Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

Still

sure do. [laughter] Yeah. Maybe there's only

So it all Yeah.

[clears throat]

Did you sell it? I [clears throat] don't think it's a tough one. shoulder area. That's

ready. Are you ready? Okay. I will open up the hearing there. Secretary to purpose, please.

All right. Applications hereby made for public hearing for decent zoning hearing board for property known as 800 sight street zoning district southside block class B. Variance is as follows. 59514D proposed imper imperous surface of 56% required maximum imperous surface not to exceed 50%. The above action is request to proceed with replacement of existing driveway with a new concrete driveway and a section of gravel pad. The appellant is Grace Flores at 2633 Swanson Street, Eastn PA 18045. The owner is Grace Flores at 800 Sight Street East in PA1 18042. 20 adjacent property owners are notified and it was published in the press. Thank you for telling me. Is the applicant present? You come forward, please. Is there anybody else in the audience here for this hearing? If you want to speak at this hearing, I'm going to have you sworn in. Okay.

[snorts] Okay. Have a seat. Ladies, tell me this property was posted. Yes, it was. Okay. Up here. Up here at the table. Oh, yeah.

[snorts] Okay, I'm going to ask you both to give your name and address for the record. My name is Grace Flores. You have to speak into the mic.

Good afternoon. My name is Grace Flores. And your address? My address is 2533 Swanson Street East, PA 18045. Thank you, ma'am. Yes. My name is Daisy. Last name Flores. Um at 25 South 14th Street in East. Okay. Thank you. Daisy, can I ask you a Can you pull the mic a little bit closer? I didn't hear after Daisy. Daisy Flores, 25 South 14th Street in East. Thank you. and your relationship to Grace, my cousin. Cousin. Thank you.

So, the reason why you're here is because you're 6% over the impervious surface uh ratio for replacing your driveway. So, if you give the board an idea of why you need to go over that 6%. And before you do, if I may, Mrs. Flores, if you want to let her know, she submitted a letter with her appeal which said that she was also requesting a sideyard setback. Um, but it is my understanding from speaking with Mr. Tilman that she has complied with that requirement so that she is not seeking the setback require or the setback or the uh sideyard setback variance.

Okay. is a location. Okay. So, what's her next next step? I mean, no. So what? No, she's still here for the imperous surface variance, but when she first submitted this, she was also asking for a sideyard setback variance, but the zoning officer has told me that she has now complied with that. Has she complied with that?

Okay. Was a setback? No. So, the gravel parking area, when we spoke through the portal, you said you'd be able to meet your 4 foot setback from the the neighboring property with the gravel. No. No.

She didn't require any setback. That's what she said. No, no, no. So, [clears throat] in the online portal, we had communications where I asked her if she was going to go all the way up to the property line or if she was going to meet the 4ft setback off the off the fence line. And she said that she was going to and that the gravel pad is what actually put her over the impervious coverage. So, that's why she's here for the one variance of over the 50%. I still don't understand what you're trying to say. So, so there's there's a property line, right? Her property line.

Okay. What he asked her was, "Are you going to is your is your pad going to go all the way up to that property line or is it going to be 4 feet off of it?" And what he's saying is that she replied, "It's going to be 4 feet off of the property line." So there would be grass in between the fence and where the gravel starts. Four feet of grass. She said no, she's going to stay.

She's still saying that she didn't. Yes, she said she didn't accept whatever you are stating that she didn't go over the foroot. She must not have understood what you were saying or she mis she misconstrued what you were asking. So a better way to put it is the gravel going all the way up to the fence. No. No. How far away is it from the fence? Is it four feet? Okay. So she meets the se. Okay. And you and she understands that she has to keep that that way.

Does she have to show pictures or Well, we'll come out and do an inspection if if this is granted to be over the 56%.

It is. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, now she has to explain why she needs the extra 6% imperous surface ratio over the um what is it? The for the cement, right? It's gravel. It's gravel. It's gravel. Yeah. It's an additional gravel parking area in the middle of the yard. Okay. Yeah. So, only gravel, right? But she's going over what the what the allotted um space is for that area. And so what she has to do now is tell the board why she needs that extra space

so she could park two extra cars.

I can't understand what this is saying here. How many parking spaces will she have altogether on the property when this is done? four total cars. So, two in the in on in the gravel and two in the driveway.

I'll show you have that picture. Can we have them? Can we keep the photos? Yes, you can. Okay. Right over there to the secretary, please. Thank you.

[clears throat] Oh, these are all the same. Yeah. So, Dwayne, you said it wasn't concrete, but in the plans here, there's I see concrete written twice. So, it has a garage. Let me go over the plans real quick for you. So on the right on the left hand side, that's a two-car garage. This is an apron. This pulls up to another parking area with concrete and stone in between. And this 18x 24 area is a gravel area which fits two cars. Yeah. For the gravel. Wait, is that right here?

Yeah, that's to the left of that. You can't see it in the picture. It's behind the garage. This guy back here. So this is the back. How many parking spaces are inside the garage?

So there's two park garages. So it's two cars. So you're going to have six vehicles. No, no, no, no, no. Well, but you're going to have six parking spaces. You can say yes. [clears throat] Well, I did say, but you're saying she's using it for four cars only.

Then why do you need the two additional gravel spaces if you only have four cars to park and two are going to fit on the concrete driveway and two fit in the garage? She's not using the garage doors. So, there's no cars going inside the garage and she just wants it outside. But you understand you're asking the board for a variance when you have park off streetet parking already

and you're saying you don't want to use that, but you want to create something else. I think she said it's easier for them because uh her husband owns a construction company. So, it's easier for them to just drive in the the gravel instead of opening the garage and changing the whole door.

Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Niski. That is different. Um, that change thing. They want to park their work vehicles. Is that what you're saying? You you want to have commercial vehicles on the property? It's Well, it's her husband's and they own the house. Well, I know they own the house. But are they commercial vehicles that you want to park on the property? And yeah, and whoever is living there? What do you mean whoever is living there? Her stepson, they they live there and they work for her uh their father. So they have construction uh trucks. They have construction trucks.

Uh you could say pickup trucks. There's nothing really noted in [snorts] Right. Where is the business located? They use that address. They use this address. 800. Yes. It's I mean, but there's no customers coming in or they just use it. They live there. The employers.

What kind of business is it that you're running out of the house but not no business is being done there? Men's home remodeling. It's a construction company. Okay. So, h how do you get clients? I mean the promote but nobody no customers can come into the house. Uh they have to go through either the people's houses, the remodel, they paint, you get estimates online or various phone calls. That's what she does. She she handles all that. Yeah. And they they get an estimate. Yeah. In person.

Dwayne Dwayne, question for you. Um in order for them to comply with the 50%, what does that look like? Uh removing a portion of the gravel that'll bring you down to exactly 50%. Oh, no. I know. But I mean, what does it look like on their plan? What What can they fit there? Probably just one car.

Not off the top of my head without doing any math. So, you said there was nothing going in the garage. No cars at all. Right now, there's not there. No, I'm saying in the future there's no no cars going in the garage. No. And you indicated that the gravel space is going to be 18 ft wide by 24 feet deep.

Yes, she has a plan. Okay. When a parking space for a car is only 9 by8 in the city of Eastston, why does it have to be 24 ft deep? Why can't you just make it 18 ft deep? And that would likely meet the impervious surface ratio under the ordinance. I mean, if the city requires that, they can fix that. I don't know why her husband decided to make it that size and he's not here. But I mean it can be fixed. It can be replaced.

Well, if you're saying that she can cut six feet off, Mr. Zoning officer, would that put her under the 50%. That would then So what what what he's saying is if you wanted to amend your application to meet the requirement, you won't even need us to vote on this, right? I mean, her husband is the one. What? No, what I would suggest is that you vote to deny it without prejudice so that if she wants to come back with something different, she can, but

she is saying on the record that she can comply with that six-foot cut off. So, you Okay, I got you.

[clears throat] 18.

So yeah, Dwayne. So how do you

18 by 18? I looked at the I looked at the 24 that's at the top there. 24 by 18.

Well, I I think she has the numbers in the wrong spot at the top here. Pam, she has 9 ft. I see where it says, right? But and and on either side of it, it says 9 ft. which would make it 18 feet wide, not 24. And she has going down the center line 18 feet. That's where the 24 belongs because her testimony was that it's 18 by 24. Well, she did it wrong. Yeah, it's 18 by 24.

18 by 18. If that if that if that would 18 by 18 comply they would. Okay. All right.

Does she understand that she will have to cut those spaces back by six feet? And then I will tell the board to deny this application as it is. But she can still do the do the gravel spaces, but they have to be six feet truer.

Yes. Okay. Okay. Have anything further?

Do you have any other questions? They're going to come fix it. You want to ask that question before we close? Mrs. Panto wants to know um how many people are in the house and how many cars are associated belong to the house? Okay. Um my stepson and my daughter love and two two girls and my ex-husband. No.

Three. Yes. Okay.

That's including the trucks. So, it's two two trucks and one for one personal car.

How many total vehicles? Four. Sorry. So, two trucks and two personal. Okay. Yes. Thank you. All right. Any other questions before you close? Sir, you were sworn in. Now, did you hear she is going to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance? I presume that meets with your approval or you have no questions about that? Question. If I can get your name, your name and address for the record. Please come up here. Come up here to the microphone

my name is Russell Fel. I reside at 403 West Grant Street F. My only question is did the owner have a permit drawn for that driveway that is in the yard? Well, that's not that's we wouldn't be able to answer that. Number two, this appellant is before us properly. So, whatever went before, she is superseding anyway. So, okay. Okay. And does this mean now that the parking spots that are on the property, will they still be parking on the street with their trucks?

Well, they can they can have a 100 off- streetet parking places and still park on the street. Okay. Yeah, just because it's it's a it's a public it's a public um public parking which correct which I understand. But you hope they would, right? You know. Yeah, I understand and agree. But this business will they have dumpsters and deliveries going? It's not a business. Excuse me.

I thought it was. They said it wasn't a business. They are contractors that park at their own. The question from the gentleman is, are you going to have any dumpsters on the property for anything? No. Okay. No, that's all I had. Just concerned. Thank you, sir. And is this property now going to be zoned a commercial business or is that still residential? Still residential. Okay, that's it. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Do [snorts] you have anything else you guys want to add before we close the hearing? No. Okay, I'm going to close the hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. And actually, since she said she wanted to meet it, she doesn't have to come back at all. Yes. No. No. But my original suggestion was to do it without. You don't need to. Okay.

We're denying this, but she can build it without our approval when she reduces it. Yes. I think she did. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Miss Thomas. Hi, Mr. Lopez. Hi, Mr. Civetella. Hi, Miss Panto. [clears throat]

I I'll get it. Don't worry. It was it was a struggle any Yeah, that's not All right, Dwayne, you ready?

I will open up the next hearing. You secretary with the purpose, please.

All right. Applications hereby made for public hearing before the zoning hearing board for a property known as 1123 Center Street and zoning district southside innovation block class C. Special exceptions and variant. It's not a special exception. Varianc is as follows. 59514F6 proposed a 24 foot wide driveway. Required driveways shall be no more than 10 ft wide. 59514F8 proposed new building to have a footprint that is greater than 15% of the footprint of the principal structure on adjoining properties. require new buildings shall have a foot a footprint that is not greater than or not less than 15% of the footprint of the principal structures on adjoining properties. 59514B proposed an A9 residential midrise required not a permitted use in the southside district. The above action is request to proceed with a construction of a 12unit mid-rise apartment building with a footprint of 538 ft. The palent is Nicholas Sorski at 1441 Lynen Street, Betham, PA18018. The owner is ABDA Properties on Center at LLC 1441 Linden Street, Bethleam, PA18018. Uh, five adjacent property owners were notified and it was published in a press.

Thank you, gentlemen. Resolution. There was no special exception. This is a use that shouldn't be marked. That's why I said it's not a special exception. Oh, it's a use. It's a use variance. Okay. Okay. I see the applicants are present. Um, gentlemen in the audience, you guys going to be speaking at this hearing? You might. Okay. I'm gonna ask the people to be sworn in now, please. Hold on. One second. Are you all Who's not who's who's the lawyer? You're the lawyer in the middle. I'm the lawyer. [laughter] The one that has to wear the tie. Correct. Oh, he's got tie.

All right. There you go. Thank you. Tell me this property was posted. Yes, it was. Councelor, if you want to have your um uh applicants give their name and address for the record, please. Sure. Please state your name. Uh Nick Sorski. I'm the applicant. Address. Um 1441 Linton Street in City of Bethlehem. City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. And what property are we here about today? 1123 Center Street, Eastern Pennsylvania.

And and for the board, uh just a little by way of just a little brief opening. You're going to hear tonight about uh this property on Center Street that has been vacant for an indeterminate period of time with no activity on this property for a while. You're going to hear about uh potential developments that have been brought before you or other boards within the city, but no earth movement, nothing in furtherance of those developments. You're going to hear tonight about uh our my client's uh request to put this three-story 12-unit building on this property um because we believe it be best fits the area, the community, the surrounding properties and actually has less of an impact than on other properties that could be or other uses that could be permitted whether by by special exception or permitted use. So that's just a little bit of a background. You you have before you a packet that we will go through of the intent the neighborhood the old permitted or old approved development plans and then the proposed use and development of the property. And I have tonight four witnesses. I have Mr. Zorski who just spoke to you before giving his name and address on behalf of the applicant. and I have our engineer here to talk about some of the dimensional and and numerical and and more uh uh specific information regarding the development.

Okay. Thank you. And before you proceed, council, if I may interrupt, um let me just ask our zoning officer on the record, Mr. Tilman, the one variance request relates to a footprint which is not less than nor greater than that of the adjoining properties. Um what properties did you utilize and uh what range did you come up with using those properties for the footprint that should be on this property?

So there's only one adjacent property to this property. I believe it is 11:09 Center Street and that footprint is 1,028 square feet. So that is the baseline for the 15% which this proposed footprint would be 80.6% larger than that footprint because there's no there's no other parcels that touch it with principal structures. There's streets and an unnamed street at the rear of it. Okay. So do we have the the uh range that this did you do that calculation or no? In other words, 15%

I less than 1028. No, I just did how how much larger it was in this. All right. So, but council I I presume we can agree that uh the maximum footprint based on that section of the ordinance would be somewhere around,50 square ft. It' be it' be 1182.2 too. We will agree with the math. We we you know we would ask this board to consider the neighborhood and surrounding properties. You know the division by a street. I think when you see the makeup of the neighborhood will show you how this building fits in and why we located the building where it is on the property.

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Zorski. uh can you tell us about this property and let's use this packet and we can have this packet as a whole marked as A1. Uh I will let that up to you but with respect to your presentation is that easiest. Yes. Yeah. Let's start with the cover page just so everyone sees what does this cover page show this board?

This cover page shows our proposed new building on that would be on the lot facing Center Street. It was a three-story building and it's 12 units and the building [snorts] and the building would comprise of nine twobedrooms and three one-bedroom units. And besides this building, there would also be a parking lot next to it that's located on the lot as well. Okay, let's familiarize this uh board and the record with what you have marked here in section one of exhibit A, which is the location and surrounding areas. The first page that's marked exhibit 1.A. What is that?

This is an overview of the surrounding area. And the red dot that I have on the page is our lot. It's a it's an open lot. Um so if you look directly to the south that is a an industrial warehouse. To the south east is another industrial warehouse. And then if you look directly to the north would be residential units. And then to the west further west is more industrial. Okay. And right across the street there is a a parking lot for the industrial use. Yes. Okay. And and and we'll go through this. What are the dimensions of this prop of this lot?

So, our lot is [snorts] 24,300 square ft and that would be 180 ft by 135 ft. Okay. And if we go to oneb in here, is this a further uh focused view of the where the property is and the industrial uses that are said to itself, right? Correct. Okay. And then 1 C shows the an overhead of the of the property itself, the lot.

Correct. Okay. from Center Street. And this this picture has this uh tractor trailer in front of it that was there when the picture was taken. Correct. And assuming it's related to one of the industrial uses. Yes. It's often that you will see um 18-wheeler trucks parked on the sides and the same for exhibit 1D. Correct. Now, I'm sorry I missed it. Is is the property behind the tractor trailer? That's your property. Yes, it has the red dot. The red dot. Yes, sorry. The one with the red dot. And then onee

shows this without the the vehicles in front. And again on the right side there's a red dot. That's the property. Yes, the property with the red Yeah, the red dot is our property. Okay. And 1F again is further down now looking at the residential neighbors. Correct. Looking north. Okay. Now, what's the history of this lot? Can you explain that for the board?

Sure. This lot has remained undeveloped for quite a long time. Um, in a more recent uh period around 2022 or 2023, a project was approved and the plan was recorded for six twin units which would have consisted of 12 total units, two family units. Uh first floor was a family, second floor is a family. This was done by uh not the previous owner but the owner before that owner. And it was an architect out of Philadelphia and he got this plan approved. Uh and he didn't come to zoning. He did everything by the book and then he sold his plan to a another outfit who we then bought that the property from them.

Um, so before we go on about the most recent iteration of this, in your review of this property, have you ever were you able to determine if it was developed in any manner? No, we were. In all of our research, we have not seen it have any use besides a vacant lot. And the when we looked at the industrial uses to the south of that of this property, what municipality are they? They are in Williams Township.

Okay. And um and as far as you know, this property has been vacant and there have been intended development of this property where they've had some approvals but never followed through. Correct. What does that tell you? somebody who is in the industry of of development and uh and property development and improvement that when there have been approved plans but no development.

It would tell me that the approved plans or that the uses that are permitted by Wright there is an issue with those uses that coincides with the location or the size of this lot. Okay. And so right now this property still remains vacant. It was Let's talk about the most recent approval and that's in your section two of your exhibit. Correct. Section two. And this is where you stated that it was six units. Correct. Two families per unit. Correct.

So the same number of dwelling units that you are proposing. Correct. just in three or three building units. Yes. And this development pushes these buildings out closer to the adjoining properties. Yes. Uh and has a parking lot in the back to for each to access. That is correct. On this parcel, if you're unless we're looking at exhibit 2. A

exhibit 2.8. If you're looking down, if you look to the right, the furthest right building, they have a sideyard setback of a of an effective 4T. 8 ft is the rule, but they are allowed an exit step that can encroach on that sideyard setback. So, in reality, the setback of this building is 4 ft from the property line of the neighboring property. And then on the left side is it's a corner lot. So, it would be to the road

and then 2B and 2 C show some uh either plans andor renderings of what these the the most recent proposed development was going to look like. Correct. And then when you purchased the property, you realized that you could have a use that actually saves more space. Correct. And moves this property away from the adjoining residential. Yes, I say the property. Sorry, I was imprecise. Move the building away from the neighboring residential.

Correct. The current layout of the approved plan as seen in exhibit 2. A has an impervious total impervious coverage of the entire lot of 63% and our impervious coverage is 48%. Okay. Now let's move to your

actually I'd like to bring up one more point of the current project. Another um feature of the current project is these units would be for sale and it would be a shared parking lot in the rear and this parking lot also from when we were reviewing the plan presented a lot of problems. If you look at the back corner of the parking lot with the exit and entrance with those back spaces, it seems like the parking lot was kind of shoved in in that back area to get to to meet the required off- streetet parking spaces and it also because potentially having individual ownership there is issue with trash collection and things. Trash collection.

Explain that for the Yes. So with the individual owners, each unit would have their trash receptacles on the exteriors of each building. So you'd have a number of trash trash cans on the sides of all these buildings. And then you'd also have in the in the parking lot in the back, you'd have a lot of cross easements that would have to be granted with respect to all the individual owners. Okay. Now, let's move to your uh proposed development which starts in section three.

I'm sorry. I was going to just real quick for clarification. You mentioned earlier that was it the E zoning board that approved this previous plan you're talking about? No. Um the previous owner did not need to come to the zoning board. He this it was at all by right. He just had to go to planning commission. Okay. Thank you. 3A is a uh rendering of your proposed development at night. Correct. Now, we see renderings here and they look great. Is it your intention, if permitted, to develop this property in conformity with the renderings that you're showing to this board tonight? Yes, it is. With not only the facade of the structure, the lighting, and the vegetation that's here.

Yes. Okay. And so now let's move to 3B to orient this board. We have here Glendale Street. That's to the south of the building. Correct. On the southern side of Glendale building is the institutional. Yes. And the ind should say industrial. Yes. U buildings. And across the street across center street is where this building is is that parking lot for the the other uh industrial use. Yes, that is correct.

Okay. Now you placed this building on the south side of the property. Why? We placed the building on the south side of the property to keep it away from the current residential uses. In fact, at first we had the project flipped and then we realized it didn't look good and it didn't it didn't mesh well because the building was right up against the residential unit. So, we had to revamp the plan, which is actually why we needed to delay coming in for the zoning meeting. We believe having the building on the corner of the lot adds plenty of distance between our building and the neighboring residential property. And does it provide a transition from the industrial into the single family residential?

Yes. Where you have the industrial warehouses, then our building, which is the apartment building, which is a residential use, but kind of aesthetically kind of comes in from the warehouse and then kind of takes you down to the twin units. We think it's a nice transition kind of in between this industrial and residential zone that is kind of smacked up against each other. And uh the parking lot that you have shown here in 3B shows a dumpster section uh in the uh rear of the parking lot. Yes. And that would alleviate having 12 cans on along Center Street.

Yep. It would be one trash area. That would be the prime would be the only point for trash collection. Okay. Now the driveway here there is a a variance requested for a 24 foot wide driveway. Why that request?

We are requesting a 20 we're requesting the variance for the 24 foot wide driveway because as the code states 10 feet 10 foot is very narrow driveway especially for traffic coming in and out. It's a safety issue actually, especially with ingress and egress for u emergency vehicles. Um planning commission and the subdivision of land development ordinances state 24 ft for a building like this. Um, Leah Valley Planning Commission has also recommended 24 foot wide driveways for these kind of projects, but specifically would be for the an easier ingress and egress for two-way traffic.

And um, now this is where you intend to develop the property with the building on the south side, correct? Yes. And if we move to 3C, I'll save some of that uh for Can I just interject with one question? Yes. Will you have some type of demarcation at the driveway separating the two lanes so that one is going in, one is coming out typically. That's not done. No. No. We could be It could be done. I I didn't to me it just seems to make sense

or no for a driveway of this magnitude I wouldn't put stripe it that way but if the board so chooses we'd be amunable to that as well. It was just curiosity. Okay. So we'll leave the plan uh for your engineer. Let's move to uh 3D, which is the um apartment layout. Yes.

Tell the board what they're looking at here. This is a layout of one of the floors. All three floors would be the same as this. And as I said before, it would be a mix of one and two bedrooms. It would be nine two-bedroom units and three one-bedroom units. The one-bedroom unit would be around 950 square feet. The two-bedroom units would be roughly 1300 square feet. And just for your knowledge, we'd be looking at one bedroom starting around 1,400 a month and two bedrooms starting around $1,800 a month. But this would be the general layout. And you are committing to developing in the same similar fashion of what you have here on 3D. Yes.

Okay. We move to 3E and we'll look at 3E and 3F kind of back and forth. 3E shows the overhead rendering of this the development of this lot with the building and parking lot we're located on the plan and 3F shows more of a the street view of it. Yes, correct. Correct. And here in when we look at 3F it shows why you restructured your plan to move the building to the south. Correct. So that it did not look like it was overshadowing the buildings uh to the north. Correct. The residential units. Yes.

And we understand the the city's ordinance regarding the the footprint. Was it also to alleviate the burden of that ordinance on on your development? Yes. Understanding the the the city's concern for having larger buildings overshadowing smaller residential buildings. Yes. Okay. And in your development, you would have enough buffer as required between your parking lot and the adjoining properties. Yes.

Okay. Anything else you want to tell this board about the intended development before we move on to uh your engineer?

Yes. So the property in its current state is was subdivided into six separate lots. We're looking to reconsolidate it to back to one lot and we're and because of that we have a large lot in comparison to our neighboring lot and the size of that building footprint which is next to us is also a tough it's interesting in that it's half of a twin and that half twin is on its own lot But with the size of just a half twin on the size of our current lot makes it very difficult to hit that standard. It would not it might look strange given the size of that lot with putting a property of that size.

And so the subdivision occurred within we said around 2022. Yes. Okay. Before that this was all one lot. It was one lot. And was that one of the larger or largest lots in this residential block and neighborhood? Yes. Okay. I have no further questions of Mr. Zorski. Does the board have any questions?

Just one if the board doesn't have it. But um with understanding of what you are saying about the comparison of this footprint to the footprint of the adjoining property, even though it's not adjoining, the footprint of yours is substantially smaller than the one directly across the street being So correct. It would be It is It's interesting in that we're larger than the one but significantly smaller than the other. Right. Kind of in the middle. Yep. Yeah. Yep. If you look at the totality of the surrounding area,

anything else, Bob? Yep. Thank you. All right. You ready? Yes. Please state your name for the records. Andrew Bull from Hanover Engineering and and Mr. Bowl uh you are the uh engineer for this project. Yes. Okay. Can you explain if we look at 3C where this property the building fits on the property the setbacks and things of that nature?

Yes. If you look at exhibit 3C, this is our landscaping and lighting plan, which also shows our sideyard required sideyard setbacks, um building setbacks and build to line um setbacks. So right now our pro the the building is situated in the the southeasterly corner of the property and it's proposed to be 10 feet off excuse me the Glendale Street rightway which is due due south of the property and then it is proposed to be five feet from the rightway of center street and then it's situated 57 feet from the common property line with the dwelling that's located to the north

and about and that build do you know how far that building to the north is off of that common property line it's approximately 9 to 10 ft so we're looking over 60 plus feet between building to build

66 to 67 feet and then it should be noted that our um we're proposing landscaping between our property and the property to the north as well as landscaping to the front of the building and to the south. And we're proposing up to 44 plantings there, which is 38 of them are located between us and the residential dwelling to the to the north. And the building to the north you have as owned by an LLC, correct? Okay. And that's accurate to the county tax records, correct?

As of when we we prepared this plan. All right. Um, and you were involved when Mr. Zorski when first developing this had the building next to the residential. Correct. I was I'm been the design engineer for this project since day one since the Zorskis um looked at this property or Mr. Zorski, I should say. Sorry. And then this was then it was flipped to move the building to the south creating that over 60 feet distance between building the building and 54 ft building the property line. Correct.

All right. And the building to the south that you have here. This is that industrial use that we uh noted on the Yes. the overheads. And this is the last property in the city of East. Yes. Um, the mimissile boundary is located on Glendale Street. I don't remember if it's on the north if it's the center line or if it's the southerntherly right away, but center line. It's the center line.

And so this is like the frontier of the city of Easton to the industrial uses. Put a little humor in there. To the industrial uses in Williams Township, right? Yes, you're correct. Okay. And uh anything else? The the lot has a driveway proposed of 24 feet.

Correct. Um and the way that we looked at this is we situated the driveway to be across the street from Hazel Street, which is a alley or 20 foot wide um public rightway. So to minimize the tra not not traffic but movements. So when you're coming in or out of our driveway, it's pretty it's good engineering practice to have them almost as close as possible. So the way that we designed this is to have the two roads, our driveway and that road to marry up with each other across the street.

And we heard Mr. Zorski talking about the um the width allowing ingress and egress. It also provides a safer access for emergency vehicles. Correct. Yes, that's correct. And on other projects that I've worked in the city in recent times, um this has been an issue and then we've gotten relief from that in the past.

Anything else about the dimensions of the project, the site plan that you want to bring before the board? No, I don't see anything else other than I'd like to just mention if you look at the previously approved plan versus this plan. The impervious coverage is less for our project. Even though the footprint of the buildings are less. So in reality, this this project is probably going to be a better fit for the area and is going to be also, if you look at our parking area versus the one that was previously approved, there was going to be a lot of um interesting car movements in the rear of that. And considering that this lot is going to be under one entity versus potentially six entities on the other property or how it was previously approved, I think this is a cleaner project and it's going to be um a good a good project for your the city of Easton.

Any questions from this gentleman? Anything else? No other witnesses. Um, any questions at all for anybody? I do just just to get it on the record. Just [clears throat] two things. Number one, uh, I'm looking at 3E. I I note on your property that instead of making the building footprint even larger, you have quite a bit of green space that you're preserving there. Yes. if correct.

Okay. And am I correct in looking at this and saying that it is the quadrant, for lack of a better word, next door, I think it would be to the north where the residences are. And then further to the north, it looks like there's an empty field there. That's actually to the west, I believe. West. Yeah. Yeah. That's an empty field. Yeah. Yes. Yes. And to the south then? Wait, if that's the west, south would be the industrial warehouses.

No, I'm looking over the I'm looking over here. Oh, that would be to the north. Yes. Yeah. And that that that looks like a vacant Oh, is that someone's sideyard? Yeah, that's a fence around that whole thing. That's a big sideyard. Yes, it is. Okay. I think they have some vehicles back there. All right. Thank you. If you could just speak real quick to the um to the one requirement that not be amended to 15%.

Sure. And and I was going to wrap that up in and discuss it in argument. When you look at this property and you look at the int and I I understand that that section has created a little bit of uh energy lately. Um and uh we understand the u the issues that are facing this board and the city with that section. When you look at this proposed development and then you look at the application of this section um this is the area where that variance is truly called for in the sense of where we located the building what it's surrounding I understand a joining but when you look at this neighborhood which is always the issue that the zoning board will look at how does this impact the surrounding neighborhood and community with an industrial building that's at least twice its side right to the south and to the southeast, one that's enormous in size and the parking lot that generates the the tractor trailer traffic right across the street to its east. There's a re sometimes you listen for what's not being said or being done. And this is the property. This has been vacant for as long as anybody can remember. And it's vacant for a reason. Nobody can can do anything with this project or wanted to do anything with this property that would would allow that transition from that industrial into that single family residential. When you look at the single family residential here owned by LLC's right to its to its north that half of the building if I'm correct from the zoning officer only half of the building is,00 square ft. If we did the whole building in size, that is a bigger lot, a bigger building. And I think I understand the the concern over that section

of the ordinance, but when you look at it in its what's it intended to prevent, this isn't what it's intended to prevent. This is a building that is furthest away from that property that you can make it and still have green grass around it and vegetation and allow that transition from the industrial to the um uh to the residential. And you know, this is I don't know there's there's a reason why others have been before other aspects of the city boards or commissions and have gotten approvals and just haven't done anything with it because it's hard to develop that property with its surrounding neighborhood. And with the 15%, the facts and circumstances of this property are unique and different from others where you're trying to put a 12-unit building aside from two residential uh uh properties. That's not what we have here. And I would submit that those factors and those circumstances of this property lead to the granting of the variance.

And then just one last question for Dwayne. Can you just confirm that the previously approved plan what would have been approved by zoning? I wasn't the zoning officer at the time, but it didn't come in front of the Would be approved now. Yes. Yeah. The the zoning ordinance didn't change in between there. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? All right. and that, you know, and that that hard that vacancy and un and non-use of the property as your zoning solicitor will tell you is a hardship that the this applicant did not create.

And sir, can you just give your name and address for the record since you made a few shout outs? [laughter] I'm one of the owners of um to your point or your question about the 15% variance.

The lot that we have is 720% larger than the residential lot next door. So the 80% differential in building footprint when the lot is 720% larger kind of puts it into a palatable perspective I believe. Y

uh the building footprint of our proposal is approximately 5,300 square ft. The building immediately to the south is 15,800 square ft. The building immediately to the east is 68,000 square ft. And I'm certain you're aware of the proposal that is before uh Williams Township, but a courtesy copy has been sent to the city of Eastn Planning Commission for the 272,000 square foot warehouse that will be to our west. So the 15% rule kind of is floating in we're so much smaller but we're larger but again our lot is 720% larger than the residential lot immediately adjoining us.

Question had to be asked just to just so it's on the record. Thank you. Thank you counselor. Anything else? Nothing. Nothing else. And close the hearing.

Any conditions? Any conditions? Okay. I just want I'm just asking.

Miss Manto. Hi, Mr. Lobac. Hi, Mr. Sevetella. Hi, Miss Thomas. Hi, Granite. Good luck. Thank you.