BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, December 22, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman, Lisa Beauvais, Vice-Chairman Gregory Neffinger, and Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost
Absent: Alternate Jim Bodurtha and Alternate Chet Zymroz
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
1. Acceptance of Minutes
Ms. Kumiega moved to approve the minutes of June 23, and November 24, 2008; Ms. Beauvais second. Two in favor; Mr. Neffinger abstaining.
Ms. Beauvais moved to table the minutes of October 27, 2008, to the next meeting of the Board; Ms. Kumiega second. Two in favor; Mr. Neffinger abstaining.
2. Public Hearings
Ms. Beauvais informed the audience the hearing at 7:05 would be taken out of order while awaiting the arrival of the third Board member.
7:05 p.m. (7:14 p.m.)- Nicholas Katsoulis (Variance) – Variance from Table 9.4A for the removal of non-conforming signage at the property located at 865 Memorial Avenue in the Business A (BA) zoning district. Continued from 11/24/08.
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 February 23, 2009, at 7:00 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. Two in favor; Mr. Neffinger abstaining.
Mr. Neffinger arrived at the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
7:00 p.m. (7:16 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. Continued from 11/24/08.
Ms. Beauvais said the hearing had been continued in order for the Board to visit the property. Ms. Beauvais asked the applicant if he had any new information to present to the Board?
Mr. Kendzierski said at the last meeting the Planner had said the Police Chief and Fire Chief were concerned about safety in regard to the fence and he asked both and they said they did not want the ordinance changed, but neither could see a safety problem with the fence as it was constructed. The main reason they have the fence is to prevent people from stopping their cars and coming into the yard. Without a fence there is no privacy in the yard and he would have to build some type of organic structure. Ms. Beauvais asked why people would stop their cars and go into his yard. Mr. Kendzierski said because he has waterfalls and a coy pond. Ms. Beauvais asked if there is a possibility for natural boundaries along the side or around the area that needs to be blocked?
Mr. Kendzierski said there are a couple of large trees that are along that line that have been there for years, so it is difficult to grown things in that area.
Ms. Beauvais asked for further questions or comments. No comments followed.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Mr. Neffinger said he thought relief could be found due to the shape of the lot and the soil.
Ms. Kumiega said she was concerned with the side fence and approving a variance would set a precedent and she could not see the grounds to issue a variance in this matter. Ms. Beauvais said the uniqueness is that it is a corner lot and most corner lots do not offer much privacy. She said she could not find a hardship; there is nothing unusual about the soil, shape or topography. She said there were no problems with the back fence.
Ms. Beauvais moved to deny the variance based on the fact that a hardship could not be found; Ms. Kumiega second. Two in favor; Mr. Neffinger opposed.
7:10 p.m. (7:26 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. Continued from 11/24/08.
Ms. Beauvais said this hearing was continued to allow the applicant to submit plans for the project.
Mr. Rivet said the applicant would like to move the footprint back 25 feet and he showed a plan of the existing home and the proposed alteration. He said the parking situation would be relieved by the addition of three spaces in the front. By moving the home back the parking would be reduced to 16 from the current 21 spaces, but the traffic flow on the lot would be improved. They are proposing a one way into the site on Westfield Street with a one-way exit onto Pleasant Street. Mr. No owns the adjacent properties and this would only benefit the safety of the public, and the plan meets the setback requirements and would utilize 25 percent of the existing footprint.
Mr. No added that the tenants would not lose their parking spaces; each has two spaces.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the parking was shared with the tenants next door? Mr. No said he owns all of the buildings.
The Board discussed the parking spaces. Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board.
Ms. Kumiega asked if 10 to 12 Pleasant Street was residential? Mr. No said yes, it is a three-family. Ms. Kumiega asked Mr. Werbiskis if the changes in parking would affect 677 Westfield or 10 to 12 Pleasant Street? Mr. Werbiskis said there is no formal easement in place for cross parking and access issues. If the properties were sold the new owner could deny access and the uses on the property. The three parcels are currently operating as one unit.
Mr. Rivet said the parking improvements would add order to the parking situation.
Mr. Werbiskis said the applicant is before the Board because they would like to relocate the structure. Four parking spaces are required for the two-family structure. Mr. Neffinger said there are seven spaces, but it does not look like there is enough room to get in and out. Mr. Werbiskis said DPW has requested further information on traffic circulation on the lot. The turning radius is questionable.
Mr. Rivet said the lot is already congested as it exists and they are reducing the parking spaces by five. Mr. No added by making the site one-way in and out would help the situation. Mr. Neffinger said they would need an easement for the one-way in and exiting on Pleasant Street. Ms. Kumiega asked if it is one way in off of Westfield Street is there enough room for a car to maneuver around the buildings? Mr. No said yes, currently there are large vans coming and going on the site. Mr. Rivet said the are not moving the house to the left or right, just moving it back and reducing the size to improve access on the lot.
Ms. Kumiega asked if there was a curb cut on Pleasant Street now? Mr. No said yes, there is and people are currently driving between the buildings.
Ms. Beauvais asked if a parking study would be required? Mr. Werbiskis said a traffic circulation analysis has been requested by the DPW and a storm water management report for the site. Ms. Beauvais asked when was this requested from the DPW? Mr. Werbiskis said the DPW had responded on December 18, 2008.
Mr. Rivet said if they have to rebuild the house in the original spot it would complicate the parking. Ms. Beauvais said the parking is a concern especially with the three spaces in the front and the cars at 677 Westfield would be parking on a slant and they have to back up right into the entrance to the site. The turning radius is a concern with cars being able to exit and just by saying it is going to be one way in and out, does not mean it is going to work. This Board needs to make sure that this plan is going to work.
Ms. Beauvais asked if the traffic circulation analysis would be conducted during site plan review and Mr. Werbiskis said this does not require site plan review, this Board would have to require the analysis.
Mr. Neffinger said these properties are functioning as one now with two way traffic on the site. The one-way is a long shot and it would require an easement.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the Planning Department. Mr. Werbiskis said regardless of what the Board decides it is an improvement to what is there now. He suggested requiring the parking and cross access easements in their decision. If the property is sold it could shut down 677 Westfield because there is no parking associated with it.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience. No comments followed.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Mr. Neffinger said an easement should be created. Ms. Beauvais said she was not in favor of this being a one-way; it would create more of a traffic problem. Moving the house back on the lot would be better and an improvement to the property.
Ms. Kumiega asked if it would be beneficial to receive input from the DPW? Mr. Werbiskis suggested that before a building permit is issued that a internal circulation plan be turned into the DPW and approved by them.
Ms. Beauvais moved to accept the application for special permit noting the new plan does not create any new nonconformities and it is an improvement to the property than what currently exists. The approval is subject to a storm water management plan being submitted and approved and also subject to the approval of the DPW for the internal circulation plan relating to the parking and turning radius; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
7:15 p.m. (8:00 p.m.) – Salamon Realty (Variance) – Amendment of existing variance to allow for the construction of a 2,026 square foot addition to the existing building at 103 Myron Street in the Business B zoning district.
Mr. Mitch Salamon said he wanted to put a 2,026 square foot addition to the inside corner of the building, creating a new entryway. He said he wanted to create a new receiving dock and then the old receiving area could be eliminated and replaced with a third new addition.
Mr. Werbiskis noted a variance is needed for all three additions.
Mr. Salamon said deliveries are currently made through the parking lot and by relocating the receiving area to the back of the building there would be no congestion in the parking area.
The Board discussed the three changes to the plan. Ms. Beauvais asked if the lobby addition is the 2,026 square foot addition? Mr. Salamon said yes the structure in the back would be 30 feet by 50 feet and the receiving dock are about 1500 square feet.
Ms. Beauvais said there is a variance on this property already. The receiving dock would be 2 feet short of the property line and 10 feet is required. There currently is 10 feet there and this would create a new non-conformity by reducing the setback 8 feet.
Ms. Kumiega asked if the parking would be in compliance should these additions be added? Mr. Werbiskis said he has not performed that analysis. Ms. Beauvais said she was concerned with the receiving dock being 2 feet from the property line. Mr. Salamon said the parking shown on the plan is non-existent, it is currently wooded and undeveloped. This is a older plan that was never acted upon. Ms. Kumiega asked if the area up to the proposed dock was paved? Mr. Salamon said it was not paved it is hard pack and ready for development.
Ms. Beauvais asked if there is landscaping currently on the side yard? Mr. Salamon said the front of the building is landscaped.
Mr. Neffinger asked how the delivery trucks come in now? Mr. Werbiskis said the trucks currently use Pieroways because there is no buffer between them and they function cooperatively. Mr. Neffinger asked if they were proposing that trucks pull into the street and then have to back in to the dock? Mr. Salamon said it is a dead end street with no residential homes in that area. Mr. Werbiskis said this would be subject to site plan review.
Ms. Beauvais said the Board needs to find a reason for something unusual with the soil, shape, or topography that would create a hardship. The main concern is with the receiving dock on the boundary line. The other additions are not as significant as the receiving dock. Mr. Salamon said he was concerned with the safety of vehicles in the parking lot with several trailer deliveries daily. There currently is an agreement to utilize the whole parking lot.
Mr. Tony Caliento of ATC Audio at 89 Myron said he understands that Mr. Salamon wants to expand his business, but the 10-foot offset is gravel in that area. Small trucks pull in now but a tractor-trailer may not be able to turn in and it is too close in that area. Some day he planned on expanding his building back. There is a decline to 89 Myron and currently there are some drainage issues. There is a transformer in the front also and it just does not seem like a good area for a receiving dock. Mr. Salamon said the topography slopes towards 89 Myron and he would put curbing in so Mr. Caliento would not get any run-off. There is enough drainage on the property.
Ms. Beauvais said she was still concerned with the receiving dock on the property line and the fact that they need to find a hardship relating to the soil, shape, or topography.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais said she had an issue with the receiving dock on the property line and there is nothing unusual about the soil, shape, or topography of the land or the building thereon. There may be a hardship in the future with a full parking use or with Pieroways.
The Board discussed the three proposed additions. Ms. Beauvais suggested reopening the hearing and allowing the applicant to withdraw his application before the Board denies it because he would not be able to come before the Board on this matter again for two years. She said she was leaning towards a denial. Mr. Werbiskis said the applicant would be allowed to come back with a substantially different plan, but the Board could continue the hearing to allow Mr. Salamon to amend the application to allow for the entrance addition to be considered. He would still need a variance amendment for that addition.
Ms. Beauvais moved to reopen the public hearing; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais moved to allow the petitioner to amend the variance application by having the application be only for the 2,026 square foot new entrance way and the plans would eliminate the request for the new shipping and receiving area and the new 1,500 square foot addition to the rear. The Board would only be voting on the 2,026 square foot addition; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais moved to grant the approval for variance amendment to allow for the 2,026 square foot entranceway addition to the existing building; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
7:20 p.m. (8: 45 p.m.) – Debra Cheetham (Special Permit) – Amendment to an existing special permit to allow for the change in use at the property located at 262 Elm Street in the Residence B (RB) zoning district.
Ms. Cheetham came forward and said that she wanted to move the driving school upstairs from downstairs at the existing site. The current use as a store would be closing on December 31, 2008. The Building Commissioner, Mr. Moore came to the site and he thought it was an improvement over the current non-conforming use at the site.
Mr. Werbiskis said the decision of the Board in 1990 conditioned the use as a retail shop and would be the only use allowed without further review.
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 moved to approve the special permit based on the fact that this use is the same one already in the building and would be eliminating two uses and allowing one use. There are no new non-conformities and it meets all other zoning requirements. The use allowed would be a private educational or professional office use only and any other use would have to come back before the Board for approval due to the residential district in which the property is located; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
3. New/Old Business
4. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, January 26, 2009, at 7:00 p.m.
5. Adjournment
Ms. Beauvais moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
