Text · page 2 of 4
• Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties - No • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – She does not believe so • Whether the request is substantial - No • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – No • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – Yes, but balancing test favors the applicant All members voted in favor of the motion. GRANTED Application # 6138 Cathy Fabiatos – Requesting one (1) use variance for adult use cannabis retail at 3233 Lakeshore Road (Zoned M-3) Attorney Cory Auerback from Barclay Damen, representing the applicant, stated that he appeared before the Zoning Board two months ago requesting a use variance for the adjoining property. The contract negations for that previous building were not effective. He wants to withdraw the previously approved variance and submit a new application with the exact same facts for the immediately adjoining building on the corner of Lakeshore and Lake. This building has been vacant for the last five years. This will bring the building back into productive reuse. He has submitted the documentation to reflect entitlement pursuing to NYS 267 B2B, essentially the same documentation submitted two months ago for the variance that was approved next door. Commissioner Chapman asked if this is the same location as the old gas station where they were going to do a carwash and withdrew. The attorney and the board said yes. Commissioner Falkiewicz said it is right on the corner by the bottle and can place that approved the previous variance. Commissioner Chapman said that anything there would be an improvement. Auerback stated again that if the board approves this variance, the previously approved variance will be withdrawn. The Board had no further questions. Findings: Ms. Falkiewicz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Adrian, to approve application # 6138. Ms. Falkiewicz stated she would like to attach a condition that the applicant will need to go back to the Planning Board for site plan approval. On the question: