City Planning Board
Buffalo's Planning Board approved a 10,000 square foot commercial building at 350 Dingen Street — but attached a stipulation the adjoining CVS owner had asked for in writing: all truck traffic, during construction and once open, must enter and exit on South Ogden rather than past his drive-through. A lighting plan that exceeded the allowed uplight rating must also be revised.
The application was for a 10,000 square foot high-bay lease space on a landlocked commercial parcel with access to both Dingen Street and South Ogden Street. Jacob Metzger[*] of Metzger Civil Engineering, Williamsville, presented it, and was candid that nobody knows yet what will go inside: “I've seen dog grooming. I've seen athletic training centers. I've seen fitness centers. I've seen window tinting, small retail businesses… It's basically open to a multitude of different uses and it is dependent upon what the specific tenants' needs are.”[1]
The site sits with a strip plaza to the north, a CVS[*] and a Wendy's to the south, and a DMV office to the west. The parcel carries access and drainage easements filed with the county. A SWPPP was prepared because the disturbance exceeds a quarter-acre, with stormwater retained on site and attenuated to pre-development levels.[1]
Then the owner of the CVS next door identified himself and said he had already put it in writing. Manakamna Singh[*] told the board his concerns were in an email every member had: stormwater, the drive-through and sight lines, and construction mitigation. Asked to summarise, he declined to expand — “my concern, I have already expressed in my email.” The chair instead read his three headings back and had the engineer answer each in turn, which is a better use of a written objection than most boards manage.[1]
The answer on traffic is the one that became binding. The engineer committed to routing deliveries and trucks to South Ogden, and the chair pinned it down: “just for clarity, the traffic is going to come in from South Ogden, your turning radius will be able to turn and go back out on South Ogden, and your traffic will not be exiting onto Dingen… And therefore it has no impact on the drive-through.” Answer: “That's the intent, yes.”[1]
Singh[*] then pressed the gap — what about construction vehicles, before any tenant exists? The engineer went further than asked: all construction traffic on South Ogden as well, “no construction traffic” signs off Dingen, an on-site staging area, and a stabilised construction entrance off South Ogden in the erosion control plan. The chair checked he had heard it. He had.[1]
The lighting plan was the second win, and it came from the other email. A board member working through the submitted photometrics found the uplight rating out of range — a bug rating of 5 where less is allowed. The engineer did not contest it: “we can work with your department on revising the lighting plan. The manufacturer provided that for us, so I will let him know.”[1]
The board then approved the major site plan with both points written in as stipulations: that the lighting plan be reviewed, and that all truck traffic both during construction and once in operation enters and exits on South Ogden. A SEQRA negative declaration was adopted first.[1]
One of the emailed questions was whether the project needs a zoning variance or is code compliant, and the honest answer is that it depends on tenants who do not exist yet.[1]
The engineer's position: the final uses are not known, most uses are permitted in the zone, and “there could be certain uses that aren't.” The board's answer was that the control arrives later, at occupancy — “the certificate of occupancy will allow that if it's an allowed use.” So a multi-tenant shell is approved on the understanding that each bay gets screened on its way in, one certificate at a time.[1]
The board was also complimentary about something it does not often see, and the remark is a fair measure of the local norm: for a building “in an industrial area and all but invisible from the street, it's a pretty robust planting plan compared to what we normally see.”[1]
297 Main Street — a special use permit for Assembly use in an N-3E zone — was passed over because nobody appeared for it. The chair called the item twice and then moved on. Readers following this publication's coverage will recognise the category: an Assembly special use permit in a residential-edge zone is exactly what was refused three times in eight days at 416 Wohlers Avenue earlier this month. This one has not been heard.[1][3]
2563 Bailey Avenue — an electronic messaging centre — was taken up next, presented by Carla Reyes[*] for the property owner and the signage company. She disclosed at the outset that a variance application is also under review alongside the special use permit, and described the property as part of a campus of three parcels on the Bailey Avenue corridor, four in total. The item was still in presentation when this capture ends.[1]
Chair Cynthia Schwartz presided; a staff member called the roll, which the recording does not capture in full, so attendance is not stated here. Votes were taken by voice with no numeric tally announced. These are recommendations and site-plan determinations of the Planning Board.
Public hearing noticed in the Buffalo News on October 9 and heard under Buffalo Code §496-11. The hearing was closed, a SEQRA negative declaration adopted, and the site plan then approved on a voice vote with two conditions read into the record: that the lighting plan be reviewed, and that all truck traffic — during construction and in operation — enter and exit on South Ogden.
Both conditions trace directly to written objections: the traffic routing to the adjoining CVS owner's emailed concern about his drive-through, and the lighting revision to a second emailed objection that identified an uplight rating above what the code allows.
Called twice with no response and set aside without being heard. The same category of application — Assembly use by special permit in a residential-edge zone — was recommended for denial by this board and by the Legislation Committee, and refused by the Common Council, at 416 Wohlers Avenue earlier in October. No connection between the applications is suggested; the category is noted because readers following that story will recognise it.
Presented for the owner and the sign company. A variance application on the same property is also under review in parallel with the special use permit. The property was described as one of three parcels on the Bailey Avenue corridor within a four-parcel campus footprint.
Capture. 17.8 minutes, faster-whisper “medium,” 235 segments of which 206 are distinct, language confidence p=0.999, longest identical consecutive run 2, coverage 100% — within this pipeline's degeneracy thresholds. Converted from the city's own meeting video. The recording ends during the presentation of the final item, so that item's outcome is not reported here.
A recurring transcription artefact worth naming. The model renders “neg dec” — the SEQRA negative declaration — as “neck deck” throughout, repeatedly and across several speakers. It is corrected here. Similarly “CVS” is rendered “CBS” in most instances and “SWPPP” as “SWIP.”
Attendance is not stated. The roll call is called for but not audibly completed on the recording beyond the chair's own name, and no agenda item tree for this meeting was available to this brief. Members are named only where the recording names them during a motion.
Names. Participants who identified themselves at the microphone are named as given and flagged, because the “medium” model is unreliable on proper nouns and no document was available to check them against. The second emailed objector's surname is rendered two different ways within three minutes of each other and is therefore not printed at all; he is described by role.
What the stipulations do and do not settle. A routing commitment written into a site plan approval binds the applicant, but this brief notes that the engineer's own phrasing was that tenants and contractors will be instructed — enforcement of a traffic condition on a multi-tenant commercial building is a code-enforcement matter after occupancy, not something the Planning Board can police.