New Haven Independent

posted by: Pedro on April 7, 2010  9:41am

This is one of those situations where parking zoning makes no sense. If the business states that they wish to more efficiently serve their existing customer base, and not expand staff in any way, why the need for 9 new parking spaces?

While I think that the building proposed is a bit big for the lot, if the business is not seeking to expand actual operations, taking over another lot for parking doesn’t make sense.  Now you end up with this ridiculous satellite lot that no one is going to use rather than just encouraging people to park on the street.

posted by: Rich on April 7, 2010  10:01am

...  P&M found a way to expand within its own space and their store is much nicer now, and did not disrupt the neighborhood.  Sounds to me like nicas is feeling the heat of competition and trying to out due the other businesses, which is fine, that’s the free market, but this sounds a bit too over the top to me.  They’re not a supermarket, lets not make the neighborhood a parking lot.

posted by: Ben on April 7, 2010  10:05am

...

I attended a meeting of the East Rock Management Team when Nica’s proposed their first expansion.  Joe’s daughter, while seeming friendly enough, made it perfectly clear they were doing the attendees a favor by presenting expansion plans and that they didn’t need the team’s approval.  While she is correct, her tone and demeanor made it just another example of the condescension by the store.

I’m glad to see that they have made some strides at curbing the delivery vehicle issues blocking traffic on Orange, blocking the view by exiting their parking lot (which I’ve heard was also an issue with their neighbors) and causing issues over on Bishop.  They still have a ways to go, however, as I still see trucks blocking views (I find it hard to believe they can’t control this when Romeo’s and P&M deliveries don’t cause such issues).

Humphrey’s has enough issues on it’s own without adding a high volume exit/entrance.  It’s a high-speed street, regardless of posted limits, it’s in major disrepair and the lot in question is too far from the store for it to get use.  ...

posted by: anthony on April 7, 2010  10:10am

I’m happy to see Nica’s addressing this issue. I hope they will address the issue of trucks double parking and making orange unsafe for traffic, both pedestrian, and bicycle.

posted by: Bruce on April 7, 2010  10:31am

From the google aerial view, it looks like they could make a direct opening from Nica’s parking lot to the new one. 

As long as they keep their delivery trucks out of the bus stop and the bike lane, then expansion is not such a bad thing.  It’s a little disingenuous to say that they will not get more customers.  That’s like expanding a crowded highway and not expecting more cars.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 7, 2010  10:35am

I agree with Pedro.

The zoning codes New Haven has are suburban in nature and make no sense in an urban context. The setbacks are derived from a time when attached buildings were considered unhealthy and dangerous, but with the more effective fire proofing measures and better ventilation we now have, the codes we have are obsolete.
These codes have made our city much much worse than it was before zoning existed in New Haven(the 1930s). We now have a city filled with single story boxes of a single function surrounded by a lake of asphalt-this isn’t good enough!
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs461.snc3/25359_1278883567286_1085910074_30662048_5472163_n.jpg
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs461.snc3/25359_1278883607287_1085910074_30662049_520326_n.jpg
This is the story all over the city. In order to put housing above retail people need a bunch of variances. Without mixed use development people have to drive everywhere even if walking would be preferred. Allow workers to live above the store where they work, cut down on the parking spaces or leave more available to patrons.

posted by: Sean on April 7, 2010  11:33am

Maybe everyone would just be happier if the store closed and you didn’t have a place to get such great cheese, sausage, bread, fruits and vege?  The things people are complaining about are so petty and pathetic.  Oh no, a delivery comes and slows down traffic on Orange.  Orange isn’t that heavily traversed, it’s not an artery like Whitney.

It’s pathetic what people will bitch about, perhaps they’d rather the store shut down, or would that lead to even more bitching?

posted by: Brian Tang on April 7, 2010  12:01pm

I wonder if Elm City Cycling should try to talk with them to get bike parking incorporated into the design. I still haven’t had a chance to explain to Joe that the reason the city couldn’t install a public bike rack between the curb and the sidewalk was because there was no concrete pad to bolt it into. Apparently you have to have a special permit to pour concrete in the public right-of-way and the contractor hired to install the bike racks didn’t have that permit, so bike racks only went to locations with existing concrete areas large enough for two bicycles (4’x6’).

It would be nice if the zoning code had a provision reducing the amount of auto parking needed in exchange for higher quality bike parking (if any aldermen are reading this, I’m talking to you). That would solve two problems at once.

posted by: Chris L on April 7, 2010  12:02pm

Wow, Sean…  all non-valid points (plenty of other stores on Orange which offer the same thing as Nica’s) but good for you for venting on a comment.

I agree with Pedro.  If they are not looking to expand their customer base than why do they need another parking lot?  I live in the neighborhood and visit the location frequently and i have never turned away due to parking issues… 

If they want to expand the location they should be honest with their intentions.

posted by: BUSY MOM on April 7, 2010  12:12pm

It’s really pathetic to see how information gets so twisted. I asked the owners of Nica’s why they were looking for more parking, and they were told to provide more spaces by the zoning codes when they were more than happy to use the 18 they have now. The market has plans posted above the coffee area for everyone to look at and what they are proposing is a few minor changes that will help them continue to service their current costumer base. 
This family is constantly trying to improve themselves and Nica’s, even before competition arrived. As far as I’m concerned there is no competition for them, just cheap imitations from people who think they can come copy Nica’s and try to make a quick buck.

posted by: MRM on April 7, 2010  12:18pm

Sean, I doubt Nica’s is going to close down.  They obviously have a boatload of business, which is why they are asking for the second story, etc.  Also, were it to somehow go out of business, there are plenty of other places that would serve the same need.  However, a second story seems like it will only encourage more people to come, that, unlike Cafe Romeo, it will not fit particularly well into what I think Lemar rightly calls the ‘character of our streets’.  If people really like Nica’s, which they obviously do, they will wait in a line for their panini, and deal with crowded aisles.  The whole off-site parking/in-store petition thing looks on the surface like the owner’s wanting what is best for their customer’s, but sounds more like owners who see more dollar signs if they can just maneuver around a pesky zoning regulation.

posted by: robn on April 7, 2010  12:52pm

Sean,

If access to nice sausage means turning Orange Street into into Dixwell Ave (dilapidated house, parking lot, gas station, empty lot, repeat) i’ll skip the sausage. But your point is really BS anyway because (as Ben has pointed out) several other businesses ave cracked the code on how to provide tasty sausage and not create problems for neighbors.

posted by: Patrick on April 7, 2010  3:14pm

I grew up and still live about 10 houses south of Nica’s and let me just say they have done NOTHING to address the delivery vehicles blocking parts of Orange and Bishop streets as well as the bike lane.  Last year the owners (the Sabino’s) said they would concentrate on these concerns and they have clearly ignored them. I am very thankful that no serious accidents have occurred yet.
“To get approval to waive zoning laws, an applicant has to show hardship.” Nica’s appears to be a thriving business, so I am not sure I see the hardship.  I think it may be greed driving this expansion application rather than hardship. Nica’s may also feel threatened by some of the other businesses that have opened or changed ownership recently. I think Nica’s is great in their current situation and they have no real need to expand which will inevitably increase their customer base and create even more congestion on Orange, Humphrey and Bishop streets. This is not a necessary expansion and I do not see the benefit for our neighbors.

posted by: Westville Angel on April 7, 2010  3:14pm

I think the Alderman for that part of the Ward is Mike Smart. I would like to see him in action on this issue.  Where are you?

posted by: gary on April 7, 2010  3:32pm

I must say some of this points are ridiculous. I’ve lived in the neighborhood for years and I remember what that area used to look like. The owners have improved the neighborhood tremendously as far as I’m concerned and I’m sure anything else they do from here on will only make it better.  I looked at the plans and I think they’re great. A small room to accoaccommodate people upstairs will not turn Orange into Dixwell. Not to mention they are adding a bathroom for the costumers convenience.  They also plan on expanding back a few feet.  This will alleviate the overcrowded isles not to mention perhaps they’ll get to display their products better. As far as the store closing down, it probably won’t happen, but I do have to agree with Busy Mom, the newcomers have drawn inspiration from Nicas who has been around for several years not to mention they were the originators of Romeos as well. Cheers.

posted by: Joel on April 7, 2010  3:56pm

Nica’s is convenient for me. Walk or bike.Rosanne is a hottie,friendly,helpful.The store serves it’s purpose for me to do my little shopping thing , ( a nice place to visit but i wowouldn’tnt to live there)
I’ve read a previous article in regards to the latest zoning proposal, it never mentioned the new lot and batman/maze cut thru. Nor does the architects posted design ala upstairs dining area. Nor does the Atty Avallone’s petition for City Hall on the counter.
Soo glad i did’nt sign that, people don’t know exactly what they’re signing,and how it’s used .

posted by: Vinny G on April 7, 2010  4:16pm

Nicas has many repeat customers who travel from all parts to have lunch there.  Just like Pepes and Sallys has their following.  Increasing the parking situation will help alleviate the on-street parking.  However with the lunch time crow they have 9 spaces will not be enough.

posted by: history lesson on April 7, 2010  4:29pm

Gary,
sorry, you have it backwards. Romeo was the originator of Romeos, Joe is the brother of his brother-in-law, who he brought here years ago.

Romeos started out on Grand Avenue and moved here, and they then brought on Joe, who left to start Niccas.

posted by: gary on April 7, 2010  5:48pm

dear history lesson,
romeo did start on grand avenue. Joe is not a brother of his. When Joe came from Italy he started the store by himself and Romeo was a small silen partner. As the store gre and as grand avenue failed Romeo made his way into orange street where joe was already working. A year later Ceaser joined on a hand shake.  Romeos’ on grand avenue closed down for good. i was one of the first customers of Romeo and Giuseppe’s I remember the facts very well.  Of course there are always the other versions…but who cares. I’m glad joe is still in the neighborhood and doing well. cheers.

posted by: BUSY MOM on April 7, 2010  5:51pm

Did you not read my post? The 9 parking spots were proposed due to city zoning demanding more parking. The 18 they have are more than enough, the family does not want more parking. The city is not letting them attach the 18 spots to the renovation plans becasue the lots are owned by 2 different people, so they are forcing them to find other parking. Lighten up people.

posted by: Not the right info on April 7, 2010  8:26pm

Gary you are 100% wrong.  My family owned the building at the time Romeo came from Grand Ave and we signed the lease with Romeo not Joe. Romeo is the one who brought Joe in.  Just get your facts straight.

posted by: robn on April 7, 2010  8:55pm

GARY,

Hmmmm? è mio nipote nel parcheggio? Expanding commercial use is a very slippery slope. Orange can become Dixwell if it’s abused rather than protected.

The owners of Nica’s are very savvy business owners. I wish that, rather than expanding their operation beyond a scale that’s appropriate for a residential neighborhood, they would just leverage their talents with another small (appropriately sized property), not unlike what Romeo has done.

posted by: gary on April 8, 2010  9:24am

not the right info…
like i said romeo was a small partner in the deal, if he signed the lease perhaps it’s bbecause joe was a new immigrant to the country with little US background… i remember well it was joe working on orange street to open the store. but like i said before, who cares. there are always various versions of a story and we certainly are not the ones that will judge in the end. cheers

posted by: Mister Jones on April 8, 2010  2:02pm

Once again, the good people of a New Haven neigborhood with too much time, money and brain cells are on the warpath against a local business owner.  Be careful what you wish for.  Over on Whalley the locals successfully opposed a grocery store for the Staples site, and now Shaw’s is gone and there’s no grocer in the vicinity.  Now that’s not likely to happen with Nica’s, but still.  You’d think the owner wanted to add exotic dancing…

posted by: Clark Pearlman on April 8, 2010  2:48pm

Did anyone happen to be near Nica’s at 10:00AM this morning to see the delivery truck blocking more than half of Orange St.? There was an Ambulance that had to come to a complete stop and then had to wait to pass because of this delivery truck.  Not mention all the other traffic that was delayed.  This is absolutely ridiculous and Nica’s is out of control.  I can’t believe they have the audacity to try this expansion again. This may cause them to lose more customers than they gain.

posted by: gary on April 8, 2010  5:05pm

Dear Clark,
the neighborhood has changed since I first settled in over 25 years ago. If you don’t like the traffic then move out. Nica’s is not the only store to receive deliveries. Not to mention I have not seen them come more than a couple of times a week and only last a few minutes. You act as if they have parked a monster truck on the street 24/7. As far as I’m concerned Nica’s is an asset to the area.

posted by: dave coon on April 8, 2010  5:17pm

Personal observation for those keeping score at home;
P&M is gaining traction.
Elvis left Nica’s last fall.
Romeo holds steady.  Should go back to buck slices of apizza.
Falafel on corner of Canner is also gaining traction.  Beat up RV (Mr. T’s Super Hot Dogs) parked outside store may become a liability.

posted by: robn on April 8, 2010  5:48pm

Mister Jones and Gary,

The business owner is asking the BZA, (and essentially the neighborhood) for permission to do an expansion which is outside of the rules. The dissenting commenters aren’t on a warpath or trying to tear this business down. They are simply saying no to the expansion.

posted by: gary on April 8, 2010  6:29pm

robn
who are we to tell a business owner how to better run his business? who are we to stop someone from developing their property? do we oppose everyone and everything so that we keep things exactly the same as they were 80 years ago? guidelines, rules, zoning laws writtne decades ago no longer fit today’s demographics.
The article is very misleading and the comments are not even addressing the issue at hand. Has anyone even seen the plans posted in the store? It’s a minor expansion, not the the rebirth of Whole Foods on Orange.

posted by: Paul on April 8, 2010  10:31pm

The zoning law requiring additional parking spaces is counter-productive here. If anything, New Haven—as a progressive city—should be seeking to limit the number of off-street parking spaces, in order to promote a more pedestrian friendly environment. Businesses have a direct interest to provide parking, so the natural order of things should involve a give-and-take between businesses (wanting more parking) and the community (wanting to preserve an urban character). Government should focus on preserving the unique, historic, urban character of places like Orange Street, not mandating unsightly parking spaces.

posted by: Clark Pearlman on April 9, 2010  10:11am

Dear Gary,
I know that neighborhood has changed over the years but it hasn’t changed all that much. I have lived on Orange St. for almost 40 years and my family has been here for 50. We were here before Nick Casella and the Prime Market which was a thriving business for many years and we certainly didn’t have any issues with Mr. Casella. There is problem when an Emergency Service Vehicle has to stop because of a delivery truck blocking a public street. This is something that shouldn’t happen even once. Just because you say YOU haven’t seen delivery trucks there more than a couple of times per week, doesn’t mean Nica’s is not receiving deliveries more frequently.

posted by: robn on April 9, 2010  3:01pm

GARY,

Who are we? I’ll tell you who we are. We are the neighbors who have a vested interest in the value of our own property and street life. That’s why we have planning and zoning rules. BTW, rules have, in one shape or another, been around since the beginning of the city in the early 1600s. The current zoning law was last amended in 2003 so I assume it still represents the collective agreement of the public.

posted by: robn on April 9, 2010  3:06pm

PS,

Clark, I WAS walking on orange Street at the time you mentioned and saw exactly what you are writing about. Besides the safety issue (I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one) there’s no reason why local businesses should be ordering goods deliveries from companies that use 60 foot long tractor trailers. These large trucks just aren’t welcome on Orange Street.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on April 9, 2010  6:42pm

robn,
Zoning in a completely abstract sense of the word has been around for a while, but the current zoning the city has is largely based on suburban-oriented zones and codes from the 1930s. The principles of development for New Haven up until the 30s were almost entirely oppositional to today’s current zoning and codes. In other words, if back in the 1600s we had today’s zoning and codes, New Haven would have never existed because of ludicrous wet-lands set backs, creek set-backs, side yard set-backs, site coverage limits, etc.
I am not necessarily for this expansion, but our zoning should not be used in evaluating anything because our zoning is antithetical to good urban design.
Perhaps Yale can buy up the property and a few adjoining properties, then demolish some of them, replace the well-established character of the street with modernist concrete structures, then once the lovable parts of the street have been forgotten demolish some of the few good remnants of the street’s quality to make room for a world-renowned architect’s big glass box. Oh wait, that already happened a block away. I mean, we absolutely must have a glass box in place of some nice buildings instead of several modest traditional buildings that replace the modernist crap thus restoring one of the most urbanistically important gateways in one of the most urbanistically important cities in a country in desperate need on good urbanism that is capable of centering our society.
(I’m exaggerating and trying to make an irrelevant point, so feel free to ignore that last paragraph)

In all seriousness though, I would like to know, in your opinion, how is the expansion is bad? I don’t really have an opinion on the expansion either way and I’m not all that familiar with the intricacies of the site since I only pass by every once in a while and haven’t spent much time studying the context of Nica’s, so I really would be interested in hearing what your specific objections are and why they are important in maintaining whatever it is you feel the character of the site is.

posted by: EastRocker on April 9, 2010  10:37pm

Nica’s, eh, decent panini, otherwise vastly over-rated.

posted by: robn on April 11, 2010  1:02pm

JH,

Very funny. In my opinion, opposition to the SOM has been mostly about aesthetic character in an institutional area, unlike the Nica’s issue which has more to do with commercial zoning use in a residential area.

On Orange Street in East Rock, small commercial usage (Nica’s Romeos’ etc.) is non-conforming but has been allowed because there is a general convenience and benefit to the neighborhood. Expansion of these existing commercial properties requires a variance, which requires not just additional benefit to the neighborhood, but also a non-self-imposed hardship.

I don’t oppose vertical expansion of Nica’s (in fact I think its a good idea). I oppose lateral expansion and I oppose the addition of more surface parking lots in this residential neighborhood. (A lot big enough to park in is big enough for housing and besides, more lots invite more cars which make more disturbance.)

posted by: Bike rider 87 on April 12, 2010  6:50am

No new customers?  No new employees?  If the store is crowded at noon now then this will not change the busy-ness only the room available to stand and wait in.  They should have more staff for prime times perhaps! The parking lot solution is ridiculous and anyway unnecessary if no new customers are expected.  Let’s remember:  It is a NEIGHBORHOOD business and the purpose is to be a convenience to it’s neighborhood.  That is has gained a wider reputation, fine. Like Ferraro’s on Grand or the pizza places on Wooster.  Bigger is not better for the NEIGHBORHOOD, just for the owners $$$. It is very unlikely they would leave, much too lucrative,  and there is more of a similar nature in small stores in the area.

posted by: Ruth Silver on April 12, 2010  10:30am

Re: Nica’s expansion

It appears that it would add to the viability of
the area (which is always abundant with
courteous drivers going slowly).... The idea of
space upstairs for winter sojourners is good and
as to the additional parking lot on Humphrey, the space requested appears to be in not good repair and walking between residential homes would add liveliness to the area! (I’m sure the
home owners would not agree!...c’est la vie.)
the

posted by: abg on April 12, 2010  2:53pm

Nica’s doesn’t need a new parking lot, it needs some new checkout lines.

posted by: Bike rider 87 on April 12, 2010  8:09pm

You got it abg!
First it’s Nica’s then everyone wants a variance. 
It’s nice the way it is.  European.  Local.  Deal with it.

posted by: pondering on May 3, 2010  5:19pm

(I find it hard to believe they can’t control this when Romeo’s and P&M deliveries don’t cause such issues).
**************************
As someone who lives near Romeo’s and has to turn onto Orange at the intersection with Linden, I can say Romeo has the same issues as Nica’s with regards to delivery trucks.  Crossing Orange there can be dangerous when delivery trucks park since you can’t see around them (similar problems when customers park their large SUVs in the same spot). 

Fewer people notice this because Linden is a less used street since it is one-way residential street.  Humphrey is a connector between State Street and Whitney.