Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. Before we start, I'd like to make sure that everyone has signed in for this meeting at the back entrance of the room. If you've not, please do so because it must be on the record. I'm Bob Tanner. The board members here this evening are Scott Calhoun, Charles Fott, and Richard Hawk. I'd like to introduce the following members. We have Julie Maggio, Zoning and Development Officer. We've got Ed Betts, our board solicitor. And we have Tamara Docksey, court reporter. After the presentation by the appellant, the board will hear from those in question of the appeal, those in favor, and those opposed. Any documents or evidence that is presented must be kept for a period of 60 days for our records. And after all the presentations are made, the board will recess. We'll then reconvene and make our decisions. The board has 45 days to render a decision, but usually made this evening. If you do not care to wait for the decision, you may call the zoning office in the morning after 8.30 in the morning. I now ask that everyone please stand to be sworn in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please answer, I do. I do. Thank you. Okay, we have three appeals for this evening. first appeal is going to be 2619 Fast Signs for property located at 2403 West 8th Street seeking variances from sign regulations in the MU2 corridor mixed use district. So before each appeal we will have different voting members based on the appeal tonight. So the first appeal of the voting members will be myself, Scott, and Rich. Charles is here as an alternate.

Go ahead. Evening everybody. My name is Levi Stutzman from Fast Signs. I'm here on behalf of the Erie County Community College along with Chris Gray from the Community College for the property.

Can you please state your address for the record?

My personal address or the address on this? Business.

Business address is fine.

Of Fast Signs? Yes. Okay, sorry. Yep. 436 West 12th Street, Erie, PA. Thank you. And so we're seeking... two-dimensional variances for the signage at the property at 2403 West 8th Street. The zoning ordinance allows for 50 square feet for total for monument signs, and then a maximum area of 32 square feet for LED message centers. And so the proposed size of what we are seeking is going to be 86.5 square feet. So the total... square footage of the monument is over the zoning ordinance allowance and the size of the LED board is over the size of the allowance. So that's the two dimensional variances we're seeking. So in the reasoning for this, the unique physical circumstances of this property, it's the old villa school. It's a very large stretch of road frontage, about 600 feet of road frontage. So the size of that sign we felt was too small as it is in what fits the zoning allowance to get real... good view time from people driving by for both the logo portion and the screen portion. And we didn't really have a clear way to make that happen except increase the size of the sign. Adding this square footage is not going to cause any safety issues or impede any function of the traffic going by, and it's not going to harm the neighborhood as it's not altering the essential character of the area. The existing sign has an LED board on it. It's been there for some time, and then there's other LED boards in the neighboring properties as well.

So can you speak to what's there right now, the size?

Yeah, so right now it is a... A 36 square foot sign. So the top portion, I didn't have that, but the LED portion is a 24 square foot. So I didn't have that off the top of my head. So the 12 square feet is just the static portion of the existing sign.

I'm sorry, so the overall sign is 32? 36. I'm sorry, 36. And the LED is? Is 24. 24. And we're proposing an 86.5, right?

Correct. And part of that is, part of the square footage of the actual sign faces is lifting, having it lifted up. The way we're having the logo is going to be on the bottom of the sign now. So we wanted to lift it up off the ground. As it is, it's just a little bit of a low profile sign for that big of an open area. So we're trying to design it to be lifted up a little bit.

Now, with that, Julie, I know there's been conversation in the past, usually more when it's fixed on a building, but where it says Erie County Community College in blue lettering on yellow, is the entire yellow considered part of the sign or just the actual lettering? The whole entire thing. Okay, making sure. Okay, so... Just so we have it all, we've got the current is 36, proposed 86.5. Let's go along with the permitted 48, the LED current is 24, proposing 40. Did you say 40? 40 and then allowed is 32, is that correct? Correct. And you say the combination of speed limit, setback, size of campus?

Yeah, and the size of the road frontage. It's about 600 feet. 600 lineal feet of road frontage? Google Maps.

And you're aware and would comply with all the township regulations with the auto-dimming and no squirreling? Correct.

It has a programmable software that will shut it off at, I believe it's 11 p.m. is when they're supposed to shut off, and then to dim at nighttime.

Okay. So, Rich, do you have any questions? I don't have any. No questions. Okay. Scott? Scott? Okay. Ed, anything you want to bring up? Okay. I don't think I have any other questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this? Okay. So for appeal 2619, we'll close that. 2620. Okay. We have Excel Sign Group for property located at 5224 West Ridge Road, seeking variances from sign regulations in the MU2 corridor or mixed-use district. And on this appeal, it will again be myself, Scott, and Rich as voting members. Please state your name and address and tell us about your appeal.

Good evening. My name is Steven George. I'm a lawyer with the Erie Law firm. Our address is 300 State Street, Suite 300, Erie 16507. I'm here on behalf of the Appellant Assail Sign Group, who submitted this on behalf of Aldi, who's putting in a store right down the Route 20 here. As far as exhibits go, I do have the letter which Excel sign group submitted as well as the application for a permit with exhibits attached. Does everybody have those documents?

Yes.

And the only other thing I would offer as far as the exhibit goes,

Thank you. So let's talk a little bit about the request. Absolutely.

And I'm going to have Bill Whitehead, he's with Excel Sign Group. He was the applicant. I'm going to ask him some questions in order to give you a little more information about this project.

Okay.

So, Bill, if you could, give us the address of this. We're at 5224 West Ridge Road, correct?

Bill, could you state your name and address for the record, and then just pull the microphone over?

My name is Bill Whitehead with Excel Sign, 5600 Harrison Street, Pittsburgh, 15201. Thank you.

And... Can you tell the board the exact variance that we're seeking here today?

We are applying for two wall signs, one on each road front, one on Mill Creek Center Road and one on Route 20, which I think is West Ridge Road. We're asking for 27.08 square feet per side above the 48 square feet.

So the ultimate square foot of each sign would be 75.08, correct? Correct.

If I could pause one second there. So Julie, on here it says they're proposing two wall signs, only one per frontage. Are we not considering Westridge Road to be frontage?

Westridge Road is the street frontage. The other road is a private. It's more of an interior road. It's not a street frontage. It's frontage, but not a street frontage.

Okay, that's what you mentioned, the name of the road, but it's a private road, not a municipal road. Is that the issue?

Correct.

So it's, by rights, it's almost asking for a second sign of frontage on a private road rather than a municipal road. Because we agree that it is frontage. It's just not a...

Correct.

It doesn't meet the classification of a township road. Okay, I just want to make sure on that.

The total relief we're asking for is 54.16.

Right, because you're proposing two signs that are 150... and maximum is 48, and I'll ask Julie, it's 48 per sign? So if this were a township road, it would be 48 plus 48, 96? Yes, yes. Okay.

Kind of like two ways of looking at it because they're asking for two signs, one's permitted and the total square footage.

Right. Just so we can kind of understand it ourselves as if, if we were happen to be, you know, in favor of a second signage that would kind of, in my mind, get you the other 48. So that's why I want to kind of talk about it in those terms. So we're, we're 96 total would be permitted if we consider that a second road frontage. So then we're talking about each sign is over by the 27.08 is what you're mentioning, right? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

Bill, if you could, why don't you tell the board a little bit about the unique characteristics about this lot which creates some issues as it relates to the signage.

As we demonstrated on the site plan, the property is unique in the fact that it's an existing underdeveloped parcel that's going to have a water containment system in the front of the property closest to Westridge Road. The building required development behind that system some 200 some yards back from the main roadway. The property maintains entrances off Mill Creek Town Center and maintains frontage on West Ridge Road with no entrance.

So between Westridge Road and this ultimate development, there's going to be some trees, correct? Correct. And there's also, you indicated, a water containment system there as well?

Yes. Set back a ways? That's up front. That's on the front of the property closest to Westridge Road.

And talk about how that is going to create a hardship as it relates to the current signage requirements.

The hardship to me is, I mean, you're sitting there and McDonald's is one of the main competitors. And they have a total of 303.02 square feet, plus or minus a couple square feet.

Sorry, you're talking about Walmart? Yeah, sorry. This is immediately adjacent to the Walmart. Correct.

Can you pull the microphone a little bit closer, if you don't mind? I got a cold, so.

Yeah, no problem. So one of the hardships is not only does the building sit back far enough off the road, the trees, They're competing with Walmart. I mean, when I was there a couple weeks ago, I measured a lot of the signs for Walmart, and I'm coming up with 303 square feet of signage. And it's a lot more than what we're asking for. Okay.

And the concern is somebody who's driving down the ridge isn't going to be able to see the smaller sign here.

Correct. I mean, being as it's set back so far and all the trees and the vegetation growing up on West Ridge Road, It's hard to tell. I mean, you guys have pictures. We try to take as good a picture as we submitted in the package for you. And that coupled with as far back as it is, it's a little bit of a poke.

And is the signage that we're requesting here consistent with the surrounding neighborhood?

I believe it is, yes. So we have PNC Bank down the road that has four sets of letters on all four sides of the building. Wegmans. So it's always like a thorn between two apples. You've got They're competing with Super Walmart. They're competing with Wegmans. Wegmans has a lot more square footies than 48 square feet per elevation.

And is this signage package similar across the board with most Aldi's that you do?

Actually, I believe you have three Aldi's within Erie County, I believe. And I think they're all the same size. Now, this is not the biggest Aldi sign that they make. I mean, Aldi's tries to go bigger. The biggest one we've put up is 10 by 12, which is 120 square feet. Okay. That's typical what we try to go for. Okay. But to stay in with the area and to fit in, they decided to go with the middle of the family, like a family of signs, small, medium, large.

Okay. My understanding would be this sign would be slightly larger than the one at the Aldi there on West 12th Street. Okay. Obviously, this situation isn't one that was created by Aldi, correct? The trees and the shrubs and the setback from the road, that's not a situation which Aldi created?

Correct. Correct.

explain why, in your mind, we're asserting that this isn't going to change. I know we touched on a little bit as far as the surrounding character, but just so the record's clear, this isn't going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood?

No, it won't. Actually, If I can read this, granting the request will not alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use of development of adjacent property. or be detrimental to public welfare. The property is located on West Ridge Road in a commercial corridor containing a number of similar commercial uses and signages, including Walmart, Wegmans, PNC Bank, and other similar signs that are being requested.

And this sign is similar to the ones you're seeing on these other buildings, correct? It is. We're not asking for a flashing sign or a LED sign or anything like that.

I think all these buildings is pretty soft and eye pleasing to be honest with you. I think everything fits the scale, the signs fit into the building properly and it's proportionate.

And ultimately is this sign size, is that the minimum variants it's necessary to address some of these issues with the setback and the visibility?

We feel it is.

Again, we're not asking for a billboard on top of the building to direct people or anything like that?

No flashing arrows. Okay.

Again, we'd seek to admit the items which have already been provided to the board as well as the prototype which shows, again, we're looking at sort of a standard ALDI sign, just slightly bigger to address some of these issues. So with that, I'd open up for questions for Mr. Whitehead.

Okay. Rich? I have no questions. Scott?

No, I think you answered all my questions. Ed, do you have anything to bring up?

No, I think we're good for now. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this? Okay, moving on. So the last bill for this evening, 26-21, Westminster Development LLC for property located at 2381 Zimmerly Road seeking a dimensional variance from the floodplain ordinance for the construction and development of the parcel. which includes commercial buildings, off-street parking, driveways, grading, utilities, dumpsters, lighting, stormwater management within 50 feet of the top bank of an AE flood zone in the MU2 quarter mixed-use district. I'm conflicted out of this case, so voting members here will be Scott, Rich, and Charles.

Mike, go ahead. Good evening. Mike Sanford, 4721 Atlantic Avenue, and I'm a land surveyor with Sanford Surveying, and I'm the one that prepared the applications. So I'm here tonight to present some information in support of our requested variance for vacant property at 2381 Zimmerly Road. And our submitted application, that I'm sure you have a copy of, included a sketch of the proposed improvements in relation to the existing site features, roadways, Walnut Creek, et cetera. I do understand that a land development plan approval is required for the project, but this zoning hearing board approval is required before we can submit for land development. And since the Zoning Hearing Board oversees variance requests, I intend to keep my presentation focused on the requested dimensional variance. If there's any non-variance related items from yourself or the public, those would most likely be addressed at the Planning Commission and Supervisors for Land Development. So tonight's variance is unrelated to Section 70-74B1, and it states no new construction or development shall be located within the area measured 50 feet landward from the top of bank of any watercourse. The dimensional variance that we are here tonight to discuss is to reduce the setback from top of bank from 50 feet required to 25 feet provided. So that would be a 25 foot variance requested. And as you know, your zoning hearing boards authorized to vary from strict application if the strict application would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land. So for purposes of this meeting, if it's okay with you, I'd like to go through the five criteria and just show you how I feel we comply. So the first criteria is that the property has unique physical condition. In your packet, I put a site plan. So you can see that the subject property is a long triangular shaped property bordered by two public roads and bordered by Walnut Creek on the entire east side. As a result of how Zimmerly Road and Walnut Creek converge, the property's width is significantly reduced at its northern end. Another physical condition is the flood zone area along Walnut Creek, which is an area of detailed study, which means the 100-year flood elevations were determined in detail format by FEMA. So the 100-year floodplain is only seven feet above the stream channel bottom. So I have a drawing here. It was in your packet, but I brought just simply a larger version. And it just shows you here that this is the creek down here, but the 100-year floodplain is only seven feet up from the creek bottom. So the 100-year flood fills up seven feet, but the property is another 20 feet higher. So we'll discuss that a little further here. As shown in this photo that was in your package, the existing top of bank, or what I call high bank, along the western side of Walnut Creek ranges from 20 to 23 feet higher than the FEMA flood zone, which means that FEMA's flood zone, 100-year flood zone, is completely contained down in the creek. It will not affect the subject property. So because, as I mentioned, the property is 20 feet higher than the flood zone, The flood zone will not negatively affect the proposed construction and vice versa the construction will not have negatively affect the flood zone So it's important to just note that the townships regulated top of bank that's what the requirement is is This top of bank is situated horizontally down by the creek and vertically down by the creek on my drawing here this is the regulated top of bank and the line that's seven feet up from the creek. That's what your ordinance is talking about. When it talks about a 50-foot setback from top of bank, that's where the creek bank is down there, where it erodes, if you will. So if you're seeing a creek and you see eroded side slopes of the creek and a rocky side, that's the top of bank, not this thing that's 20 feet higher in elevation. So just as we're talking, the regulated top of bank is way down by the creek, both horizontally and vertically. It's way down by the creek. So all these factors I mentioned presenting unique conditions affecting this property. The second criteria is that because of these conditions, there's no possibility the property can be enveloped in strict conformity for reasonable use of the property. So in addition to the parcels of regular shape, The flood zone, proximity to Walnut Creek, the township has this 50-foot setback from the regulated top of bank. If the purpose of this setback is to protect the property from flooding, then the ordinance fails to take into consideration site-specific data such as this 20-foot elevation difference, and it fails to take into account the FEMA detailed study has said where the flood zone will be. So it just, the setback is arbitrary. It's just 50 feet. So strict application of the ordinance, I feel, unnecessarily restricts development and denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. The next criteria is that this hardship was not created by the applicant, and the 50-foot setback was established by Mill Creek Township in a 2017 change to your ordinance, and this hardship then was created by the township ordinance, not the applicant. The fourth criteria is that if authorized, the variance would not alter the character of the district, so the budding of property owners would affect public welfare. So this property is located on Interchange Road, arguably the highest traffic volume road in our county. The property is zoned MU2, which is designated corridor mixed use. So development is certainly anticipated in this corridor. There is an adjacent property to the north, one residential property. It's extremely on the north end of this long, skinny strip. And our site plan that I submitted does show that we would be providing the required buffer from the residential property that the ordinance requires. So the requested variance here tonight is a dimensional setback from Walnut Creek. And it would not alter the character of the district nor impair use of the properties because we're only talking about the setback from the east property line, not from roadways, not from the adjoining residential. So the final criteria is that the variance if authorized would represent the minimum variance to afford relief. So the relief we requested would enable the property to be to, sorry, relief is requested to enable development of the property and it would not unduly be subjected to the township's additional 50-foot setback. Strict application of the additional setback would unnecessarily restrict development of the property despite the fact THAT THE FLOOD ZONE AND WATER COURSE PROTECTIONS ARE ALREADY ACHIEVED THROUGH THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY AND FEMA'S FLOOD ZONE. SO AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE THE REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE IS RELATED ONLY TO THE TOWNSHIP'S 50-FOOT SETBACK FROM TAPA BANK. AND ALL PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE FLOOD ZONE THAT WAS STUDIED BY FEMA. SO THEREFORE OUR PLAN IS THE MINIMUM TO AFFORD RELIEF. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

no questions can you step up here for a second so i can talk to you is this your property line here property line is a solid line the solid line okay so some of this parking is going to be right at the edge of the the water right away correct now the parking's this is the this is uh the parking's here this is the

I don't know it's my understanding and talking to the prior zoning officer FEMA came out with new guidelines in 2014 through 2017 countywide, and each municipality was forced to update their ordinances, and so this setback came from that process. So I just don't know what it was previous to that. They purchased the property in 2015? The applicant now is under agreement to purchase. I don't recall when the current owner bought it.

per the information in the packet, it said 2015. That's, yes. Anything else for you? Ed, do you have anything to bring up?

Okay, I don't think we have anything else at this time. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak on this? Please come on up, state your name and address.

My name is Bill Vitania. Last year, my wife and I purchased a house and property at 2315 Zimmerly Road, which is adjacent to the developer's property. Like the developer's property, it sits near the top of the steep bank along Walnut Creek, and I do have a few concerns. First, our water well is close to the border with the developer's property, albeit some distance from the proposed construction. It's a shallow well, and other houses in the area also depend on wells for drinking water. If the variance is allowed, I'm concerned that runoff, especially from the plowed mountains of snow, would affect the nearby shallow groundwater. In addition, it would set a precedent for future development along the top of a bank closer to our property, which would be even more likely to affect local groundwater and thereby impair the appropriate use of our property. The permanent nature of their variance would make this a perpetual threat. Next, my understanding is that the developer's plan calls for construction of a parking lot parallel to the top of the bank along Walnut Creek or nearby. The top of the bank at this location drops off substantially, covered only by a narrow band of shrubs and trees, and falls at a sharp angle to the creek below. Development so close to this hidden drop-off would represent a dangerous collection point for customers, workers, or others, which would be detrimental to the public welfare. This is a violation of the conditions listed under the PA Municipality's Planning Code, Section 910.2, Subsection A, Part 4, quote, that the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. Moving the line closer to the edge certainly wouldn't help. Under the same section of the code, it is prohibited to, quote, alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, end quote. The effect of inevitable mountains of plowed snow with salt, chloride, car debris, and other matter typically scraped from a parking lot melting even partially into Walnut Creek would certainly alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district. In addition to possible groundwater issues, the migration and spawning habitat of the steelhead includes the area of Walnut Creek directly below the cliff. Finally, according to the PA Municipality Planning Code, section 910.2 subsection A reads in part, quote, the board shall hear requests for variances where it is alleged that the provisions of the zoning ordinance inflict unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. The board may grant the variance provided that all of the following findings are made or relevant in a given case, end quote. Part three continues, that such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. To the extent that it exists, the appellant created their own hardship. Not only was the ordinance already published before the appellant created their plan, but the existence of a nearby watershed and floodplain should have elicited even more careful planning on their part. In any event, whether through ignorance of the ordinance or indifference to it, the appellant created the plan as is, and thus created the very hardship which they claim. FOR THESE REASONS, I STAND OPPOSED TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANTS AND ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO FIND ACCORDINGLY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I STAND READY.

ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. CHARLES?

EXCUSE ME, SIR. YES. DO YOU OBJECT TO JUST SIMPLY THE PARKING AREA? Being where it's located at, or are you objecting to the entire construction of the park?

I'm not against construction in general, and certainly not to the revenue compared to the township and so forth. I'm objecting to the construction, or really any part of the park near the edge. I mean, I can't imagine a year or two from now reading the paper and, you know, some customer was there and her kid got away and fell off the back. I mean, they themselves testify to how steep it is. You know, you have the creek below there, sometimes the creek runs fast. You know, the drop-off is... quite substantial. So for that reason, and for the precedent that it would set, if they get this variance, it would strengthen their position in the future for an additional variance in the more narrow part of the property, which is about 60 feet right there. If they were to get a variance in the future, because of their strength in position, it would open the area adjacent to our property for development, albeit in a small area.

Sir, can you spell your last name?

Yes, it's V as in victory, I-T-A-N-Y-I.

And first name is Bill? Yes. Thank you. Do you have something else?

For the other people.

Yeah. Okay, thank you. Mike, would you like to respond to those concerns?

Yes, Mike Sanford again. And I appreciate the neighbor's input, I do. And I just wanted to let the board know a couple of things. In terms of like what I attribute water quality, you know, you have runoff that snow piles he mentioned, draining to the creek and things like that. It's really not part of this variance request, but I wanted to just explain that through the land development process with the township and planning commission, we have to address a stormwater management plan and we also have to have an NPDES permit with the Conservation District. One aspect of that is stormwater control, but the stormwater control includes water quality. We are required by the NPDES permitting process to look at the runoff quality of what leaves the site today in its undeveloped form, and we are required to actually improve water quality. We do that by lots of different techniques, but one of which I'll just, I can't say we're gonna do it, but is what they call a water quality manhole, where you basically, some of your stormwater goes into this device, it's a large manhole, and it actually removes suspended solids, nitrates, and phosphates. So again, the Conservation District will review our application, and they are required to make sure that we comply with water quality improvements. So I just wanted to let you know. The runoff will eventually go downstream to Walnut Creek, because that's where it goes today, but we are required to improve water quality. Just wanted you to know that. Also, as far as any safety concern with the proximity of the parking lot to the top of bank, certainly any plan that I would draw would provide some type of guide rail or protection for vehicles along the top of bank. That just makes sense. It's good planning. It's good engineering. So we would certainly protect anyone in the parking lot from getting near the top of bank. And I think as far as his property goes, if you look at our drawing there, I can bring it up if you need, but his property is substantially north. He's the first owner. Certainly, the first residential owner, I mentioned that we would provide the buffer to him, but our development, as it's drawn now, is nowhere close to the property. And this project would be serviced by public water. It was extended along the frontage of Zimmerly Road, so we would not be installing any water well on our property, so there wouldn't be any impact. We would not be using groundwater. We'd be using public water for our development. Good.

I have a question for you. Can you share with me what you can't just change, make the parking lot a little bit smaller or away from that area where the edges to get back. So you wouldn't have to do that. You wouldn't have to do to be as close to the edge.

Well, it just comes down to how we plan the site. When you, when you look at the westerly side of this property, where Zimmerly road and interchange come in together, It's almost like a little point. It's like a triangle there. And it's very difficult to get the building moved westerly. So it just really, the building kind of needs to be where it is and the parking lot kind of surrounds it. Um, the driveway that exists to the property now that was installed with PennDOT's improvements is crowded to the east side of the property. It's right in, right out driveway. So that just means the driveway is going to be on the east side of the property near the top of bank. And just generally when we're doing site planning, we have, you know, we have parking on either side of the driveway. That's how I drew it like that. Um, that's why we have the waste receptacles back there, um, just to get them away from the store. So,

Is the proposed construction so much that you need all this parking area?

Yes, the township has minimum parking requirements. They actually have maximum parking requirements as well. And so what we're looking at here for the use, we have like a commercial tenant plaza, if you will, in one of the buildings and maybe a professional office in the other. And so we looked at what the ordinance requires and the parking shown is what.

Did you, is it the minimum or maximum?

I don't recall. The difference between the minimum and maximum is 20%. You figure out what the minimum needs to be and you're not permitted to have more than 20% of that. So we're kind of right in that sweet spot.

I don't have any more questions.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Feel free to come on up.

Hi, how you doing? My name is Nathan Kennedy. My address is 2206 Zimmerly Road. I live a little further up the road than Bill does. I just really share the same concerns that Bill has, along with the parking lot being so far down. I have young children and things like that that obviously ride their bike on the That section isn't really a road, it's a dead end, very low traffic street. And so just with the kids and that on the street and everything like that, I'm concerned the further everything comes down, the more it's going to affect our neighborhood and just negatively impact the neighborhood. So I too am imposed to it, so that's all.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Come on up.

Hi. My son just spoke, and I own a business in Mill Creek. I'm sorry, my name is Dave Kennedy, and it's 2206, my son, and then I have a business on First Credit Resources on 13th Street. But my point is this, is that obviously with businesses of this size, if you looked at the property, I mean, I know it's a mixed-use property, but it's a very thin piece of property there. And to have as many, how many parking spaces do you have there? I mean, have any of you gentlemen actually gone and looked at this piece of property? It's very thin. And of course, it does butt right up against Walnut Creek, which is a major stream for Erie County and fishermen, there's fishermen that fish right down below it there. And, uh, you know, the steelhead do come up there with the dumpsters that are going to end up there. And of course, as you well know, uh, dumpsters are not waterproof, you know, and you know, the water that comes out of their salt, he's going to salt the parking lot and that that salt, And when he plows the snow, he's going to plow it towards the back, obviously, because he needs the parking spaces in the front. That salt and chemicals that he puts on there, if you give him the variance right back to the edge, that snow that contains that salt, which you, as you well know, they don't let anybody dump. We used to dump the snow in the lake, remember, but you can't do that anymore because of the salt and the chemicals. That stream, literally, it's so steep, that stream is seven feet away. The water from the bottom of that hill is seven feet away. Everything is gonna run into that creek. And with the amount of dumpsters, for how many offices are you gonna have, Mike? Two offices and then how many stores?

Two dumpsters.

Two dumpsters for both buildings? But obviously, depending on how many businesses are there and what kind of garbage they have, they might have non-public personal information. They may all want dumpsters, depending on the type of business he puts in there. That's all that's required, correct? But they may end up having six. And the other thing, you're going to have a garbage truck then going back there and it's going to destroy the what today is a very heavy residential area, really. So I'm just saying that there is, it sounds simple and it sounds very easy to say yes to, but I think that with the amount of human problem that comes with that small, if you went out and looked at this piece of land, it's maybe, well, you know the dimensions, but You know, with the geese that live there and everything else like that, and the deer, it's going to destroy habitat. It's going to cause problems for Walnut Creek, which I don't think Mill Creek wants in any shape, fashion, or form.

So just, I mean, outside of this variance, but just to be clear what Mike had mentioned first and as, you know, chairman here, I just want to bring up and make sure is that we understand We want to talk about the variance they're requesting. Yes. If we're against all development there, that's a land development plan and all that. I'm not saying that you are. I just want to be clear that Mike had mentioned that just so that we stay on the variance itself. Stay on the variance. Dumpsters, if a property is developed in... In accordance with this, it would have dumpsters and all that. So I just want to make sure that's clear and that we can talk about that.

If you let them go back to the edge, those dumpsters are going to go to the edge because he's going to keep the front of the property open for consumers. All that garbage is going to end up back there. And wind, storms, they go into the creek. Even if he puts a guardrail up. I don't know if you've seen properties that are back against the industrial park over there. Garbage from those places gets blown into all those residential areas.

It's it causes a lot of problems So but the variants you have to stay away from the edges all I'm saying to you I just want to make sure you understand what they're asking for is the edge not that's all the construction through a land development plan it would have to come in and that's going to be up to You know different parties for that but for tonight, I just want to keep away from Walnut Creek.

Okay.

Thank you, sir I'll give you another chance, Mike.

Just Mike Sanford again. Just to put it in context, because a couple people to the north spoke, which I certainly understand. But from where this development is drawn here, the scale of this drawing is 1 inch equals 30. So the distance from the north end of this development that's drawn to this, his name was Bill, property is just under 400 feet. Just wanted to explain that, you know, it's not 50 feet. Just wanted to explain that, that it's quite distant away from the property.

Can you speak to the concerns they have with things going over the edge in relation to the variance?

In terms of like debris?

When you came here, you said that you wanted to talk about the things related to the variants, and I'm trying to keep the streamline to the variants. Exactly. And just if you could speak to that.

I'll just go back again to kind of what I remarked on. Maybe I didn't do a good job explaining it, but... The third speaker there was talking about the parking lots and about the runoff off of that. Again, I just want to reinforce this water quality thing. We are required by the regulations to look at the water quality runoff of what's out there today, which is a grassy field. And then we compare it to what we're going to be constructing, which is building and parking. And in these water quality calculations, the runoff pollutants off of a rooftop are different than a parking lot. The DEP actually tells us how much suspended solids, phosphates, and nitrates come off of a parking surface versus a rooftop versus a sidewalk. Everything has different runoff characteristics. So yes, there's going to be a parking lot. Yes, there's going to be runoff. Yes, there's going to be salted in the winter and the cinder. Sure, that's just part of living in our community. But the DEP has guidance on what the water quality runoff will be. and we are obligated to meet that water quality improvement, we actually have to make the water quality better than what it is.

Okay. You guys have anything? Okay. Thank you. All right, we're going to take a recess and go discuss these, and we'll be back shortly. Oh, excuse me. You'd like to come back up?

Bill Vitania again.

No, he's just being a little bit cavalier. And I just want to understand, do you plan to plow your parking lot? Do you plan to plow the parking lot in the winter? Okay. So are you going to push it off the edge into the creek? Or are you going to push it onto the property on my side? And do you know where the shallow groundwater is, that you won't be pushing the debris and the salt and so forth to melt. It's not just a field. It's a field on top of shallow groundwater. I don't know how far it goes out to your side, but I know that that's where my drinking water comes from. There is no public water down there. I know my neighbors also get their public drinking water from that shallow groundwater. It's like 25 feet down. So I ask you again, when you plow the snow, where are you going to put it? Are you going to put it to the north or are you going to put it in the creek?

I'm a surveyor and an engineer. I can't say how a future snow plowing company is going to plow it. They're going to plow it some direction. I am not going to tell you they're going to plow it south. I'm not going to tell you they're going to plow it west or east. I can't tell you that. They're going to plow it in some direction. It's a question I can't answer.

Anyone else? Okay, we're going to take a recess. Okay, I'll let the record show that we reconvened at 7.07 p.m. On appeal number 26-19, fast signs, do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.

Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? So moved. You don't vote. You wouldn't vote on that. Oh, yes. Appeal number 26-20, a sales sign group. Do I have a motion? I make a motion to approve that. Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. So moved.

So moved.

Appeal number 26-21, Westminster Development. Do I have a motion?

I have a motion to deny.

Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. All in favor of denial? Aye. So moved. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make the motion.

Do I have a second? Second that. All in favor? Aye. So moved.