BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, November 24, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman, Lisa Beauvais, Vice-Chairman Gregory Neffinger, Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost, Alternate Jim Bodurtha and Alternate Chet Zymroz
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
1. Acceptance of Minutes
Ms. Kumiega moved to table the minutes of June 23, and October 27, 2008, 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. Continued from 10/27/08.
Mr. Jacek Chmiel said he would like to put an addition on the existing building, which is a day spa.
Ms. Beauvais asked the name of the business and Mr. Chmiel said the business is Beauty Gate Salon and Day Spa. Mr. Chmiel presented pictures of the location to the Board and said he would like to add a 26’ x 14’ addition to square the whole building off and move the entrance to the salon.
Ms. Beauvais asked if this was the same application and plan that was submitted in 2002 and approved by the Board, but was never acted on? Mr. Chmiel said yes, it is the same plan as in 2002, but he ran out of funds at that time to proceed when the first special permit was granted.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the business would be remaining the same and the addition would be within the footprint of the existing building.
Mr. Neffinger asked for a copy of the 2002 decision and Mr. Werbiskis said the Board should issue a new decision with today’s standards. Mr. Neffinger asked if the applicant would have to go through administrative site plan review? Mr. Werbiskis said yes, he would go through site plan review to make sure all parking and utilities are up to code.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. David Katz asked if parking would be discussed during site plan review? Mr. Werbiskis said yes, it would and there is a requirement of one van accessible space.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Ms. Kumiega said the application meets the criteria to grant a special permit. Ms. Beauvais said she had no concerns and it satisfies the requirement of a special permit. In 2002 a special permit was granted and not much has changed, it just was not acted on in the two-year time frame.
Ms. Beauvais moved to grant the special permit for a pre-existing, non-conforming use and to put an addition of 26’ x14’ on the existing structure and this addition will not create any new non-conformities; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
7:00 p.m. – Pat Kendzierski (Variance) – Variance from Section 9.41 of the Zoning Ordinance that requires no fence between the house and the street line shall be more than 4 feet in height or greater than 50 percent solid for the property located at 706 Prospect Avenue in the Residence A (RA) zoning district.
Mr. John Kendzierski said he just remodeled his home with a large landscaping project to create a beautiful yard and because of the shape of the lot and turning from Quarry Road with the top lower at the base of the driveway, the fence could create an attractive barrier. All traffic lights shine directly into their yard. Mr. Kendzierski said he made the mistake of not getting a permit and put up a 6-foot fence with more than 50 percent coverage. They have 350 feet of side yard and the fence stops at 200 feet, so there are no site distance problems. He also spoke to his neighbors and none of them had any issue with the fence. The shape of the lot and the way the traffic comes in creates a problem and makes their yard useless.
Ms. Beauvais asked how long the house has been there? Mr. Kendzierski said it was built in 1982 and the fence was installed in July. Ms. Beauvais said they put up the fence because cars from the street are passing with lights shining in the house; is there a high fence in the back? Mr. Kendzierski said the fence was 6 feet all around the property. Ms. Beauvais asked if the fence blocks the lights coming down Quarry Road? Mr. Kendzierski said you can see over the fence on some parts of the hill, but it helps with the lights at night. The side yard was not utilized until this past summer when they remodeled their home and now the kitchen faces Quarry Road.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board.
Mr. Neffinger said he has been out to the house and seen the house and the addition and it falls into the category of topography and there is quite a large hill in the corner by Quarry Road and the land slopes toward the house.
Mr. Neffinger asked Mr. Werbiskis the reason the fence cannot be higher than 4 feet? Mr. Werbiskis said the rule is for public safety purposes and for the Fire Department and Police Department to be able to view homes without obstruction. The Fire and Police do not want to see the ordinance deviated from and want to keep visibility from the street line to the structure.
Mr. Kendzierski said the fence is 96 feet from the corner of Quarry Road and the house can always be seen from the road. Mr. Neffinger said this is a burden on homes on corner lots.
Ms. Kumiega said she has viewed the property and the rear yard fence blocks the lights from Quarry to Prospect, but the issue is the part of the fence that runs along Quarry that is 6 feet tall. Ms. Beauvais agreed and said the rear fence blocks the lights and cars coming down Quarry Road. The side fence is the issue, not the rear fence.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience.
Ms. Jean Wainwright, next-door neighbor of the applicant, said the idea is a privacy issue. What is the law on the side yard of anyone’s yard? If the fence is not obstructing traffic, why can’t a person have a privacy fence? There is a fence near the reservoir that is used for privacy.
Mr. Paul Malek, friend of the applicant, said the Kendzierski’s give a lot to the community and he is a good candidate for a variance and appropriate relief could be granted in this case.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
Mr. Neffinger reviewed the photos of the yard and Ms. Beauvais said the side yard is 136 feet and the rear yard is 48 feet. There is not an issue with the rear fence, the concern is with the side yard and even though they are nice people who want their privacy, the fact that it is a corner lot and there is a need to find something unusual with the soil, shape, or topography to justify the side yard fence and it cannot just be a privacy issue.
Mr. Neffinger said the lot has such a large side yard and the topography together create a hardship. If there were neighbors on the side, they would want a fence for privacy.
Ms. Kumiega said she viewed the property at night and headlights were an issue, but she could not get over the hardship issue with the side fence. She said she would be willing to drive by during the daytime and see the property.
Ms. Beauvais asked if a 4-foot fence would be adequate on the side since the land is at street level? But, the fence could not be have more than 50 percent coverage.
The Board discussed continuing the hearing to be able to go out and view the property again.
Ms. Beauvais moved to re-open the public hearing; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the hearing to December 22, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. for the Board to be able to view the property in the daytime and at night; Mr. Neffinger second. Discussion: Ms. Kendzierski asked the Board to note the condition of the roadway and how the fence would prevent cars from getting into their yard in the winter. UAV.
7:05 p.m. (7:46 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 10/27/08.
Ms. Beauvais said the applicant has requested a continuation to the next meeting of the Board.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the public hearing to December 22, 2008, at 7:05 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
7:10 p.m. (7:49 p.m.)– Sanjay Patel (Special Permit) – Special Permit from Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance for the alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure at the property located at 173 Elm Street in the Central Business District (CBD). Continued from 10/27/08.
Mr. Neffinger took over as chair of the hearing along with both alternates, Mr. Bodurtha and Mr. Zymroz, who were participating in this hearing.
Attorney Paul Malek said the applicant has revised the plans for the site. Plans were passed out to the Board and Attorney Malek said the building shown is smaller than on the original plan. The service station entrance would be blocked off and they will use the bay area for the convenience store. There are nine parking spaces and employee spaces on the Westfield and Elm Street side of the property and one handicap van accessible space. There will be signs to designate entrance only on the corner of Westfield and Elm Streets. They will also close the curb cut on Elm and there will be only one on Elm and two on Westfield Street. The furthest curb cut on Westfield will be shortened and the distance of the curb cut on Elm would be 30 feet from the intersection instead
of the required 40 feet. There is no queuing anticipated due to the site line being wide open and customers can see that the pumps are busy. This will not be a full-service station with three pumps existing, which will be reduced to two. There is plenty of room on the site and this plan would be an improvement as to what currently exists on the site.
Mr. Jeff Pechulis of 181 Notre Dame Street in Westfield, came forward to discuss the traffic report on the site. Mr. Pechulis stated he conducted the traffic counts, but since that time there has been a decrease in the square footage of the retail/convenience store space there will be less traffic than in the original report.
Mr. Bodurtha said he was concerned with the number of vehicles entering and leaving the premises. Could the Big E have skewed the counts on the report? Mr. Pechulis said the report was done on September 30, 2008, and he did not feel the Big E had any impact on the counts. The counts are based on state numbers.
Mr. Neffinger asked if he had an opinion on the traffic patterns at this site? Mr. Pechulis said the trip generation estimates are based on national statistics and that West Springfield dictates that they use this source. He used ITE trip generation factors for a gas station. The number of trips generated for this site is based on these stats and trip generation numbers are all one-way trips; in would be one trip and out would be one trip.
Mr. Werbiskis said the size of the store and the number of fueling stations would determine the trip generation numbers, and Mr. Pechulis said yes, and that is taken into account.
Mr. Zymroz said since the plan shows a smaller store can we assume the traffic numbers will decrease also? Mr. Pechulis said the trip generation is directly related to the square footage. In this case, the original plan was 1900 square feet with a 300 square foot addition. The revised plan still shows that 600 square feet will be removed, and they will not be adding the 300 square foot addition. There is a difference in 33 percent of square footage.
Mr. Bodurtha said he was concerned about the congestion on the lot, but likes the new plan much better. Mr. Bodurtha asked about the layout of the plan and having one employee at the site at one time. Mr. Patel said one employee would be at the site unless they were changing shifts. Mr. Neffinger asked if the employee parking signs are required? If those are removed then it would allow for maximum parking at the site. Mr. Werbiskis said it is up to the Board to designate at the site. The Board could condition that employees use the spots located within the southeast corner of the property.
Mr. Bodurtha said he was concerned with the curb cut being 30 feet from the corner versus the 40 feet. Mr. Pechulis said town code calls for 40 feet and is established to give separation from the intersection. They could move the driveway 40 feet from the intersection, but that would move parking closer to the fueling area. Moving the curb cut 40 feet does not accomplish safety at the site. Thirty feet would protect the parking spaces and limit impeding on the fueling area.
Attorney Malek added there would be ground signs and markings on the pavement that it is entrance only. Mr. Pechulis said this improves conditions over what they are currently at the site.
Mr. Zymroz asked Mr. Patel what controls are in place to control queuing at the pumps for people who would go in to use the convenience store while fueling and parking at the pump? Mr. Patel said he would tell the people they would have to move from the pumps when they are done fueling and new technology with the pumps makes things flow smoothly. There are only two pumps available and they will not be at volume prices.
Mr. Werbiskis said the plan shows reducing three pumps to two, but are they multi dispenser pumps? Mr. Pechulis said the pumps are new pumps with multiple hoses and can dispense different grades. Mr. Werbiskis said there are 6 fueling spaces now, reduced to four and it would remain at four fueling stations. Mr. Pechulis said there is the ability for six cars to be fueling at one time, but he doubts that would be the case considering the room available at the pumps.
Mr. Neffinger read a letter received from Mayor Gibson stating his concerns with traffic and egress and ingress at the property. The Fire Department noted that the applicant would have to go before them before construction begins. Mr. Neffinger also noted comments were received from DPW and Mr. Pechulis reviewed his responses to those DPW comments.
Mr. Neffinger asked for comments from the audience. Mr. David Katz said he was happy with the revised plans.
Mr. Werbiskis noted the DPW has not received the comments from Mr. Pechulis that were discussed tonight, nor have they seen the revised plans for the project.
Mr. Neffinger asked if it was pre-existing, non-conforming due to the service station not being allowed? Mr. Werbiskis said the issue is with the repair and fueling stations. A convenience store is allowed through site plan review.
Mr. Zymroz said he felt that all the concerns of the DPW have been addressed and did not see a need to continue the hearing.
Mr. Neffinger moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
Mr. Bodurtha said it was a much better plan and Mr. Zymroz agreed and said there would be less trips to the site due to the reduction of the size of the building. Mr. Neffinger noted they changed the curb cuts to make the site safer. He suggested approval per the submitted plan except design one employee space with a sign on the southeastern side. Mr. Werbiskis requested the Board note in their decision that they did not review for signage or approve any signage.
Mr. Neffinger moved to approve the Special Permit as in the plans dated 9/26/08, with the exception of employee parking be located at the southeast parking space and no other signage was discussed or approved in this decision. The Board finds the proposed project would reduce the non-conformity by moving the curb cut and adding ground markings to provide proper entrances and exits to the site. Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
7:15 p.m. (8:46 p.m.) – Richard Rivet (Special Permit) – Special Permit from section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance for the alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure at the property located at 701 Westfield Street in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Mr. Richard Rivet of 209 Prospect Street in Chicopee came forward to discuss the plans at 701 Westfield Street. On August 12, 2007, there was a fire at the property, which is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot. Mr. Rivet passed out photos to the Board. He explained the existing home is a complete loss and cannot be repaired. They would like to move the house back 66 feet off the main road to decrease the bottleneck and danger to pedestrians. The plan meets the setback requirements and the footprint of the proposed home would be smaller than as it currently exists. There are 22 parking spaces existing, and if the home were moved back they would lose only 7 spaces. This would benefit the safety of the public and enhance the appeal of the neighborhood.
Ms. Beauvais asked why the property was non-conforming and Mr. Werbiskis said the existing use as a two family is non-conforming and the structure could be reconstructed in the same footprint, but by modifying the footprint, it does require a finding that from the Board that the proposed plan is not more detrimental than the existing structure.
Ms. Beauvais asked where the parking would be? Mr. Rivet said parking would be on the front side of the home. Mr. No said it would improve traffic flow on the lot. Ms. Beauvais said most of the businesses in that area are very close to Westfield Street and are not set back with parking in the front. Ms. Beauvais asked Mr. Werbiskis if there were regulations for front yard parking? Mr. Werbiskis said yes, for a two-family use in the business district, but he could not comment because he has not seen a plan on the project. Mr. Werbiskis recommended continuing the hearing and a full set of plans in duplicate copies be submitted for municipal review. Ms. Beauvais noted the application submitted was also incomplete and the Board needs plans to review showing the
site plan and parking outlined. Ms. Beauvais said she was concerned about the parking in the front yard. Ms. Kumiega asked how the parking would work with the other two businesses on the site? Since 677 Westfield is commercial, do they all share the driveways? Ms. Beauvais said the business next door has an easement to park. Mr. Rivet said it is a dry cleaner drop off.
Mr. Werbiskis suggested the applicant make an appointment in the Planning Office to discuss the plans, and what the Board requires.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the public hearing to December 22, 2008, at 7:10 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
3. New/Old Business
The Board discussed incomplete applications coming before the Board. Ms. Kumiega said she hates to put the burden on someone to require having certified plans, especially if it does not serve a purpose. In some cases it is necessary and in others it is not. Mr. Neffinger said people should come before the Board as prepared as possible or they may get bumped to the next meeting or denied by the Board. Ms. Beauvais said certified plans for a residential project should not be a requirement, but for commercial or a business it should be required. It would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Werbiskis said there is a burden on the department to get all the information to the Board in a timely manner.
4. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, December 22, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
5. Adjournment
Ms. Beauvais moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m.; Ms. Kumieaga second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
