Heated hearing over proposed bar at 2104 Hampton Road; board takes matter under advisement

Attorney Jim Bruno, representing Purple Rock LLC, told the Erie Zoning Hearing Board that the structure at 2104 Hampton Road was built and used for decades as an eating-and-drinking establishment and is most practically returned to that use rather than demolished and rebuilt as residential. Bruno said the single-story, L-shaped building is about 1,664 square feet, occupies much of the lot and is surrounded on three sides by parking; he argued conversion to an R-1 permitted use would be cost-prohibitive and structurally difficult. "The structure is uniquely built and laid out to accommodate an eating and drinking establishment," Bruno said, citing historical deeds, tax records, and a PLCB liquor license (R-8014) that Bach Miller Enterprises holds in safekeeping.

Neighbors pressed the board with concerns about traffic speed on West 21st Street, missing sidewalks, parking adequacy, late-night noise, and the bar’s prior history as a nuisance. Freda Teffler said sidewalk installation should be required if the property is redeveloped and that loud music from the prior operation harmed neighbors’ quality of life. "There's nothing to say that there can't be bands with loud music," she said, urging conditions or denial. Jessica Carnes said her neighborhood has become quieter since the prior establishment closed and argued the property could be returned to residential use. Wesley Barczynski and other neighbors recounted past problems around the bar site and urged denial or strict conditions.

Bruno and the applicant’s representative said Purple Rock and prospective operator Bach Miller Enterprises intend a modest tavern with seating for roughly 30–36 patrons, managed security as needed, and compliance with building, fire, and health regulations. Bruno also described efforts to secure the PLCB license and a city council resolution approving an intermunicipal transfer; he said the new owner paid $105,000 for the property and that demolition plus rebuilding as a residence could cost an estimated $345,000.

City staff and the board’s legal counsel flagged a second issue: whether the prior nonconforming use was legally abandoned under the ordinance’s two-year operational threshold. A city solicitor who had briefed council said the ordinance language and the property’s chain of title create an ambiguity that the board’s counsel will need to consider. After extensive testimony and questions about parking counts, operating hours (applicant cited proposed hours of 7 a.m. to midnight Sunday–Thursday, and to 1 a.m. Friday–Saturday), and the PLCB transfer process, the board announced a brief executive session to deliberate on appeal 13333. No final vote was recorded in this transcript.

The hearing captured a clear divide between the applicant’s goal of redeveloping a long-used commercial structure and neighbors’ concerns about neighborhood character, pedestrian safety and the prior establishment’s nuisance history. The board signaled it would consider legal questions about abandonment and the practical effects of any conditions before rendering its decision.