2024-04-25-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 second lane teller window was replaced with an ATM in the 1980s and later, both drive-up operations were halted due to changing banking habits. Proposed plot plan was shared along with photographs of the existing conditions. Mr. Chiudina outlined Santander’s plan to remove the structure for the drive-up banking lanes and remove the existing window and door on the back side of the building and replace it with a drive-up ATM. The original proposal was to add parking where the current second lane is but after speaking with the Zoning Administrator, who highlighted that the depths of the parking spaces are not to regulation, they have created a second proposal. The second proposal places more landscaping in that area rather than parking spaces. He also shared that he spoke with Thomas Cataldo, the abutter at 7 Muzzey Street, who shared his support for this proposal and is willing to work with the applicant to potentially redesign the parking and the location of the easement in order to allow for the addition of more parking spaces. He summarized they are asking the Board to allow them to reactivate the non- conforming use under the Bylaw that allows it. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, asked to clarify if the proposal includes any new lighting or requested relief in regards to lighting. (There will be changes to lighting that are allowed by right without any additional special permits. Building Commissioner recommended placing the light at the ATM on a dimmer so it is darker when it is not in use since it will have to be one at all hours due to Bank regulations.) Board Member, Scott Cooper, questioned if the parking, both existing and proposed, is intended only for Santander customers. He stated he does not believe it is currently marked that way. (The parking spaces have signs indicating the spots are for customers conducting banking business but they do not specify Santander anywhere on them) He questioned if there were off- hour parking restrictions in place. (Unsure if there is signage or enforcement for off-hours parking. Not aware that it has ever been an issue.) Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, clarified what the parking signs at each parking space say. Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, questioned if the bank occupies the second floor of the building. (Yes, they lease the whole building. The front side of the second floor is not used and the second floor in the rear is used for the bathroom and breakroom facilities. The ground floor does not have a bathroom or breakroom. The proposed interior alterations include life safety improvements and upgrades along with upgrades to make the facility ADA compliant.) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated his confusion for which plans the applicant is requesting relief for, the one with additional parking or the one without. (The only requested relief is for the reinstatement of the non-conforming use. Parking will be considered in the future after further discussion with Mr. Cataldo.) He emphasized the Board does not approve concepts and must only approve what has been submitted with the application. He stated the applicant may have to return to the Board for a minor modification if the parking plans with Mr. Cataldo work out. No further questions from Board. Ms. Krakauer Moore stated she met with Mr. Cataldo who was unable to be in attendance but is in support with the two requests that are in front of the Board tonight and he is more than happy to work with Santander about the easement configuration. Changes to the right-of-way will benefit both parties. No comments or questions from audience