BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Present: Vice-Chairman Gregory Neffinger, Alternate Jim Bodurtha and Alternate Chet Zymroz
Absent: Chairman, Lisa Beauvais, and Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost
The Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
1. Acceptance of Minutes
Mr. Neffinger moved to accept the minutes of the Special Meeting June 17, 2008 as presented; Mr. Zymroz second. Two in favor; Mr. Bodurtha abstaining.
Mr. Neffinger moved to accept the minutes of the Special meeting July 14, 2008, as presented; Mr. Zymroz second. Two in favor; Mr. Bodurtha abstaining.
Mr. Neffinger moved to accept the minutes of August 25, 2008, as presented; Mr. Zymroz second. Two in favor; Mr. Bodurtha abstaining.
Mr. Neffinger moved to accept the minutes of September 22, 2008, as presented; Mr. Zymroz second. Two in favor; Mr. Bodurtha abstaining.
2. Public Hearings
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. Continued from 9/22/08.
Mr. Werbiskis explained the applicant has requested a continuation for the third time. Mr. Neffinger asked if the hearing had been opened and Mr. Werbiskis said the hearing was opened but no information has been presented.
Mr. Neffinger moved to continue the hearing to November 24, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
7:05 p.m. (7:06 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 9/22/08.
Mr. Werbiskis said the applicant has requested a continuation and the hearing had been opened with Mr. Neffinger, Ms. Kumiega, and Ms. Beauvais sitting on the hearing.
Mr. Neffinger moved to continue the hearing to November 24, 2008, at 7:05 p.m.; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
7:10 p.m. (7:12 p.m.) – Ronald Brueno, Jr. (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 242 Westfield Street in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Mr. Ronald Brueno came forward and told the Board that he wanted to add a second floor to the existing second story at 242 Westfield Street.
Mr. Neffinger asked what the current use of the building was and Mr. Brueno said it was a restaurant and a full-service beauty salon. There is an existing second story and they would like to put an addition on the second story in the rear of the building facing the woods behind the building.
The Board discussed the elevation and the style of the addition. Mr. Neffinger said the second story goes all the way to the back, but it is one story off to the right; would there be any change to that area? Mr. Brueno said there would be no change there, everything would remain the same except for the gable roof in front of the building.
Mr. Neffinger asked what the nature of the non-conformity was? Mr. Werbiskis said the non-conformity is the side yard setback of 10 feet. There is approximately a 4 or 5-foot setback there. Mr. Neffinger noted the Board did not have a site plan that shows the non-conformity. Mr. Brueno said due to the shape of the building, the non-conformity is not evident in all areas. There is a jut out in the front and then there is the black top area, which is 3 or 4 feet.
Mr. Neffinger asked if the addition conforms to the bylaws and is the parking adequate and Mr. Werbiskis said the parking would depend on the use of the second floor. Mr. Brueno said it would be used as office space for training and storage for the existing businesses to use.
Mr. Neffinger asked for comments from the audience. Mr. David Katz asked how is the second floor handicap accessible? Mr. Brueno said the second floor is not accessible to the public, it is used for employee training. Mr. Katz noted, for the record, there are two handicap spaces available, one being van accessible.
Mr. Neffinger moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
The Board discussed the application and found there would be no problem with granting approval for the addition.
Mr. Neffinger moved to accept the Special Permit application for 242 Westfield Street for a second story addition on the back of the building as in the draft decision; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
7:15 p.m. (7:27 p.m.) – Siddhi Dhata LLC (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 437 Riverdale Street in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Attorney Paul Malek of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury, and Murphy in Springfield, represented the applicant. He explained that the applicant sold a portion of the Days Inn and the structure has a pre existing non-conforming side yard setback of five feet on the property and a 10 foot setback is required in the Business A zoning. The applicant would like to build an extension of the lobby area, as required by the franchisor. The area would be used for registration and would have a breakfast area and TV. The addition would be in the parking area and the side yard setback of the addition would be in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Neffinger asked if there was anything non-conforming about the addition? Mr. Werbiskis said the building addition would conform to all zoning requirements.
Attorney Malek noted that the applicant intends to add the handicap space necessary to meet ADA requirements.
Mr. Neffinger asked Mr. Werbiskis if the applicant would need to go through site plan review for the addition and Mr. Werbiskis said yes, administrative site plan review.
Mr. Neffinger asked for comments from the audience. No comments followed.
Mr. Neffinger moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
The Board discussed the application.
Mr. Neffinger moved to approve the Special Permit for 437 Riverdale Street for an addition to the entry to create a lobby as shown in the plans. Discussion: Mr. Bodurtha noted there is no rear yard violation; the north and south side yards are the only nonconformity. Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
7:20 p.m. (7:38 p.m.) – Father’s & Son’s Inc. (Variance) – Variance amendment to existing variances at the property located at 989 Memorial Avenue in the Business A (BA) zoning district.
Mr. Zymroz noted for the record that he is in the automotive industry in Westfield and currently does not do business with Fathers and Sons.
Attorney Tony DiSantis and Damon Cartelli came forward to request a variance to move out the front façade of the building 5 feet to comply with manufacturer’s requests for the fascia of the building. The fascia would go up four feet and out an additional 5 feet. The applicant presented additional plans and pictures to the Board.
Mr. Cartelli explained the arc of the façade extends five feet out at its maximum point and does not infringe on the sidewalk on the property.
The Board discussed the plans and the application. Mr. Neffinger reviewed the history of the project and the existing variances on the property. Mr. Cartelli said they moved into this site in 2002 and conducted a major renovation to the building. Mr. Neffinger said this is a variance to amend the existing variance issued in 1972 for an addition to the entrance canopy. The building will not be changing, just the façade.
Mr. Bodurtha asked how much space there was between the end of the five-foot extension and the sidewalk? What is the remaining distance with the canopy and the property line? Mr. Cartelli said it would be at the curbing and not encroaching on the sidewalk. Attorney DiSantis said the manufacturer is requiring this façade change. Mr. Bodurtha explained that a hardship must be found in granting a variance and if it cannot be proven, the Board’s hands are tied. Mr. Bodurtha said the Board has to hear why this is a hardship and not just that someone needs additional space. Mr. Neffinger asked if the Board needs findings since this is a variance amendment? Mr. Werbiskis said yes, if the Board feels that findings are required. Attorney DiSantis
said the previous Board found a hardship because the building had to be built closer to the property line due to the depth of the municipal sewer and now they have to meet the requirements of the manufacturer. Mr. Neffinger read the previous variance decision.
Mr. Neffinger asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Werbiskis noted the variance from 1972 allowed for a four-foot front yard setback or to be built within 4 feet. If the Board does approve the amendment, then a condition that a surveyed plan be submitted that the building sits at least five-feet so that there is no encroachment into the public way. The Building Commissioner cannot issue a building permit for an extension into the public way. Mr. Werbiskis said in this case, the Board would be looking at allowing a zero setback requirement. Mr. Bodurtha said he was unsure the same hardship argument would work in this matter when they are creating a further encroachment.
Mr. Zymroz asked if there was a reason why the new fascia could not be built under the canopy area? There seems to be a long depth in the canopy area. Mr. Cartelli said Porsche designs an overhang on their fascia; it has an arc so it is not out five feet on all areas. Porsche requires this type of design.
Mr. Neffinger said he looked at the matter differently since other Boards have decided that this property was worthy of a variance. Mr. Bodurtha added, yes, but for what was going on in the past with this property. Mr. Neffinger said now, they are asking for a little more, but he felt he would like to see a surveyed plan showing the property lines and where the building actually sits.
Attorney DiSantis said the Board could issue a conditional approval stating they could come so far into the public way. Mr. Neffinger said he would like to see a plan showing the building. Mr. Bodurtha said he was concerned that he could not find a hardship due to soil, shape, or topography on this project. It comes down to finding a hardship and what they are saying the hardship is that the dealership requires this type of improvement. Financial hardship is not enough to grant a variance, there needs to be a legal argument. Attorney DiSantis said it goes back to the original hardship of where they had to build the building due to the sewer line. Mr. Werbiskis said the variance in 1972 was because of the location and elevation of the sewer main in Memorial Avenue. They had to be closer to the street to accommodate the elevation. Mr. Neffinger said he did not have a problem with allowing the encroachment if he could see a plan of the whole building. Attorney DiSantis said he
would submit plans, but the problem was the time frame of getting these improvements done.
Mr. Bodurtha said he could be convinced of a hardship because the building had to be located where it was. Mr. Neffinger asked how far was the property line from the curb and Mr. Cartelli said about 6 inches. Mr. Bodurtha said the sidewalk was in the public way, so the addition would be abutting the public way.
The Board discussed the layout of the front of the building. Mr. Werbiskis said according to the GIS system the building is four to five feet off the property line. Mr. Bodurtha said the Board wants to see what the improvement is going to be exactly because they need to define exactly where it starts and ends. Mr. Bodurtha said he would like to keep it one foot from the property line.
The Board reviewed the plans submitted.
Mr. Neffinger moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
Mr. Bodurtha said he still had issue with the variance, but they do have the original variance that was granted. He said he was worried about setting a precedent in the future. Given the fact that they are already subject to a variance that required the building be put in that area and it is not for a personal gain and involves no signage or storage.
Mr. Neffinger said he was concerned that if they approve the façade extension, could the building be built all the way to the property line in the future? Mr. Werbiskis said the Board can put a requirement on that. There is a 9-foot clearance from the ground to the top of the windows.
Mr. Neffinger moved to reopen the public hearing to ask for more information; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
The Board discussed the dimensions of the curvature of the proposed façade and Mr. Bodurtha confirmed that the curvature would start at the nine-foot clearance.
Mr. Neffinger moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
Mr. Bodurtha suggested conditioning that no further improvements could be done to the building. Mr. Werbiskis suggested the Board condition that no further modification of the footprint of the existing structure be made. Mr. Neffinger said he would like drawings to be submitted as a requirement for the decision. Mr. Werbiskis said final plans can be submitted as part of the application for the Building Commissioner, but would recommend because of the vagueness of this request, to add a condition that as-built plans be submitted. This will help if there are future filings on this site. This applicant would not be required to come for site plan review.
Mr. Neffinger moved to amend the existing variance to approve a façade expansion with a radius of zero (0) at the corners of the building to extend no closer than one foot to the property line. Also the footprint of the building will not be modified from what currently exists, and as-built plans must be submitted and made part of this decision. The Board finds that relief may be granted by referring back to the existing variance from 1973 and all conditions remain in effect; Mr. Zymroz second. UAV.
7:25 p.m. (8:46 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).
Attorney Paul Malek came forward and introduced Sanjay Patel, who has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Matta Brothers, who currently own 173 Elm Street as a repair station with no gas pumps available for use. Mr. Patel proposes to convert the “L” shaped part of the building to a convenience store that is 27’ x 6’ long and serviced with two gas pumps. There is parking on the east side of the lot for the convenience store and six spaces on the west side with two handicap spaces. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure because the building does not meet the side yard setback in the Central Business District and this building has been in existence for many years.
Attorney Malek explained Mr. Patel’s history in converting abandoned buildings into convenience stores. There are four existing curb cuts and they propose to close one on Elm Street. Comments have been received from Mr. Czach of the DPW and most of the questions the traffic engineer would address, but they wanted to get a sense of how the Board feels about changing the non-conformity.
Mr. Neffinger asked if the part that would be demolished is the office area and are they going to keep the garage bays? Mr. Patel said the tanks would be removed and the canopy would remain and parking would be increased. Mr. Neffinger noted the addition is 13 feet on the Elm Street side. Mr. Patel said this is a regular convenience store size, which is required to do business. He said he would be remodeling the service bay area.
Mr. Bodurtha asked if the gas pumps were closed currently? Mr. Patel said yes they were closed because the owners had planned to sell the business. There are two pumps on each side. Mr. Bodurtha asked if there would be 8-10 employees working at the site at one time? Mr. Patel said probably one or two at a time. The total parking necessary is 11 and they have 13 with handicap.
Mr. Zymroz said since they are putting in more parking at the entrances and exit areas, what is the opening of these areas? Mr. Patel said they are 24 feet wide.
Mr. Bodurtha said he had no problem with the addition and reconstruction, but was skeptical about how the traffic flow and parking would work on the site. The way the plan is laid out it funnels all the traffic between the canopy and the building. Mr. Patel said he is not expecting the amount of customers entering and exiting would exceed 200. Mr. Malek noted the traffic study submitted was done during the Big E. The bottleneck issue may not be as bad if you look at the distance between the canopy and the property addition.
Mr. Bodurtha said he had looked at other convenience stores and they all had more room than this site. Mr. Patel said he hoped to sell 2,000 gallons of gas per day, but most of the money comes from the convenience store. Mr. Bodurtha said if the pumps are being used, could cars still enter the site? Mr. Werbiskis said two pumps equals four fueling stations and having a queue of cars does not make people avoid a site.
Mr. Zymroz asked the hours of operation and Mr. Patel said he would like to open 6 in the morning until 10 at night, and 7 in the morning until 10 at night on the weekend. These hours may fluctuate and he will be open 7 days a week. The Board discussed the peak hours for business.
Mr. Neffinger read comments from the Mayor and Fire Department. Mr. Werbiskis said the DPW and Health Department had concerns that would need to be reviewed. Mr. Neffinger noted a 12-point commentary from the DPW received today. Attorney Malek said the issues could be addressed under site plan review. Mr. Werbiskis said the comments would need to be addressed, but the site plan review process does not have a denial option and if the applicant complies with zoning, then the Board is required to approve. The Zoning Board has the ability to deny an application.
Mr. Bodurtha said he would want to continue the hearing and see what concerns should be dealt with by the ZBA and what revisions of parking could be done and what impact that might have on the DPW’s comments. He said he would also like to see a revised plan.
Mr. Neffinger said he had no problem with the construction portion but because this is a Special Permit and the Board puts conditions on this, he would like to review the DPW letter before making a decision.
Mr. Bodurtha said he was concerned with the traffic flow and parking spaces and since the existing traffic report was done during the Big E, the Board may not have a good feel of the impacts to traffic and queuing.
Mr. Werbiskis said he would be reviewing the issues with engineer Jim Czach and Jeff Pechulis to make sure the Town is comfortable with the timing of the study.
Mr. Zymroz said he had no problem with the modification of the building, but was concerned about the traffic flows.
Mr. Neffinger asked for comments from the audience. Owner of the property, Ray Matta came forward and expressed that he felt the project is a good fit for the area and the applicant is a good businessman.
Mr. Neffinger moved to continue the hearing to November 24, 2008, at 7:10 p.m.; Mr. Bodurtha second. UAV.
3. New/Old Business
Mr. Werbiskis suggested to the Board that they consider revising their rules and regulations since they had some issues with the applications this evening, and the Board could request specific plans be submitted by the applicants. Mr. Werbiskis said he would propose some revisions to help streamline the process. The Variance applications should require a surveyed plan be submitted.
4. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, November 24, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
5. Adjournment
Mr. Neffinger moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.; Mr. Zymroz second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
