BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
Monday, February 23, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Lisa Beauvais, Vice-Chairman Gregory Neffinger, and Secretary Christine Kumiega-Provost
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. Acceptance of Minutes
Ms. Kumiega moved to approve the minutes of January 26, 2009; Mr. Neffinger second. Two in favor; Ms. Beauvais abstaining.
3. Public Hearings
7:00 p.m. (7:03 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 12/22/08.
Attorney Sypek said Mr. Katsoulis has been trying to find a compromise regarding the signage at the site and he is willing to take down the freestanding sign and comply with zoning and make it 50 square feet. What exists on the building is different because the tenant signs are box signs and the sign on the front of the Spartan building is a channel letter sign. They would use 160 square feet of sign area on the front of the building in channel letters. The Spartan sign and other signs would come in to the envelope of the 160 square feet. To bring the sings into conformity with the bylaws, and it will be at a large expense to the applicant.
Ms. Beauvais said the plan shows the sign illuminated and Attorney Sypek said they are not proposing any illumination. Mr. Werbiskis said under the current zoning, the town does not regulate color or illumination unless the sign is within a certain distance of a traffic signal. Mr. Werbiskis suggested the Board not limit the illumination in the decision this evening. Attorney Sypek noted the freestanding sign is illuminated.
Mr. Werbiskis said a variance is necessary for the combination of the channel letter style of sign mixed with the existing box signs for the other tenants. The Town requires uniformity with the style of signs on a building. Attorney Sypek noted Section 9.281B regarding the conformity issue. Mr. Werbiskis noted the Building and Planning Departments have no issues with the proposed signage.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Angus Rushlow, Councilor District 1, said this looks like a good plan and now the family can begin to get their lives back together after the tragedy of the fire.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
Ms. Kumiega said she had no objections and Mr. Neffinger said he did not see a problem with having the channel set sign along with the box signs. Ms. Beauvais said the Board would still need to find conditions in order to grant the variance. Mr. Neffinger said he felt the Zoning Ordinance was too restrictive when an existing sign needed to be changed or repaired.
Ms. Kumiega said the building, itself is unique in shape and it is like having two distinct buildings on the site. Mr. Neffinger said he felt the building being burnt down could be considered a hardship. Ms. Beauvais said the Board had based its last decision regarding the repair bays on the tragic fire.
Ms. Kumiega said that is what makes this distinctive from other buildings and the shape is unique and will not be able to be used as a precedent in future.
Ms. Beauvais moved to approve the variance to allow for a 50 square foot freestanding sign to be placed on the property as a replacement to the existing sign. The signs on the building for each business are in conformity and the variance will allow for a 160 square foot envelope for a sign to display channel lettering on the front of the building derogating from Section 9.281B to allow for 2 different styles of sign. The Board finds the building itself is unique in character, shape, and the circumstances relating to the building with the hardship being the tragic fire. The applicant is bringing most of the signs into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and there will be no restriction on the illumination of the signs; Ms. Kumiega second. UAV.
7:05 p.m. (7:28 p.m.)n- Attorney Simon Brighenti (Special Permit) – Special permit from Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the alteration of a non-conforming mixed use residential and business at the property located at 84 Westfield Street in the Central Business District (CBD).
Attorney Brighenti presented the plans and application to seek a change to the building at 84 Westfield Street with a mixed commercial / residential use. The single residential unit currently occupies two floors. The applicant would like to make two separate apartments within the same building area. There is parking in the rear of the building, which allows for sufficient off-street parking. The owner would also like to rent the commercial part of the building, which is currently vacant. The first floor apartment is currently rented. There are many residential uses that surround this property and the owner only wants to add one single residential unit. This change would only increase the cars by one or two vehicles. This is a pre-existing non-conforming
use in this neighborhood.
Ms. Beauvais asked if there was enough parking for the mixed uses? Attorney Brighenti said there is sufficient parking for the current use and depending on what the type of use is that goes into the commercial space, it may alter the parking requirements. The commercial building in the front is vacant at this time. There are 12 parking spaces available in the rear.
Ms. Beauvais asked for questions from the Board.
Ms. Kumiega said she did not think that there was that much parking behind the building; are there dimensions for the parking spaces? Attorney Brighenti said the plan is drawn to scale, but the lot could be re-striped as part of the agreement. Ms. Kumiega asked if any other business uses the parking lot? Attorney Brighenti said no one else has permission to use the lot.
Mr. Neffinger asked how much parking is required for the apartments? Attorney Brighenti said each unit would require two spaces. Mr. Neffinger asked Mr. Werbiskis if there were two apartments there in the past? Mr. Werbiskis said he could not verify that because this parcel has had numerous uses and owners. It is non-conforming because the Central Business District does not allow for mixed uses, however, from a planning viewpoint this type of mixed use is encouraged and the two uses are complimentary to each other. The parking demands for the residential are evenings and weekends and the business demand is during the day so the two uses offset each other.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience. No comments followed.
Ms. Beauvais moved to close the public hearing; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
Ms. Beauvais said she did not feel the new use would be more detrimental, Mr. Neffinger agreed it was fine, and Ms. Kumiega agreed also.
Ms. Beauvais moved to approve the special permit based on the fact that the current use does not comply with the current bylaws, but the proposed mixed residential and business use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and would not constitute a hazard to abutters or pedestrians; Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
7:10 p.m. (7:42 p.m.) – Mark Soticheck (Special Permit) – Special permit from Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use at the property located at 136 Bliss Street in the Industrial (I) zoning district.
Mr. Mark Soticheck of 32 Worthington Brook Circle in Westfield said he wanted to open a motorcycle sales and repair shop. The most current use was a medical supply company and prior to that it was an automotive repair shop.
Mr. Werbiskis noted the Building Commissioner has classified this use as a retail use, which is not permitted in the Industrial zoning district. Motor vehicle sales and repair is not a permitted use, making this a change of one non-conforming use to another.
Mr. Neffinger asked how long ago it was an automotive repair facility? Mr. Chris Nekitopoulos, owner of the site, said it was a repair facility 30 years ago, 15 years ago it was auto repair and most recently it was used for medical supply sales for the past 13 years.
Mr. Neffinger said he would have to go before the Licensing Commission for storage and display of motor vehicles for sale. Ms. Kumiega asked if the use would be sales and service only? Mr. Soticheck said for now, there are four bays and a showroom area. Ms. Kumiega asked the hours of operation and Mr. Soticheck said he was unsure at this time. The Board discussed the parking at the site. Ms. Kumiega noted the curb cuts were an issue; could he comply with the DPW requirements?
Mr. Nekitopoulos said the building is “L” shaped with offices that go right out to the street and cars park in front of the offices, with a handicap space in the front. The proposed curb cut layout would negate the parking in the front of the office. Other issues regarding the installation of curbing on Progress right to the corner of the building, which would block the overhead doors to the building. Deliveries would have trouble getting into the site with proposed the curb cuts. The Town Engineer’s request is to delineate between the private property and the street. Mr. Nekitopoulos said he is willing to discuss the curb cuts, but he does not want to limit the use at the site.
Ms. Beauvais noted if the Board finds in favor, then the property must be brought into conformity with the rules and regulations of the town. Mr. Werbiskis said he has seen some plans, but DPW has a policy that the tree belts will be re-established and the curb cuts are brought into conformity. The Board discussed the curb cuts. Mr. Werbiskis said this is an existing situation where no standards where in place when the building was built. He believed there was some middle ground to be found and suggested working together to resolve the issues. Ms. Kumiega asked if there was any leniency to what is required since this is an Industrial zoning district. Mr. Werbiskis said the DPW does have some leniency and there are some proposed changes before the Council where this
type of situation could be removed from the DPW’s authority. There are some safety issues at the site that need to be addressed with some tree belt establishment on Progress Street.
Ms. Beauvais said she would like to see the curb cuts and see what DPW is recommending be done at the site. What are the dimensions of the retail portions? Mr. Soticheck said it is approximately 62’ x 33’. Ms. Beauvais asked what were the parking requirements? Mr. Werbiskis said the use is new car sales and that requires one parking space per 600 square feet; very minimal. Licensing would require a parking layout for the vehicles and they will put a limit to the number of vehicles stored on the site.
Ms. Beauvais asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. Angus Rushlow, District #1 Councilor, said this is in a historic district with a trucking use across the street. Mr. Rushlow felt this was a good business for this location and the town should welcome new businesses to town. Some businesses do ask deliveries to come in to certain areas of the property. Mr. Rushlow did not think this area was set up to fit the city standards of trees and curbing.
Mr. Steve Nicora of 131 Bliss Street said if they are not changing the parking lot then they should not have to put new curbs in. If they were improving the lot, then they should be required to conform to all regulations.
Mr. Neffinger asked what were the requirements that needed to be met? Would plans be drawn up?
Mr. Werbiskis said if the Board is considering a continuation, he would be willing to work with the owner and applicant to come up with a plan to satisfy all involved. Ms. Beauvais said a continuation would give the Board opportunity to see what the DPW is requiring and to see if the DPW would be willing to be lenient.
Mr. Werbiskis said he would like the matter solved before the applicant goes to the Licensing Commission. Mr. Nekitopoulos asked if the standards are law or just what DPW wants to see done. Mr. Werbiskis said there are some gray areas to give the Board discretionary authority in this matter.
Ms. Beauvais moved to continue the hearing to March 23, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Mr. Neffinger second. UAV.
4. New/Old Business
No new or old business was discussed.
1. Election of Officers (Taken Out of Order)
Ms. Kumiega moved to reinstate the same officers for this year; Ms. Beauvais second. UAV.
5. Date of Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Monday, March 23, 2009, at 7:00 p.m.
6. Adjournment
Mr. Neffinger moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.; Ms. Kumiega second. The vote was unanimous.
__________________________________
Christine Kumiega Provost
Secretary, Board of Appeals
| 
