Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Zoning board denies request for 8,044 sq ft of open storage at Grossbeck site
Loading...
Summary
The Warren Zoning Board of Appeals denied Joseph Trangalli’s request for multiple variances that would have allowed 8,044 square feet of open storage and waived screening and setback requirements after planning staff urged curbing, additional landscaping and removal of hard surface near public streets.
Joseph Trangalli asked the Warren Zoning Board of Appeals on April 22 to permit 8,044 square feet of open storage at his property on Groesbeck and 9 Mile and to waive screening and setback rules. Planning staff had submitted an impact statement recommending continuous concrete curbing, removal of hard surface between the sidewalk and curb, and added shrubs and trees along the north and east property lines.
The board’s discussion centered on whether the proposed open-storage area was excessive and whether the petitioner had engaged planning staff. Trangalli told the board he had tried to meet with planning to discuss the staff recommendations but said his requests were refused by email and that planning described the items as recommendations for the ZBA to decide. Planning staff presented a marked-up site plan and explained the curbing and landscaping recommendations meant to reduce visual and public-safety impacts.
Several board members said the quantity of open storage would be a detriment to the neighborhood. “I’m opposed to the 8,044 square feet of open storage,” said a board member who identified himself during the hearing. Another member described the lot as “out of control” and said it appeared to be a borderline nuisance. Board members also noted prior citations for the property and disagreement about what conditions were communicated to the petitioner when he purchased the property.
A motion to deny the variances was made, seconded and approved by roll call, with the chair advising the petitioner to consult the building department and planning recommendations if he chooses to revise his plan. The board’s denial means the petitioner may redesign and resubmit or pursue other administrative remedies.
The board did not adopt planning’s recommended changes as conditions because it concluded the variance request as presented was not appropriate. The board closed the item after the vote and moved on to the next agenda item.
