BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, September 22, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman, Lisa Beauvais, Vice-Chairman Gregory Neffinger, Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost, and Alternate Chet Zymroz
Absent: Alternate Jim Bodurtha
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Acceptance of Minutes
Ms. Beauvais moved to table the minutes of Special Meeting June 17, June 23, Special meeting July 14th, and August 25, 2008, to the next meeting of the Board; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
3. New/Old Business (Taken Out of Order)
Mr. Neffinger recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
a. 168 Baldwin Street – Richard explained the modification of the decision for Baldwin Street is necessary because you cannot grant an easement to yourself. The applicant’s attorney has reviewed the amendment and there was no issue with it.
Ms. Beauvais asked Ms. Kumiega if the language seem acceptable? Ms. Kumiega said it looks to accomplish what the Board wanted to do.
Ms. Beauvais moved to accept the amended variance decision for 168 Baldwin Street; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Mr. Zymroz left the meeting at 7:05 p.m. and Mr. Neffinger returned.
2. Public Hearings (Taken Out of Order)
7:00 p.m. (7:06 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 October 27, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Mr. Neffinger returned to the meeting and Chet Zymroz excused himself from the meeting.
7:05 p.m. (7:07 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. Continued from 8/25/08.
Attorney Rich Sypek, representing the petitioner, said this was a continuance of the sign variance and they went to look at the site and take measurements of the sign, which consists of one freestanding sign with two components. Attorney Sypek presented pictures to the Board relative to the signage. He said he stood in the middle of Memorial Avenue from about two businesses down the road to take these pictures. The upper sign is 80 square feet and the lower is 74.8 square feet. The Town calculates signage differently and it would be about 187 square feet. Looking west from Springfield the current sign is almost non-visible. When you are parallel to the sign you can see the sign, but coming east you have the same visibility problem, but not as bad as coming from
west. The bottom part of the sign is the only part that is visible. This situation was not something they brought upon themselves, and they are not looking to make any changes. The matter triggers Section 9.259 to suggest that there is no voluntary act of needing a building permit, these signs are exactly as what was there; this was not a voluntary abandonment.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board. Mr. Neffinger said they are not asking for any additional signs, but they are making a structural change to the existing sign. Attorney Sypek said everything is being done as in the prior variances that where granted. The original signs were in effect, but due to the unfortunate fire to the building, it caused them to be taken down and now they just want to put them back up. Section 9.313 could be used as abandoned signs, but it was not a voluntary abandonment, it was as a result of an involuntary fire.
Mr. Neffinger asked if the signs that would be put back up would all be in conformity? Attorney Sypek said he has not seen the signs, but he would assume that they are, but if not then they would be pre-existing, non-conforming. Mr. Neffinger said if they are putting up conforming signs on the building then they may fall in the gray area of the ordinance, but we do not know if the signs are in conformity with our ordinance. Mr. Katsoulis said the signs were not damaged, but the walls and roof had to come down due to the fire, so the signs were removed.
Ms. Beauvais said the Board was dealing with the freestanding sign at this hearing.
Attorney Sypek said they would like to put up the signs that were on the building before the fire. The hardship is based on the topography of the area and the evidence presented tonight that it is a hardship unique to this establishment. It is difficult to see the signs from Memorial Avenue.
Mr. Neffinger asked if they need a permit to put the signs back up? Attorney Sypek said yes, that is why they are before the Board. There has been a long dialogue with the town to resolve issues at the site and reopen the business. The signs require a building permit to put them back up. Mr. Neffinger said it is a logical argument to need a permit to put the signs back up, but now everything has to come into compliance. A hardship would come into play.
Ms. Kumiega asked if these are the same signs that were removed and are now being put back up, what is the basis for requiring a permit? Mr. Werbiskis said the face of the building has been removed and the existing awning structure there has been removed and it now needs a permit to ensure the signs meet all structural and electrical requirements for building code. Attorney Sypek added if a sign comes down for any reason whatsoever you need a permit to put it back up and it must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Attorney Sypek asked if the signs on the building have been measured. Mr. Werbiskis said there is some non-conformity with uniformity of the style of sign, but he was not sure of the sizes. There is a mix of channel letters and panel signs on that building. Attorney Sypek said if that is the case, then those signs may need a variance also and asked that the Board not act on this matter this evening, if they have to come back for a variance for the other signs. One variance should deal with all the signs. Mr. Werbiskis said he did not advise on the other signs because he did not know what they were doing with the building.
Attorney Sypek said he would like to see if there was a way to amend this application to include all the signs. Ms. Beauvais asked if he would like a continuation of the hearing and Attorney Sypek said yes, he would request a continuation at this point.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the variance hearing to October 27, 2008, at 7:05 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
4. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, October 27 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
5. Adjournment
Ms. Beauvais moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m.; Mr. Neffinger second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
