At last night’s Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) meeting Benderson Development Company, LLC, petitioned for three [3] variances for the purpose of installing an outside dining area with a twelve-seat capacity on property (Rachel’s Mediterranean Grill) owned by the petitioner located at 4931 Transit Road, Lancaster, New York.

The three variances included:

1) A side property line setback variance.
2) Allowing outside dining as an accessory use.
3) To allow for no additional parking spaces

By a 4-1 vote the ZBA approved variance one (1) for side property line setback and three (3) to allow for no additional parking spaces (4) as required by town code. Variance petition two (2) for accessory use consideration was cancelled as code now calls for Special Use Permit application grant.

During the 11-minute review of the variance appeal, the following were some items of discussion:

  • The outside patio will be located on the northside of the building
  • It will not be enclosed and open to the weather elements
  • Three tables seating 4 to a table
  • Access only through the main entrance of Rachel’s Mediterranean Grill
  • No dedicated parking spaces in front of the building that currently houses 4 businesses
  • Parking across the complex’s busy inner road (without a safe pedestrian path) and behind the building.
  • Petitioner claimed variance to allow for no additional parking spaces (4) as required by town code should be granted because as Shopping Center District only 132 parking spaces are required and the complex already provides for 158 parking spaces.


Based on the information provided by the Benderson representative and board questions, in its findings the ZBA determined the application cannot be accomplished through some other way feasible, the variances were minimum to afford relief, and the petitioner was not guilty of creating his own hardship.

Comment

No one from the public addressed the ZBA at the hearing. I had submitted written comments to the ZBA.

My comments were focused on the objection to the variance to remove the four (4) required parking spaces required by town code. It is based on a General Business zoned variance already granted Benderson in 2018. A variance to reduce the code required amount of parking spaces from 193 parking spaces to 158 – 35 spaces. At that time Benderson was claiming the complex was a Shopping Center and required only 132 spaces. The town had no Shopping Center District classification at the time. The property was zoned General Business, and remains such according to the Zoning Map.

The town now has Shopping Center District (SC) in the updated code system. The new zoning map shows this complex, as all others in this area, to be General Business (GB) zoned. How did Benderson get away with calling this a Shopping Center (SC) zoned complex only requiring 132 parking spaces? I have not seen or heard of any rezone application to convert its zoning classification from GB to SC. Does this happen by rote? The board didn't seem too concerned when accepting the petitioners claim of Shopping Center District and only needing 132 parking spaces.

The development agency has already received a parking variance of 35 cars, and nothing has changed in this busy trafficked complex, while providing no safe pedestrian path from building(s) to parking space availabilities. No dedicated parking spaces, all shared by all five businesses in the complex.

The town’s number one priority is to protect the safety of its residents. Granting this variance further compromises the public’s safety in this complex – IMHO!