Neighbors oppose proposed gas station and 100-foot canopy at Steeles Plaza; planning and BZA process questioned
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Multiple residents and a real-estate professional urged council to block a variance to allow a large gas-station canopy and coffee shop at Steeles Plaza, citing traffic, safety, loss of parking, property‑value impacts and concerns that BZA deliberations and the variance process short‑circuited broader planning and rezoning review.
A broad group of residents came to the podium to oppose a proposed gas station and coffee shop at Steeles Plaza, asking council to deny a requested setback variance and to ensure the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and planning commission follow a thorough review process.
Jan Williams, who lives directly across the street from the proposed site, presented photos and aerial exhibits and said the developer seeks a 35-foot reduction in setback (from 40 feet to 5 feet) and intends a 100-foot canopy that would take multiple parking spaces. Williams warned that 68-foot fuel trucks need access and that the proposed layout would reduce parking and create traffic conflicts at a constrained intersection.
Real-estate professional Stephanie Scheiber told council the neighborhood includes 84 condominium units and single-family homes that represent substantial property tax revenue. Scheiber said a gas station and coffee shop would create trash, pollution, and queuing that she predicted would lower property values and strain access to nearby senior-center facilities.
David Williams reviewed the planning-history record: a prior planning commission rezone to C-3 (which would permit gas stations) was rejected unanimously; the applicant then pursued a variance from the BZA. He recommended the applicant provide a more detailed site plan and for council to coordinate with the planning commission or invite the applicant for a joint discussion before any final decision.
Larry Riddle and other neighbors raised procedural concerns about the BZA hearing: limited public-hearing time, the use of private BZA deliberations and negotiated compromises with the applicant, and whether such deliberations are appropriate before full public presentation. Solicitor Jim Lyons explained BZA decisions can be appealed to the court of common pleas and that some communities require BZA decisions to come before council for final consideration; Fairport Harbor does not routinely do so. Lyons advised opponents to present factual grounds at the BZA hearing and noted the judicial administrative-appeal process as the next level of review.
Council took no final vote; the matter remains before the BZA and planning commission, and residents asked council to enter their remarks into the public record and to consider whether additional procedural guardrails or outreach are warranted before a variance is granted.