about a potential solar incentive that could lower parking requirements; the applicant said they are not pursuing the town’s 20% solar parking reduction for this project. Members also discussed land‑banking of stalls and asked the applicant to document how the site would accommodate a higher parking demand if specific tenants require it.

After questions from the board, the applicant asked to close the hearing and have the matter placed on the decision calendar. The board agreed and closed the public hearing; the planner recommended conditions be attached to any grant, and that the application be treated as an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative declaration recommended.