BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, August 25, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman, Lisa Beauvais, Vice-Chairman Gregory Neffinger, Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost, and Alternate Chet Zymroz
Absent: Planning Director, Richard Werbiskis and Alternate Jim Bodurtha
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
1. Acceptance of Minutes
Ms. Beauvais moved to table the minutes of Special Meeting June 17, June 23, and Special meeting July 14th to the next meeting of the Board; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
2. Public Hearings
7:00 p.m. (7:03 p.m.) - Jacek Chmiel (Special Permit) – Special Permit from section 4.21 for the alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure at the property located at 1646 Riverdale Street in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Ms. Beauvais said the applicant has requested a continuation to the next meeting of the Board.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the hearing to September 22, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
7:05 p.m. (7:05 p.m.) The Theater Project, Inc. (Variance) – Amending an existing variance on the property located at 168 Baldwin Street in the Business B-1 (BB-1) zoning district.
Mr. Neffinger left the hearing at 7:05 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Zymroz joined the hearing.
Mr. Danny Eaton of 70 Hazelwood Drive in Longmeadow and Mr. Todd Katas, Treasurer of 63 Woodcrest Drive in Longmeadow came forward.
Mr. Eaton said the reason they are applying for a variance is because the previous owners had variances on this property when they were adding on to the existing building. Mr. Eaton explained they were hoping to put a new gable roof on the building to replace the existing flat roof, which is leaking severely. They also want to put a second story on the building to allow for storage of scenery.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the second floor would run the entire length of the building. Mr. Eaton said yes, they want to raise the entire building to have a second level. The structure is 60’ wide and 112’ deep. Ms. Beauvais asked if the addition would be within the dimensions of the existing building and Mr. Eaton said yes it would be within the existing footprint.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the addition would be used only for storage of scenery and props because there is an issue regarding the parking on the property. Mr. Eaton said there is a parking lot that separates the parcel with a house on it and the parcel used by the Majestic. The parcels are both owned by the Theater Project. The house on 174 Baldwin is used to house actors from out of town.
Ms. Beauvais said since the parking for both parcels is commingled between the two buildings, the Planning Department is suggesting an easement referencing that 168 and 174 Baldwin share the parking. Mr. Eaton said he recalled discussing that with Mr. Werbiskis, but he said it could be done in the future.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board and the audience. No comments followed.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais said that she did not have any issues with this project, but to sort through the parking and make sure it gets resolved. Mr. Zymroz suggested some contingency of the plan of a parking easement for both properties be included in the decision, if the Board so chooses to approve, then both properties would have an easement for parking. Ms. Beauvais said there is a recommendation from the Planning Department for a parking easement in conjunction with the project.
Ms. Kumiega suggested amending the variance subject to the parking easement to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds prior to any construction.
Ms. Beauvais moved to approve the application to amend the existing variance at 168 Baldwin Street with the condition that the project is subject to an easement agreement between 168 and 174 Baldwin Street to address issues of parking and this easement will be recorded with the Registry of Deeds prior to the commencement of the project; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Mr. Zymroz left the meeting at 7:12 p.m. and Mr. Neffinger rejoined the meeting.
7:10 p.m. (7:13 p.m.) – Anthony and Lauren Wheeler (Variance) – Variance from Section 9.034 which requires 30-foot separation of driveways at the property located at 116 Cedar Woods Glen in the Residence A-1 (RA-1) zoning district.
Mr. Anthony Wheeler of 21 Sabrina Brook Road in Westfield came forward and explained his property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and has 76 feet of frontage. There are two easements, water and sewer, that run on both sides of his lot and continue through the back yard. There is a small area in which he could build his home. If he complies with the driveway separation as it is now his driveway would have to be in the center of the property and then make a sharp right angle turn into the garage area. Mr. Wheeler said he would like to put the driveway 12 to 15 feet from the neighbor on the left of the house.
Ms. Beauvais said the Zoning Ordinance requires 30 feet between driveways and one part of the driveway would be over part of the easement. Mr. Wheeler said the driveway would go over part of the easement where the pipe runs under the ground.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the house was already constructed and Mr. Wheeler said the outside is complete except for the driveway and grass. He purchased the lot in March of 2008. Ms. Beauvais asked if he was going to live at this property and he said yes he will be moving in there.
Ms. Beauvais explained the criteria for the Board to grant a variance and asked Mr. Wheeler to give more information to enable the Board to find a hardship.
Mr. Wheeler said the size of the lot only allows for a small area where he could build his house and the lot only has 76 feet of frontage and there is a driveway already built to the left and one to the right so his options are limited. Mr. Wheeler noted that the house is on a cul-de-sac.
Ms. Beauvais asked when he first became aware of the easements on the property. Mr. Wheeler said he knew of the easements before he purchased the property and he did check to make sure he could get a building permit. All the homes in this area have three car garages, but his would only have two because of the limited space on the lot.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board.
Mr. Neffinger asked why he could not fit a three-car garage on the property, is it because the house is too wide? Mr. Wheeler explained on the left there is a water easement that goes to Bear Hole and to the right there is the sewer easement, which continues left into the back yard and out to Bear Hole again. He had to stay away from the easements, so he could not have a three-car garage.
Ms. Kumiega asked how wide is the proposed driveway? Mr. Wheeler said it is 12 feet at the road and opens to fit the width of two cars with a 15-foot turnaround at the end of the driveway. Mr. Wheeler explained he wanted to put the driveway 10 feet from the property line to keep away from the water line. Mr. Wheeler showed the plans where the driveway would be located; 10 feet from the neighbor’s driveway and 2 feet from the property line.
Ms. Beauvais asked for further questions from the Board.
Mr. Wheeler noted again that his home is on a cul-de-sac so traffic runs counter-clockwise so he would back out from the neighbor’s driveway that is the farthest away.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. Patrick Moore, Building Commissioner said the DPW has enacted new policies that require driveways to be at least 15-feet from the property line so that this does not happen in the future. Mr. Wheeler just happened to be the last lot in the development and he got stuck.
Attorney Marty Lyons of 89 Edgewood Road said this Board has set a precedent in the past with the approval of another home on this very street for a “U” shaped driveway in violation of the 15’ separation. The hardship is the shape of the lot and it would be an improvement to the neighborhood, not a detriment.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
Ms. Kumiega said she was glad to hear the DPW has new regulations in place. She said she had no problem with this application.
Mr. Neffinger said the shape of the lot gives argument for granting a variance.
Ms. Beauvais moved to approve the variance directly relating to the shape of the lot and the building thereon, which would create a hardship for the applicant and would cause him to not be able to put a driveway in and would not be more detrimental than leaving a vacant lot and not complete the project. The proposed driveway must be 2 feet from the property line or 10 feet from the neighbor’s driveway, whichever is greater; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
7:15 p.m. (7:30 p.m.) – Nicholas Katsoulis (Variance) – Variance from Section 9.06 and 9.259 regarding vehicle parking requirements and removal of non-conforming signage at the property located at 865 Memorial Avenue in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Attorney Sypek, representing Mr. Katsoulis, said in June of this year they were before the Board for a Variance Amendment from 1980. There are two existing variances on the property from 1973 and 1980. The purpose of this variance request is to clean up the record; they are not asking to do anything different than what was there pre-fire.
Attorney Sypek said the freestanding sign is pre-existing, non-conforming and the bylaw says when you reapply for a sign, all signs on the property must come into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Since the fire destroyed some of the signage on the building, they need to reapply for some signs. The freestanding sign advertises all the businesses at the location and they are not changing that sign in any way and would like to keep it as it is.
The second variance request is for an area within the building that exists already and was used for storage of parts. The plans from 1980 show six face doors and two small storage areas. About seven years ago due to a change of the use of this business, they put two lifts in the storage space because they no longer required storage and they have been operating this way for seven years. They keep cars on the lifts longer while waiting for the parts to arrive. They want to continue to operate as they were before the fire.
Ms. Beauvais said the parking on site is deficient. There are 73-83 parking spaces required and there are 26 spaces and some employee parking in the rear. There are about 43 total spaces. Attorney Sypek said parking is a non-issue and there is no way to accommodate any additional parking. The businesses have been operating this way with no problems.
Ms. Beauvais said the variance in 1980 was for an addition of the building of 4,900 square feet and the construction with additions totaled 13,700 square feet. Attorney Sypek said at that time, it was zoning compliant, in 1993 the off-street parking requirement was amended. Ms. Beauvais said the site is shy about 30 parking spaces. Attorney Sypek said they have been operating this way since 1993. The fact is this is a large building on a small parcel.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board.
Ms. Beauvais asked about unresolved issues stated in the letter dated May 28, 2008 (see file). Attorney Sypek said they have gone through most of the issues and they are working on complying with all of them with the help of the Town. They are not asking for anything that has not been functioning already.
Ms. Beauvais said currently there are six bays and they want to add two more lifts that they have been using already with no variance in place, and they are not taking down the freestanding sign or changing it at all? Attorney Sypek said the sign was not damaged and they want to leave it alone.
Mr. Neffinger said the lifts increase the capacity of the repair shop and six bays are up front with two in the storage area, allowing eight vehicles on the property. How do they get into the bays? Mr. Kasoulis said over the past 30 years there has been a huge change in the car market and different types of makes and models of cars, and it is difficult to maintain parts on site. This is not an increase in capacity; they order parts as needed. They use the bays to hold the cars while they are waiting for parts. The area that faces Memorial Avenue was installed in 1973 and specifically was for rear-wheel drive vehicles. The two additional are for front-wheel drive vehicles. They were unaware that they were in violation and they applied for permits for plumbing
and electrical work. The whole area around the building is paved.
Mr. Neffinger asked if before 2004, they were only dealing with six vehicles on site? Mr. Kasoulis said they are still not servicing any more vehicles per hour with six bays. There have not been any complaints or violations and they have been operating this way for quite some time.
Attorney Sypek said they have a letter from the Fire Chief stating there are no violations at the site.
Ms. Beauvais moved discussion back to the non-conforming sign and asked the dimensions of the sign. Attorney Sypek said he did not have the exact dimensions but it may be in the 75 to 80 square foot range. All the tenants share the same sign and it has been that way for 30 years. Ms. Beauvais asked if there was any damage to the sign and confirmed that no changes would be made to the sign. Since there is damage to the building then the sign has to be brought into conformity. Attorney Sypek said the same arguments for hardship apply.
Ms. Beauvais said the sign is on Memorial Avenue in plain view. Attorney Sypek said it is smaller than most non-compliant signs in the area.
Mr. Neffinger said if the sign was stolen it would be the same situation. Attorney Sypek said they are not changing the sign, it is due to the fire. Ms. Beauvais said in most cases it is not the applicant’s fault that the sign has to be repaired. Attorney Sypek said the new signs on the building would all be in compliance with the Ordinance.
Mr. Neffinger read section 9.259 that no sign permit would be issued unless all non-conforming signs are brought into conformity. Attorney Sypek said that is the reason for the Variance request. Mr. Neffinger said the Board needs a reason for the variance for that sign. Attorney Sypek stated the same reasons as before due to the shape of the project. Ms. Beauvais asked what is the hardship in allowing that sign to stay but reducing the size of it to be in conformity; the sign is not blocked by any trees. Attorney Sypek said there is a small area of trees blocking the sign, but this sign is not overly large. There hardship is the number of tenants that share the sign.
Mr. Neffinger discussed how they have allowed sub-tenants signs with supermarkets. What is the size of the sign right now? Ms. Beauvais said they were unsure but maybe 75-80 square feet. Mr. Neffinger said the problem with that is 50 square feet is allowed and this is a large difference over what is allowed; we do not even know the actual size. Ms. Beauvais said it is an over-utilization of this lot and that brings us back to the allowance of the additions and lack of parking.
Attorney Sypek said the business had worked fine until the terrible fire. Mr. Neffinger said the Zoning Ordinance does not address multiple tenant properties.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. Patrick Moore, Building Commissioner, said that Chapter 9, Section 9.259 addresses older signs and adding signs one after another. This sign is well over 100 square feet. No sign permit shall be issued with a pre-existing, non-conforming sign on the property. If they want more signs on the property, then that freestanding sign has to be brought into conformity. In regard to the parking, there are eight bays now, so that would be a total of ten bays on site, requiring 40 parking spaces on the lot and they still have to accommodate four other businesses and a restaurant.
Mr. Neffinger said there are eight bays and now there are two other bays? Mr. Moore said where the granite shop is located is where they have permission for two bays. Mr. Katsoulis said they have not added any since 1980. It is the same site that has always been there and they have no violations because they try to do the right thing regarding their business.
Mr. Moore said adding new wall signs would require them to bring the freestanding sign into conformity to 50 square feet. Attorney Sypek said the signs that need to be reconstructed would be in conformity, but they are requesting that the freestanding sign remain. Mr. Moore said he was trying to keep all signs uniform and fair.
Ms. Beauvais said there are 43 parking spots now and they need 73. Has there been an attempt to increase the parking at the site? Attorney Sypek said there is no space no and the town wants to see the landscaping buffers installed. The parking is at its maximum now.
Ms. Beauvais asked if there have been issues with 835 Memorial using the parking at 865 Memorial? Attorney Sypek said he was unaware of any issues. Mr. Katsoulis said he owns 835 Memorial as well, and Sherman Williams is the only tenant there. The town had asked him to restrict the sharing of the parking and asked that he put it in the deed. The parking requirement is limited because of parking in front of the building.
Ms. Kumiega asked if they would consider swapping the two bays previously approved for the bays that are already constructed and in use to limit the total to eight bays? Attorney Sypek said the two rear bays are non-functioning and have been there since 1980. The bays are used to keep the cars out of the parking lot and the site functions more efficiently with more bays. The two non-functioning bays are in the rear and they would be willing to trade off, abandoning those for the two bays they do use. Ms. Beauvais said that would still leave the bays there for use in the future if they needed them. Mr. Neffinger added that they could also rent the bays out to an auto-related business.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board and the audience. No comments followed.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais said the first issue is the parking on the site.
Mr. Neffinger said the variance process has allowed them to add additional bays and now they want two more bays with no additional parking. Ms. Beauvais said this variance would be reinforcing the variance granted in 1980 that allows for six bays but with two additional lifts with no additional parking. Technically, this is not a variance amendment since the variance allowed for eight and now there are ten, whether they use them or not. The other two bays in existence are there and may be used; this is not a swap.
Mr. Neffinger said they are not increasing the volume, but they are increasing the number of lifts; ten bays equals six bays.
Ms. Kumiega agreed to see a way to get to the eight bays, but not ten. Ms. Beauvais said she was comfortable with amending the existing variance from 1980, but not ten lifts and the parking requirements are not even close to being met.
Mr. Neffinger said a swap makes sense since they are not using the other ones. Ms. Beauvais said the applicant is asking for a variance amendment and now asking to increase by two more bays, but with no increase in the parking. This leads again to the over-utilization of this lot.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments on the sign. Mr. Neffinger said the intent of the bylaw is to get rid of all non-conforming signs and it is very strict with signs. Ms. Beauvais said this Board sets a precedent with any sign decision. The Board has heard that the sign is two different sizes, but nothing has been shown to substantiate the actual size. Ms. Kumiega noted a hotel on Elm Street that was reconstructed and they kept their sign that was pre-existing, non-conforming. There is a hardship in this case, albeit minimal, and all other signs would be in conformity. Mr. Moore is consistent with the reading of the bylaw.
Mr. Neffinger said he did not see an argument for a hardship in this sign matter. Ms. Beauvais said Attorney Sypek said the west side may have a tree blocking the sign. Ms. Kumiega said from her personal experience, she could not see the sign until she is right on top of it.
Mr. Neffinger said it feels like the Board is trying to make up reasons to give this variance with no reasoning behind it or pictures to show. Attorney Sypek said the amendment could be granted because the 1980 variance was to allow the two bays in back and to amend to allow them to move the two bays to the side. Ms. Beauvais added, and to completely remove the two bays in the back.
Attorney Sypek suggested the sign argument be continued to further allow the applicant to present his argument for the sign variance.
Mr. Neffinger said that would be acceptable. Ms. Beauvais said with the condition that the two bays in the rear are removed completely. Ms. Kumiega said she would allow the amendment and abandonment and to allow a swap from the 1980 variance. This would allow a total of eight functioning lifts at the site.
Ms. Beauvais said the rear lifts must be completely dismantled and the sign continuance may be futile because the sign is so out of conformity right now.
Ms. Kumiega said if there was a way to keep the sign she would be willing to entertain more information, but the whole Board must be in agreement to do that. Ms. Beauvais said the Board has no information regarding the square footage of the sign, does the Board want to make a decision based on the fact whether it was 75 square feet, 100 square feet, or even 200 square feet? Mr. Neffinger said new information could make a more favorable case. Ms. Kumiega said she would be willing to give them that opportunity.
Ms. Beauvais said the application for variance amendment would be broken into two parts. Ms. Beauvais moved to amend the existing variance granted on June 24, 1980 and this amendment addresses the issue of lifts/bays on the property. The variance allowed will allow for eight lifts maximum on the property and the two lifts in the rear of the property (labeled as auto body) be abandoned and completely removed so that they can not be used unless they come back before this Board for a new variance in the future. Circumstances’ relating to the building as it currently exists and the hardship is due to the tragic fire and this amendment would not be a detriment to the public or the intent of the bylaws. The issue relating to the signage on the property will be continued to
September 22, 2008, at 7:05 p.m. to allow dimensions and pictures to be presented for the Board to make a better decision for the petitioner. Without this information, they would have had to deny the sign variance; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
3. New/Old Business
4. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, September 22 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
5. Adjournment
Ms. Beauvais moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m.; Mr. Neffinger second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
