Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Conversion 71 Main topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA continues 71 Main Street mixed-use application after building, fire-safety concerns
Summary
The board continued a request from 71 Main Street LLC to allow residential use on the first floor and to exceed the residential-to-commercial square-footage ratio after the building official and the fire marshal raised accessibility and life-safety issues; the applicant was asked to return with additional technical input.
The City of Orange Zoning Board of Appeals on March 11 continued public hearings for an application from 71 Main Street LLC to permit residential use on the first floor of a mixed-use building and to allow residential square footage to exceed commercial square footage.
Staff read building-official and fire-marshal comments into the record that raised significant life-safety and code concerns for the proposed conversion. Building official Dan Cohen’s memo noted “significant concerns regarding the barn located in the basement,” that the proposed new residential occupancy must comply with all codes, and that accessibility and accessible bathroom facilities are not shown on the submitted plans. The fire marshal’s comments flagged whether windows and an alley location would permit ground-ladder rescue and questioned the feasibility of the proposed spiral stair and bar layout.
Applicant Martin Wiescholek, who owns the property through 71 Main Street LLC, said the limestone-and-brick building is an older bank with a narrow storefront configuration that makes a conventional ground-floor retail storefront impractical without major, costly structural work to the historic façade. Wiescholek described the proposed program as a small basement bar with residential units above and said the project is intended to preserve the building and make it usable: “This building in itself … is beautiful. We both love the building… I don’t think we could make this into a viable space as a commercial operation” without substantial work, he said.
Board members said the written comments from the building official and fire marshal raised issues that could prevent the project from being built as presented and requested more detail before taking action. One member asked staff to contact the building official and the fire marshal for clearer, written guidance on whether the structural and life-safety issues can be overcome and, if so, what measures would be required. The board voted to continue the hearing to the next meeting to allow the applicant and staff to provide more detailed technical responses and any architect input.
The continuation was framed as a request for clarifying technical information rather than denial: staff and the applicant agreed that if the code and safety issues cannot be resolved the variance would be moot. The board emphasized that any final approval would be conditional upon the building official’s and fire marshal’s clearance and issuance of required building and safety permits.
