Peekskill Zoning Board grants variances for proposed minor auto service at 301 North Division St.

The Peekskill Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant area and parking variances for a proposed minor auto repair and service operation at 301 North Division Street, while recommending that the Common Council impose parking and queuing conditions when it considers the special use permit the project also requires.

Attorney Keith Petinski, representing applicant Peekskill Property Holdings LLC and Auto Art Inc., told the board the property has hosted auto repair activity since 1976 and that the new owners intend to limit operations to “minor repairs” — oil changes, tires, inspections and similar work — and will remove the former spray booth. Petinski said the planning commission gave a unanimous favorable recommendation and classified the project as a Type 2 under SEQRA, exempting it from further environmental review.

The applicant’s architect, William Becharat, described operational details and environmental controls, saying “the spray booth will no longer be in existence” and that an existing ventilation system approved by the EPA, New York State and Westchester County will remain to filter emissions. Becharat and Petinski emphasized there will be no towing and no major bodywork or engine rebuilding on the site.

Neighbors raised parking and cleanliness concerns during the public hearing. Daniel Cornell of Cornyn Street said the neighborhood already lacks curb parking and worried that street parking by customers would create “chaos” and that grease or oil on the street could pose a hazard to his children. Petinski and the applicant responded that the site plan includes eight parking spaces inside the garage and eight customer parking spaces outside, that employees will be assigned off-site monthly-permit parking (the Saint James parking facilities were cited as an example) paid for by the business, and that the operation will use an appointment app to avoid street queuing.

Board members pressed on logistics — how many employees and mechanics would be present and whether customers would wait on-site — and the applicant said they expect roughly three employees per shift (up to five or six as needed), capacity for up to eight mechanics but typically far fewer working at once, and that bays will be booked with buffer times so customers will rarely need to wait outside the building.

The record also includes a discussion of the certificate of occupancy (C of O) issued in 2025. Petinski said the building inspector’s interpretation is that the prior more intensive use lapsed because the property was vacant for more than a year, requiring the owner to seek a special use permit from the Common Council; Petinski said the owner relied on the 2025 C of O when purchasing the property and will pursue the special permit as the next step.

After closing the public hearing, the board reviewed the five statutory variance factors (detriment to neighbors, alternatives, substantiality, environmental effect, self-creation) and concluded that while parking remains a legitimate concern, the limited scope of the proposed use and the lack of physical changes to the building support granting the variances. The board voted to approve the requested variances and instructed staff to recommend that the Common Council, when it considers the special use permit, impose conditions addressing on-site queuing, employee parking, and related enforcement measures.

Next steps: the applicant will appear before the Common Council for a special use permit and then seek building permits and an updated C of O from the building department, which the attorney said will include a follow-up inspection. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally for the variance vote; the board announced the motion carried and closed the item.