Nica’s Returns With New Plan

by Uma Ramiah | Mar 2, 2011 12:16 pm

(43) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: East Rock

After a few failed expansion attempts, Nica’s Market on Orange Street is trying again with a new lawyer—and a more subtle plan for site improvements. “Essentially, we’ve requested some variances to perform some changes on what is a longstanding non-performing parcel,” Nica’s attorney Marjorie Shansky told the East Rock Community Management Team Monday evening at “Little Hooker” School. If the plan is approved, Nica’s would maintain its current 40 percent lot coverage. The first floor of the grocery would expand from 2,446 square feet to 4,366. (Only 1,500 square feet are currently permitted under zoning law; the grocery has permission for the 2,446.) The grocery would also expand outdoor seating from 15 to 24 spots. With help from zoning attorney Tony Avallone, Nica’s originally sought to “decongest” the popular spot in 2009—then scrapped that plan. Then the grocery/cafe attempted a more serious expansion last year; the plan was met with resistance from city officials and neighbors. That proposal called for a larger retail area and kitchen, a second-floor space with 12 seats for eat-in customers and an additional off-site parking lot on Humphrey Street. The zoning board rejected the plan. (Read more of the details here.) Now, Nica’s is back with Shansky and slightly reduced ambitions. Shanksy and Rosanna Sabino—she owns Nica’s with her father and brother—stopped by Monday night’s meeting without a formal presentation. “We thought we’d just come by to answer any of your questions about the proposed plan,” Shansky said. The plan, she explained, would move the lot line while maintaining the same percentage of development. “We’d simply add an entryway that feeds the lunch crowd, if you will, so they aren’t stacked in the grocery store. They’ll feed into this opening.” See a version of the plan here. “The addition conforms to all zoning ordinances—in that makes it a minimal impact,” said Shansky. “We’d just be reconfiguring in a small way to honor the 18 parking space limit, but we’d add new landscaping making it easier for trucks to access the building.” Nica’s would also add a small office on the second floor of the new structure, she said, and a reworking of the existing kitchen space. Members of the management team had a question: What’s the difference between the last proposal and this one? “The last proposal had a tremendous amount of increase to the size of the second floor which was going to be used in a passive way,” said Shansky, “but fear was that it would be used in an active way that would intensify use of the property.” The current plan increases the second floor space from 396 to 928 square feet for office use only. Team member David Streever questioned the impact on neighbors. “One of the things I remember from the old proposal was that it walled in the neighbors bay windows,” he said. “This one won’t do that?” No, Shansky replied. “The architect designed this in a way that is most conforming with the zoning ordinances.” East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker expressed concerns. “Two frequent complaints I hear are about overflowing garbage in the back of the building, and truck deliveries blocking the roads on Orange and Bishop,” he said. Sabino spoke up, noting that garbage is picked up every day at Nica’s. “There’s a daily pick up including Saturday,” she said. “There’s staff out there picking it up too. We have limited space so our containers aren’t huge.” Shansky noted the expansion could allow for a bigger container. “Perhaps we could accommodate a larger Dumpster,’ she said. And with respect to trucks, she continued, there’d be a much more generous ability for the truck to drive in. “There’s actually a place here where trucks can wind back,” she said, pointing to the plan. Elicker circled back to the concern about trucks being able to pull in to the lot with the amount of parking. “Is that adequate space?” he asked. It’s now been designed for that, Shansky said. “This plan will provide a better, safer flow for the customers,” she said. Nica’s application goes in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals next Tuesday, March 8, at 6:30 p.m in the Kennedy Mitchell Hall of Records on 200 Orange St., public hearing room G-2. If passed, the city will conduct a site review before any approval is made. The next East Rock Community Management Team Meeting will be held Monday, March 28 at 7 p.m at “Little Hooker” School on Canner Street.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: streever I’ll note that I will not vote on this proposal, as I believe it would be unethical at this point: when I voted on the proposal last time, it was purely influenced by testimony at the hearing. Since then, however, I’ve heard a lot about Nica’s plans from neighbors and at neighborhood meetings, and don’t feel qualified to view it in a 100% objective way any longer. As Ward Chair in 10, I’ve also been contacted by neighbors who had concerns, and have spoken to them. With that out of the way, I feel like I can comment on the new plan. I felt very positive toward the revised plan. As one of the commissioners who felt the last plan was inappropriate for the area, this one is a big step in the right direction. Note-worthy from the meeting:

- Improved the loading area so that trucks can actually use it—while East Rock has several small groceries/delis/cafes, Nica’s is the only one to generate the sheer number of complaints on SCF and at neighborhood meetings regarding the way they currently accept deliveries. By reducing total parking spots but increasing delivery area, Nica’s has sent a clear signal that they are going to do better in regards causing hindrances for neighbors and encourage more people to bike / walk here. Overall, they have reduced the total size of the parking lot while increasing delivery space, which is one of the recommendations I wanted to make at the BZA meeting but was prevented out of fear of litigation/problems that might arise. (Which is odd, because the suggestion boils down to “follow zoning law”—i.e., reduce non-conforming use when possible, and do not expand it—however, the lack of real staffing for zoning in this city, in my opinion, makes for a litigation terrified city plan) - Bike parking: This has also been improved! I’m happy to see that they have made it a larger area and integrated it near the front door with their current parking lot. - Second floor: as noted by the reporter, they no longer plan to enclose the neighbors 2nd floor window. This is a great improvement. - Easement for rear parking: they no longer will encroach on their neighbors backyards to provide a walk way to the parking lot on Humphrey, nor will they create a situation where people may park in the nearby condos driveway (which connects to the lot they were planning to use): this is also a big improvement. If any neighbors have concerns or comments, please feel free to get in touch with me: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) .

posted by: robn on March 2, 2011 1:34pm I believe that this plan dramatically shifts the parking lot footprint northward toward the house, diminishing greenspace and increasing unsightly and impermeable surface. Isn’t this exactly what happened during the first parking lot approval process. Obfuscation, bait and switch? Don’t let Orange Street be turned into an asphalt parking lot. The other groceries don’t need to do it and Nica’s doesn’t either. The property line shift is a trojan horse and I expect that it will be exploited in the future.

posted by: streever Robn:

I’m 100% opposed to seeing Orange street become more parking lots, so I’d love to talk to you about this if you have a moment at some point—I respect your expertise in these matters and know that it rivals my own civilian level knowledge.

posted by: Ellis Copeland on March 2, 2011 2:23pm I just find this all too comical. A pack of spoiled rotten crybabies want their “grocery” (it WAS a grocery under two prior owners now it’s a children’s caterer) but don’t want it to be able to actually function. These self same people likely screech as loud as they can for their own business interests. If Nica’s just closed they’d all be screwed.

posted by: anon on March 2, 2011 3:08pm I agree with Robn that expanding surface parking over existing greenspace should not be an option here. There’s plenty of street parking in the area. The city already has far too much asphalt.

posted by: streever Ellis,

I’ll ignore the pejorative and insulting tone of your post, and chalk it up to a lack of understanding about the actual proposal. At the BZA meeting, we heard from neighbors who had signed the petition in favor: but had changed their mind, because the plan as originally presented was very different from what they were now seeing. The problems were:

- The man who had just bought a very expensive condo next door was going to have his bay windows closed in by the second story extension

- The neighbors 2 houses over were going to see their driveway and backyard used as a public driveway and sidewalk to accommodate the additional parking lot

- The non-conforming use was going to be greatly expanded

- Large, incredibly noisy power generators would be moved directly beneath a neighbors bedroom window You can feel free to mis-categorize these people as “spoiled rotten crybabies”, but I saw them as people who had spent a lot of money to live in a very nice neighborhood, who were about to see their investment hurt by an over-expansion of a “neighborhood convenience”. The zoning for Orange street in that area allows for neighborhood convenience: that was the situation when Nica’s bought their building, that was the situation when the neighbors spent between 600 and 850k to buy homes there. Prime Market, Romeo & Cesar’s, P&M all have managed to successfully provide groceries and quick food without requiring 18+ parking spots. Can you explain how Nica’s previous plan would have prevented the collapse that you allude to in your post? Can you post anything substantiative that invalidates the rights of the people who spent 850k to live on that street, with the zoning law assuring them that they would not have to deal with such a drastic change to their quality of living?

posted by: robn on March 2, 2011 3:11pm ELLIS, If you knew anything about this neighborhood then you would know that several other similar stores function perfectly well without the huge trucks, traffic and trash. And maybe its OK in your neighborhood to asphalt over everything, but not in East Rock.

posted by: Crybaby on March 2, 2011 3:46pm @ Ellis, If Nica’s closed we’d still have Romeo’s, P&M, Cafe Romeo, plus a slew of lunch and convenience store options on State Street. In silent protest of Nica’s awful inability to manage traffic (I sat in a traffic jam on Orange Street at 8:30 in the morning last week as a delivery was made) and it’s cavalier attitude to neighbors in its previous attempts to seek land use approvals, I haven’t shopped there in a year now. Thanks to P&M and the Sunrise Deli on State Street, I haven’t missed Nica’s at all even though it’s closer to my house than P&M is. Despite my personal protest, I seriously doubt that the current parcel is “non-performing” or even “underperforming” and can’t see how Nica’s would be entitled to the relief it is seeking. Boo hoo.

posted by: streever @Crybaby (and all):

Financial problems are not a consideration for zoning appeals, so Nica’s has to actually demonstrate a hardship unrelated to a desire to make more money. Robn/general audience: I’ve received a lot of correspondence since my earlier post from people in the neighborhood, none of it is positive in regards Nica’s, and I see where Robn is coming from now. 1. Where is top floor plan?

2. What will they do with the old office?

3. The parking lot is overall expanding—this wasn’t apparent in the proposals.

4. Neighbors complain that deliveries all occur at the same time. Unless Nica’s is willing to schedule these for different times (as P&M/Romeo’s does) the loading zone will not improve the traffic problems. An important consideration is that the city made a huge mistake in giving Nica’s their 18 car lot. A similar type of business (P&M or Romeo’s) is substantially hurt by this decision. If you work downtown and want to pick up sandwiches, where do you go? To the store with 18 spots of course! Whereas in the days of Prime Market, you would pick the one of three with an open spot out front. A lot of neighbors are concerned that this is a back door way to get a 2nd floor dining area, without calling it that, and I understand their concern. The City has already given Nica’s an unfair advantage with literally ZERO hardship demonstrated, which has caused long-standing issues for their neighbors and resulted in a huge flood of complaints. They have not fixed or addressed the issues they could (For instance, do not allow tractor trailers to make deliveries—schedule deliveries for different times—use vendors who do not have such large trucks and only arrive at 8:30), but they have chosen not to do any of this. Should the neighborhood trust Nica’s to make the right choice this time, when they have violated their conditions before, and refused to make even modest steps toward improvement? Keep in mind, Nica’s must demonstrate hardship. Personally, I have not seen a substantiative hardship demonstrated by them before, so I imagine this proposal will be shot down too.

posted by: gary on March 2, 2011 4:26pm I am a bit surprised at some of the comments. I can understand some of these concerns but after looking at the plan the lot line shift is only 10 feet or so which does not impact the “green ” area as drastically as you make it sound. As far as trucks are concerned there is a reason the traffic is more predominant in front of Nica’s, there are cars parked there all day long, the 2 hr parking is not enforced and there is a bus stop so trucks can’t pull up there either. The other markets are not faced with this issue. According to Marjorie, the new plan allows trucks to deliver off the street. This is a huge improvement. I’m sure Nica’s can operate as is and do just fine, but why not let then improve…after all not everyone wants to shop at P&M or Romeo’s.

posted by: max66 on March 2, 2011 4:33pm Some of the facts about the previous plan are incorrect. The issues with the plan were that it was too large and they requested indoor seating. The indoor seating would require additional parking because the existing spots would not be accounted for. So they were advised to seek parking elsewhere and proposed the lot next door as staff parking. Whoever their attorney was at the time obviously did not do a very good job advising them since they now have a new one, and a better plan. There was no mention about issues with motor noise, just the window obstruction which the new plan does not do. I give them a lot of credit for going back to try to better their business and the property.

posted by: mary76 on March 2, 2011 4:42pm It really makes me angry when the other markets are brought up. We are talking about Nica’s and how they are trying to improve. They have a right to do so. It is pathetic for anyone to continue to compare the markets or even suggest Nica’s would not be missed because of it’s imitators along the street. There are painful truths behind all this gossip. Keep your focus on the actual issue at hand which is how Nica’s plans to address the issues and improve their building. Times change, neighborhoods change. I like it better now than 20 years ago when it was completely lifeless.

posted by: john on March 2, 2011 4:48pm the property values have only increased in the east rock neighborhood, people are seeking property on orange street more now than ever. traffic issues have not impacted real estate values, nor have any of the markets on the street.

posted by: Orange St. Resident on March 2, 2011 4:54pm Ellis,

I have to disagree with you. I have been shopping at that location (Nica’s) since it was the Prime Market back in the 1970’s. Nick Casella knew had to run his business and never had any issues with the community. If Nica’s were to sell, there would be a new owner there in a week.

This knew expansion is a terrible idea and will only create more congestion on Orange St. Let’s not forget this is the same Nica’s Market community leaders asked if the neighborhood could park cars in their lot from 8:00PM to 7:00AM during the snow removal parking ban and they gave a flat “NO.” And if I recall correctly, last year when approached about being involved in the East Rock Festival on Orange St. they said “not interested.” Nica’s (the Sabino’s) are not concerned about the community and are only concerned about their bottom line!

posted by: streever max66:

I was one of 5 commissioners who voted against the first plan, and I will respectfully disagree with you: my “no” vote was definitely influenced by the neighbors complaint, including the neighbor on Bishop who pointed out that the loud electrical equipment would be under their bedroom window. That is not at all inaccurate: it is part of the public record. For the record, the lot next door was NOT staff parking: according to the appeal, it was intended for the public as well. This is, also, a matter of public record and you can review the documentation at City Hall, if you still feel I am incorrect. As for the separate parking lot: they should have simply filed for an “exception” on their parking requirement. It still mystifies me that they’d attempt to fulfill that requirement or that anyone would advise them to do so. Those were not the only two issues: the plan as presented had a multitude of issues. However, I will join you in giving them credit for re-appealing with a new plan and attempting to answer some of the problems. However, they will still have to address one of the most basic issues, which is the parking lot.

posted by: Eva on March 2, 2011 5:51pm I hadn’t thought I’d comment on this but a commenter below has spurred me to write:

Gary, you said that the 2 hr. parking and bus stop are a deterrent to trucks parking on Orange Street to make deliveries at Nica’s:

I can promise you that the trucks REGULARLY park IN the bus stop’s area, making it completely, ridiculously dangerous for one to, say, wait for and board a bus at the south-east corner of Bishop and Orange; and that the family that owns Nica’s clearly does not give a damn about any of the problems their business has caused the neighborhood.

P&M and Romeo’s have no parking lots and they manage and have not infuriated the people who live near their businesses. Parking is as tight at Orange and Linden and Orange and Cottage as it is at Orange and Bishop. If Nica’s wants to improve their business I suggest they close, do a complete renovation of the space they have to try to make the most of it, and try again with what they have. Asking for permission to expand when there is no hardship is rich. When someone is hit by a car because a delivery truck is blocking sightlines at Orange and Bishop…. THEN there will be hardship.

...

I actually miss the Prime Market.

posted by: emma on March 2, 2011 7:01pm The accusations made about the family that owns Nica’s are absurd. They have been part of the east rock community since 1989 when Joe owned Romeo and Giuseppe’s. It is completely unfair to say they are not concerned about deliveries, trucks , traffic etc. have they stated this to you? Also who has approached Nica’s and asked them to use the lot during non business hours and had been denied? I see cars there at night all the time.

Also they have been throwing their own festival without outside funds every year for the last 8 years in septenber, if they do not wish to participate in a festival organized by it’s competitors it has nothing to do with being opart of the community. Do not be ridiculous. Nica’s makes regular donations every month to all sorts of community events and foundations. Before making accusations get your facts straight.

Honestly…if you want straight answers I would just go ask them.

posted by: East Rockette on March 2, 2011 7:11pm I agree with Eva. Also, given the size of the trucks we’re talking about, it’s hard to see that having them enter and leave (and turn around in!) the parking lot would be an improvement over simply parking or double-parking on the street. Both situations strike me as dangerous. And arguably, it’s even more dangerous for pedestrians and shoppers to have huge trucks crossing that sidewalk and doing 3 point turns.

posted by: Noteworthy on March 2, 2011 8:19pm I never cease to be amazed at all the experts who comment and post on these zoning issues and who, no matter what changes Nica’s submits, will always moan and complain. Nearly all of these “concerns” have little to do with the application and more to do with some undisclosed motivation or conflict of interest. In fact, many of the negative comments have to do with a parking lot giving an advantage, past grievances, trust that Nica’s will do what’s proposed and so forth. These are silly and irrelevant. Moving the lot line and creating a truck unloading area - this is not an improvement? Putting in an office will somehow affect the neighborhood? Worrying aout a few yards of additional parking surface and storm water runoff is purely asinine. The only time I see much truck traffic is in the morning. The entire rest of the day is not a problem and I come through there often. These opposition comments should be taken with a giant grain of salt. These are the same people who claimed shoveled out parking spaces as their own and were too self absorbed or ignorant to put their car in a parking lot or other off street parking, or for goodness sakes, to park on the right side of the street so the plows could work. They of course, were he first to bitch about snowplowing. Somebody should actually count heads on who gets on the bus at that corner. I’ll bet the census would be lower than a snake’s belly. Time to get off it folks.

posted by: streever on March 2, 2011 10:31pm Noteworthy:

I suspect you are confused on many things. For one, you have mis-characterized the people posting about this. Robn was the one who suggested alternate side parking and towing—not someone who fought it—and I do not even own a car. For two, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the applicable zoning laws and regulations which makes me question your motivation considering that you write that “zoning is not the issue” (in regards a property seeking zoning relief… really? Zoning doesn’t matter in that case?) The parking lot is a matter of fact—it was not granted based on hardship, but on a lack of understanding of zoning laws, and a hardcore push by the then alder who loved going to Nica’s and didn’t understand land use law. Those of us who oppose this current work do so with a desire to not see history repeated. What is done is done, however, and now that Nica’s has a large parking lot and can service many more customers, they want to expand the size of the business. If you are merely confused and not deliberately misrepresenting the law, you should attend a BZA meeting. None of my fellow commissioners were familiar with Nica’s or any other issue—my impression was that they were heavily persuaded by the 4 neighbors who had signed the petition in favor of Nica’s, but since discovered that the plan being presented differed in substantial ways from the petition, and had changed their mind about supporting it. Ultimately, Nica’s made a decision to operate a “neighborhood convenience” business in a residential zone. Presumably, they knew the limitations and constraints involved in that zone, and were not forced to locate their business there. They then made a choice—enabled by a crusading alder—to create an 18 car parking lot, which is totally out of scale and scope for the neighborhood. This non-conforming use has caused problems for them—and the neighbors—and their suggested “Fix” is to expand and increase their non-conformance, which will only lead to more problems, requiring more expansion. If you would limit yourself—as the rest of us do—to the scope and letter of the law, perhaps you would understand the objections raised. However, you either do not understand the law, or you would prefer to misrepresent it in order to manipulate public opinion. Based on your very poor portrayal of the people objecting to this, and the cheap shots you’ve taken at them, I suspect it is the latter.

posted by: robn on March 2, 2011 10:39pm NOTEWORTHY, To put it simply, Nica’s has no hardship. The varience shold be denied as per law.

posted by: Noteworthy on March 2, 2011 11:51pm ... Who cares who proposed alternate side parking? ... As for a hardship, Nica’s wouldn’t be spending all this money on architects and lawyers not to mention what the improvements will cost, if this will not make their business operate better, take care of some issues and create a better environment for their customers. Failure to do this will create a continuing hardship. There, problem solved.

posted by: Ellis Copeland on March 3, 2011 1:50am Streever, Robn, et al— ...

So, some people paid a lot of money to live in a “nice” neighborhood. Boo hoo. No one’s problem but their’s for being suckers. People paid a lot of money to live in downtown places that are now blocked by a 32 story monstrosity. People all over town have to put up with all sorts of noise—only to be told by the city to stuff it. Yes, Robn, I do know East Rock as I lived there for some time. When I moved it was with the intention of moving back ASAP. Then I realized East Rock is not all that. If the people of East Rock were really that upset they would put Nica’s out of business by going to all the competitors you mention. But, and this was my main point, the ... want to have everything at once—a “chic,” convenient place with no “intrusion.”

posted by: streever on March 3, 2011 10:12am Ellis: ... You say, “so what about the suckers who paid to live in East Rock”, but one can easily say, “So what about the suckers who own a business in East Rock”. Why does the pendulum not go both ways? As far as I can see, Nica’s is the one who made a decision to buy a business in a neighborhood with a restrictive ordinance. It was their own choice. Noteworthy, ... Hardship is a legal term, with the following meanings:

That the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood;

That the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and

That the alleged hardship has not been self-created. Nica’s fails on all 3 counts. 18 car lots alters the essential character of the neighborhood, per the zoning code, which clearly states that such lots are not to be encouraged. 2 story food businesses are also not permitted per ordinance. The alleged hardship here is part of the neighborhood: it is not unique to the business. The hardship is self-imposed: Nica’s made a decision to open a business here, knowing that the regulations prohibited this type of expansion. As to “what does it matter” in regard the towing issue: you attacked the critics of the Nica’s plans by saying we were too stupid to comply with parking rules. I pointed out that those of us criticizing the plan are some of the most active, most compliant residents in the neighborhood, and that you are simply incorrect about our adherence to the towing regulations. Many of us went door to door trying to get our neighbors to move their cars, and I personally dug out cars and pushed cars. ...

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011 10:15am NOTEWORTY, Neither financial matters, nor self imposed issues (like packing shelving too tightly) are considered a hardship by law.

ELLIS, The neighborhood doesn’t have to be held hostage by a small constituency of customers for one store (that doesn’t manage itself as well as others on the block). I’m not so upset that you moved away since you’re so apathetic (or maybe just inconsiderate) about issues that matter to most East Rockers.

posted by: An EastRocker on March 3, 2011 10:15am Without calling anyone out by name, I’ll just say that some of the more vocal opponents, on this thread, of the expansion plan are often seen chatting jovially with the proprietors, and munching on the tasty morsels, of Nica’s competitors. And I personally am a loyal Romeo and Caesar customer. Don’t care much for Nica’s.

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011 10:40am ANEASTROCKER, To be perfectly honest with you, I shop at all of the markets on the street, including Nica’s, because I want to support local business. My criticism has nothing to do with suppressing Nica’s ability to do business and everything to do with protecting the character of the built environment on Orange Street. We have zoning rules for that reason and, if anything, Nica’s was already been given too much slack when they were allowed to build their parking lot (unfair to other businesses and unfair to to Nica’s neighbors…and not really a properly granted variance because there was no legal hardship).

posted by: streever Eastrocker: guilty as charged, but how about the whole story?

I live one block from Romeos. I used to live one block from Nica’s. Joe Sabino helped when I got married, and even drove the bride to the ceremony for me. He also gave her a great deal on rent when she rented from him, and helped us both out a lot. I have nothing but respect for him and think he is a great guy. I’ve also been seen chatting genially with Pino of P&M, Lulu of Lulu’s, the Wine Thief employees, Orange Street liquor employees, and am extremely friendly the waitstaff at Archie Moore’s. I’m very invested in my neighborhood, and genuinely like everyone in it—I’ve never said anything nasty about any of the business owners in East Rock, and am friendly with all of them. However, that doesn’t change the fact here, which is that Nica’s expansion is out of line with the character of the neighborhood. If Romeo wanted to build a parking lot or add a second story to his business, I would oppose that just as strongly. When Romeo’s had a problem with overflowing trash, I complained to the owner and he added a recycling bin to the front, and started emptying the front trash bin. When Nica’s had a problem with trucks loading/unloading, I complained to them. Each business gets the same treatment.

posted by: Ellis Copeland on March 3, 2011 10:49am Hey Paul—how come Streever gets to slam people but nobody gets to call him on it???? You really need to hand this off to someone else and go work for the Register.

posted by: Goatville mom on March 3, 2011 11:29am @emma, two points of fact. 1. during the big snow storm and subsequently, there were signs hung on the side of Nica’s, facing the parking lot, saying it was a private business /lot and there is NO OVERNIGHT PARKING. 2. the festival was organized by Matt Smith and other folks from the community, not Nica’s competitors.

posted by: anon on March 3, 2011 1:12pm I agree there is no hardship. There has been a long history of successful stores on this site. None needed to expand their non-conforming use to prosper. A neighborhood store shouldn’t harm to the property values and quality of life of its immediate neighbors, or build out in ways that are uncharacteristic of the setting (a huge asphalt lagoon, knocking down a garage that is part of a good historic property). Nica’s has already spoiled attractive features of the two sites, in violation of agreements with the neighborhood. Nica’s needs to repair the damage they inflicted. This plan adds more. There is already too much asphalt—an additional 10 foot strip makes a bad situation substantially worse.

posted by: nhfplevents I hope Nica’s gets this approval. It makes sense.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on March 3, 2011 4:38pm Government approvals for this, for that, for just about everything that could be productive and useful. Frankly, zoning is for the birds because they are the only ones free to build their nests wherever and however they please.

posted by: streever The comments of mine which were redacted were not insulting: indeed, they were requests to the commentators using terms like “ignorant”, “self-absorbed”, “spoiled rotten crybabies” to avoid specious insults and mis-characterizations of others, and instead join us in a factual debate and conversation. I see nothing of any merit whatsoever in claims that I’ve stolen parking spots (considering I don’t even own a car) and am more than mystified that my comments have been so severely edited while the attacking comments I’ve referred to—which posit literally nothing of fact and consist almost 100% of attacks and insults—remain unedited. What gives? Junior editor day today?

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011 5:41pm ALPHONSE, Right..if we had no zoning then we could all be truly free, just like in <b> Houston .

posted by: Noteworthy on March 3, 2011 9:29pm ... Much of the neighborhood anger seems to stem from the parking lot and trucks making deliveries. The parking lot is history and how do you control when a route driver makes deliveries? The simple answer is that you don’t and you can’t. If you or anybody else had ever operated a store, you would know that. Since Nica’s seems to do more business than others on the street, it is safe to assume they get more deliveries. Being near Bishop Street doesn’t help. The change to the parking lot would alleviate that and go a long way in curing the complaints. By the same token, these other businesses who have no parking, and very little available parking near their stores, also have delivery trucks blocking traffic. Where’s the outrage? Then there seems to be a problem that Nica’s didn’t support the Orange Street festival or wanted to keep their lot available for customers the morning after the snow storm. Imagine that - a parking lot for customers and a business who needs revenue every day so it can pay its taxes, utilities and payroll. And then we have the ... argument about asphalt. Irrelevant because what’s contemplated is only a 10 foot strip but they could make it penetrable. There’s concrete that will accomplish that. And what of the guy who allegedly paid $850K for a condo next to Nica’s? First of all, in looking at Vision Appraisal, I can find no such condo on the tax rolls. Second, if anybody paid $850K for a condo overlooking a neighborhood market and parking lot, somebody had too much money and not enough sense or advice when purchasing. An architecturally designed addition that blends with the neighborhood and improves functionality would seem a good idea and probably better looking than what’s there now. Let’s not forget the hand wringing over where the office would be located. Who cares? Why would that concern anybody? Because they think Nica’s will convert it to a dining room? Well, that’s easy enough to monitor. Walk in. What would happen to the old space? Presumably it would allow for a better configuration of the kitchen and better use of the aisles. All that said, the question before the board is whether a variance should be granted. Hardship is not the only barometer. If you and others in the neighborhood want to fight these improvements, then be prepared to continue living with truck deliveries that block the road. It will be cutting your nose of to spite your face. And for the record, I find these hostile neighborhood diatribes and endless debates serve only purpose: To whip up public angst over any change. Many times as it ends in front of planning, the board and the opponents sound shrill and unreasonable. At times, as you have noted, the decision seems cooked from the get go. Cases in point:

*The bar on Fitch Street in the middle of a commercial district at the bottom of a parking lot. People from Beaver Hill complained about bar seating.

*Toad’s smoking deck where you voted it down based on parking of all things.

*Whalley Avenue business district that fought a laundromat. The building still has the front torn off of it; and down the road, the old Staples remains vacant. Like it or not, these businesses and potential businesses employ New Haveners. Reasonable commerce should be embraced and where expansions can take place that will provide greater property functionality and at the same time ease or solve other problems, they should be allowed and not shouted down…

posted by: Neigbor on March 3, 2011 10:21pm New Haven has a surfeit of unremarkable grocery stores and mediocre delis. Nicas deserves credit for rising above the usual standards. Many (though not all) of the objections posted here seem to be more driven by spite, jealousy, conspiracy theories, and generic rabble rousing. Seriously all that does is cheapen the debate and make it harder to consider whether the real objections have merit.

posted by: Eva on March 3, 2011 10:25pm Noteworthy:

I just read your comment and I think I can answer why there’s no outrage about trucks parked outside of P&M or Romeo’s. When I read your comment, I thought, “That is a damned good question,” but the answer sprang to me immediately. It has to do with where those stores are located in relation to the nearest intersection, and how traffic flows at those intersections.

Nica’s is just south of the Bishop/Orange intersection, and as we know traffic runs two ways on both Orange and Bishop.

P&M and Romeo’s both have a situation where they are just north of their respective intersections (Cottage and Linden), and, what’s more, those streets are one way (at the relevant blocks, anyhow) with traffic flowing only from Orange Street toward Foster (eastward).

Given, then, that no one’s ever trying to drive westward on Linden or Cottage, no one’s ever trying to see around trucks to drive their cars and turn onto Orange Street.

Additionally, the placement of bus stops on Orange headed north (the M bus headed toward Hamden) is on the south side of all these intersections. I.e., if you’re getting off at Linden/Orange, you’re actually getting off the bus in front of Hall-Benedict, not Romeo’s. (At Cottage, you’re getting off at the house at the corner, not the liquor store or P&M.)

These are, actually, really big differences between the shops and their delivery truck situations, as I see it. I’d never thought about it before in an organized fashion but I really think this must be a key to the problem. In which case Nica’s should perhaps consider removing some customer parking spaces altogether and have their parking lot act solely as a delivery space, and customers can go back to managing as they did before (and as they still do at the other shops). I will now wait to be told I’m full of crap, but until convinced otherwise I’ll stand by my theory.

posted by: streever on March 3, 2011 10:26pm Noteworthy:

You missed a lot of facts. Fitch street bar:

Opposed by neighbors and police due to crime concerns and difficulty policing the area. Against my better judgement, I voted for it, based on the testimony of the owner who seemed a responsible guy.

First murder of 2010 occurred there. Toads:

According to our counsel, we could only vote no based on parking. I disagreed, and actually voted no because they had no fire escape and only one means of egress from the small rooftop smoking patio which was going to be walled in. Sounded like a death trap. On top of serious concerns from the adjoining neighbors who had windows directly above Toads. 850k condo: I referred to the home behind Nica’s, not the condo. According to public testimony, the condo was 600k or more. As for Whalley, I think you are incorrect, but haven’t checked on this in awhile. I believe it is now a paint store.

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011 10:27pm NOTEWORTHY, You are incorrect about zoning law. Hardship IS the only barometer. Read below. New Haven Code of Ordinances

ARTICLE XXXI. PLANNING AND ZONING Sec. 185. Board of zoning appeals; appointment, membership; procedure for appeals. ...When it shall appear to at least four members of said board that difficulty or unreasonable hardship might result in carrying out the strict letter of any ordinance said board shall have the power to vary or modify the application of the rules…

posted by: Impoverished New Haven... on March 3, 2011 10:50pm I guess you only have the right to less urban sprawl and parking lots if you are wealthy and own an $850g home… I can’t believe that there is so much wasted effort on a debate of this sort while there are plenty of children in New Haven with out even enough food to eat. It would seem you need to invest $850g to get the support of even aspiring politicians in this town.

posted by: Noteworthy on March 3, 2011 11:11pm I agree with Streever on one point: Whoever is editing our comments is doing a disservice to the discussion. We are all adults here and the excessive editing is completely unnecessary. While I appreciate your concern for the cordiality of the debate, some of these edits diminish the passion of the posts and dilute the meaning of them as well. Monitoring the conversation should be done with judicious restraint. We don’t need a nanny. We’ve been out of diapers for years.