Text · page 6 of 10
Read the whole document on one page (all 10 pages, each with its own heading)
- Feasible Alternatives: Efforts to secure shared parking with neighbors were unsuccessful, and alternative site layouts were inefficient. - Substantiality of Request: While the number (40 spaces) is high, the practical impact is argued to be minimal as the business operates mainly by appointment, allowing for managed customer flow. - Environmental Impact: No adverse impact is expected. - Self-Created Difficulty: Acknowledged, but the chair count is necessary for economic viability. - The applicant assumes overflow parking will use surrounding commercial lots. - The business anticipates needing 8 to 10 parking spots for employees on an average day. [33:54-34:23] The board inquires if further reductions to the project were explored to lessen the variance request. - The applicant confirmed that the design has already been reduced from a much larger initial concept. - The client reduced the building’s footprint and the number of chairs to the current proposal (10 manicure, 12 pedicure) specifically due to site limitations and parking requirements. - The applicant states that any further reduction would likely impact the economic feasibility of the project. [34:25-35:02] The applicant explains why efforts to secure shared parking with adjacent properties failed. - The applicant's letter stated that good faith efforts were made to secure shared parking agreements. - When asked by the board why these efforts failed, the applicant explained that the neighboring property owners were not willing to enter such an agreement. - The general stance of the neighbors, one of whom is a large developer owning a majority of the nearby property, was that they "don’t believe in sharing their parking with anybody." [35:03-38:31] The Town Attorney clarifies the variance will be use-specific, and no further environmental review is needed. - SEQRA: The attorney clarified the project is a Type II action under SEQRA, so no further environmental impact study is needed. Rebuilding with fewer parking spaces is acceptable. - Variance Specificity: The attorney noted that because the parking requirement is tied to the "barber and beauty shop" use category in the town code, the variance will be specific to that use. - Key Decision: The variance, if granted, will be tied to the specific use type (barber/beauty shop) rather than being a general variance for the property. - Another beauty shop could operate under the variance, but a different business type might not. [38:31-40:51] The board approved a parking variance for a commercial property based on a five-point area variance test. - Erie County had no concerns with the proposal.