Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EAC recommends negative declaration for Pitt Ohio garage variance after parking questions resolved
Summary
The Bay North EAC recommended a negative declaration for a proposed accessory garage and related site work at a Pitt Ohio facility after applicants demonstrated on-site parking met the town’s requirements; representatives sought a variance for accessory coverage above the 5% maximum in the zoning code.
The Bay North Environmental Advisory Committee on Jan. 29 recommended a negative declaration for a Pitt Ohio expansion that includes a new accessory garage and other site work, and noted the project will require a zoning variance for accessory coverage.
Applicant representatives said the facility needs an additional garage and that the accessory coverage exceeds the zoning code’s 5% maximum; the representative said the project is “somewhere around 16%” when combining the proposed accessory garage with existing accessory area and that the variance is the relief being sought. The planning board previously tabled the project in January because parking calculations were unclear.
Parking clarification: an EAC member reported the applicant provided numbers showing a maximum of 51 individuals on-site and a 1.5 parking-stall-per-employee metric, which produced a maximum requirement of 77 stalls. The committee was told 81 on-site stalls are currently allocated, which satisfies the employee parking requirement. The applicant clarified truck parking is separate and located in the rear yard.
Other agency comments: Erie County submitted comments, and the New York State Department of Transportation advised that right-of-way permits could be required for work in the right-of-way; the applicant said no work is proposed in the state right-of-way and that proposed signage would remain on private property.
The vote: after discussion and clarification from applicant representatives (including Joel P. and Jamie Fiala), the committee voted to recommend issuance of a negative declaration for environmental review and advised the applicant to pursue zoning board relief for the accessory coverage variance.
Next steps: the applicant will proceed to the town zoning board for the requested variance; the committee recorded its environmental recommendation to the town board and noted any required right-of-way or county comments should be addressed during the zoning and permitting process.
