Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to make sure everyone is signed in for the 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 other board member is Charles FOD. I'd like to introduce the following members. We have Matthew Puzz, zoning and development officer. Julie Mio, assistant zoning and development officer. J uh Dave Rhodess, board solicitor. Tomorrow docy court reporter after the presentation by the appellant the board will hear from those in question the appeal those in favor and those opposed any documents or evidence that's 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 up to 45 days to render a decision but they're usually made this evening if you do not care to wait for the decision may call the zoning office in the morning after 8:30 I'd now ask that everyone please stand to be sworn You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Please answer, I do.

Thank you. Um, so there are three appeals on the agenda tonight, but appeal number 26-12, Guardian Towers. It's going to be tabled till uh future meeting. So, first appeal that we're going to hear tonight is appeal 2610 Marlo Mitchelinski for property located at 412 Kelso Drive seeking a use variance for a dwelling single family detached and a rear yard setback variance for a detached accessory structure in the PI Presyle Gateway District. Uh, please come on up. State your name and address.

Yes, my name is Christopher Suarez. um here to in for Marlo. She can't make it. She's out of town. Uh we are partners on an LLC uh going in on this property. Uh but what we are looking for is build a small there's all cottages down there in lower Kelso. We own one of those and we're looking just to build another 24 by 34 uh single family dwelling, but we want to build a larger garage in the back. That's why we're asking for uh the variance in the rear setback. It's supposed to be 20. We're looking for six feet uh on the rear setback for a 30x40 garage. Okay. So the issues here are that a single family dwelling is not permitted use in the uh PI district. That is correct.

Um and a detached accessory structure is required to meet the rear setback of 20 foot. We're proposing six foot asking for a 14oot variance. That's correct.

Okay. So uh can you give us any data on uh why or nearby properties or you know how this affects the character of the neighborhood? Uh there they are all residential down through there. And in 2019 2019, I think it was there was a residential uh rental property that burned down. Uh nobody has any real records because it was demolished and everything. So it was residential down there. Uh and we're still looking to keep it a single dwelling uh family uh residential. So we're not going to upset the the um neighborhood or anything. It it would have fit in there uh well, I think. Okay. So Matt, can you speak to what is uh permitted use if a single family dwelling is not?

Excuse me. Yes. The PI Prescy Gateway District more geared towards uh the commercial mixeduse. Uh they could have multifamily with a commercial um component as well as like professional services, restaurants, amusement parks. It's that type. That's the uh the types of uses in the Prescal district. But the adjacent properties are single family dwellings. Yes. Yes. The in that neighborhood while it is zoned the PI generally it is single family dwellings.

Okay. And can you tell us a little bit about this uh proposed out building and the the need for having that uh variance of 14 ft uh just to move it to the back of the property. just makes nice fences for everybody in the neighborhood. Um, there is a uh I think a multi-use uh I want to say like a hotel or a smart apartment uh building in the rear of it. I I don't know the neighbors over there at all, but I've never had we've never had I've never heard any problems down there whatsoever, but it just does make uh make it simple and clean for everybody, I think. Okay. Charles, do you have any questions? I don't

I have no questions. Okay. Uh, I think that's all I have at this time. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak on this? Okay. Second up is appeal number 26-11, Papa Echo Holdings LLC for property located on Peninsula Drive and identified by tax parcel ID 33071209.0. 0 009.00 seeking a use variance for a parking lot as a principal use in the MU2 corridor mixeduse district.

Uh good evening. Mike Sanford 4721 Atlantic Avenue and I'm the surveyor that helped prepare the application. Uh, so I'm with Sanford Surveying and Engineering and I'm here tonight with the applicant to present information in support of the requested off- streetet parking use variance for the property located on the east side of Peninsula Drive north of West 26th Street. The subject property is located immediately north of the Burger King property. Included with the variance application was a sketch showing the proposed off- streetet parking use. And as shown on the exhibit, driveway access to the proposed off- streetet parking area is provided with a cross access from a Burger King parcel and also another proposed driveway curb cut that would be located further north along Peninsula Drive. We understand that ultimately a land development plan would be required for the project, but this zoning hearing board variance is required before we could prepare that land development plan is submitted to the township. So, as you know, your zoning hearing board's authorized to v vary from strict application of any requirement if the strict application would deprive the owner of reasonable use. So, the application package that was submitted uh to for your review contained a detailed justification of the proposed use. Uh I don't plan to read that whole document into the record since it was included in the application. Uh but just for purposes of this meeting in the record, I would like to go through the five variance criteria for you. The first is that the property has a unique physical condition. Uh the property to the north, this subject property and adjacent to Burger King, um is under different ownership than the Burger King parcel. The Burger King parcel is a leased property and this property to the north is owned by Papa

Echo in fee ownership. So we have two different owner structures there. And the lease of the Burger King property is a long-term lease and it extends beyond the year60. So the property subject property we're talking about is also uniquely shaped um and it has property on either side of a small creek that goes through the property which essentially bisects it in half. The creek runs north south. So because of these factors uh these factors affect the subject property. The second criteria is that because of these physical conditions there's no possibility the property can be developed in strict conformity with the ordinance for reasonable use. So, in addition to these conditions I mentioned, the zoning ordinance does not allow for off- streetet parking lots as a standalone permitted use. U, but it's important to note that while the intended use of this northern parking lot is functionally an accessory use to the Burger King property, zoning regulations classified as a standalone permitted use because there's no principal use on the property. So it it basically necessitates us coming before you and making our appeal.

Although located on the separate parcel to the north, this proposed parking lot is immediately adjacent to Burger King and will be designed maintained as as an extension of the Burger King development. So because of these factors, this difference in ownership, lease, and fee, the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the ordinance. And we're here tonight asking for the use variance to develop the property. The next criteria is that the hardship was not created by the applicant. Uh the hardship in this case is created by this unique condition of split ownership um least and fee between the two adjacent parcels that again will function as a single commercial site but can't be merged together because of this long-term lease situation and because of this the hardship was not created by the applicant. The fourth criteria is that if the variance, if authorized, would not alter the character of the district. Um, from a visual and functional standpoint, this proposed off- streetet parking lot is just is going to appear as part of the Burger King parking lot. It's going to look unified, and the traveling public will not notice a difference. They're not going to see the property line between these two features. Uh, so it's not going to appear as a separate or unrelated use. So, the project will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Uh, this proposed parking lot in our application, we explained that it is designed to accommodate oversized vehicles, campers, fishing boats, landscaper trucks. Um, and by removing those vehicles from the Burger King property, it frees up the parking lot. It's better circulation. Those trucks and vehicles don't take six parking spaces at one time. gets them to a different place where they can still come to the restaurant. Also, this proposed plan we have put together here adds an additional curb cut egress point

to Peninsula Drive further away from 26th Street to reduce uh traffic congestion at the 26th Street intersection. Uh three letters of support were obtained from adjacent property owners and we supplied those after our initial um submitt to the township and I hope those work their way to you. We have those three letters of support. And then final final criteria is that if authorized, this would represent the minimum variance to afford relief and we feel it is the minimum to afford relief. The the steps we took to make it look cohesive um and part of the project uh and it would be a betterment to the property as well to to provide a place for these larger vehicles. So I'm here tonight to answer any questions and like I said, the applicant is here as well. Uh, can you tell me uh who owns the property uh that the Burger King is on? Is that the

That is the Parker family. Okay. Yes. Oh, the Parkers own that. Yes. And the property to the north is owned by Echo. Papa Echo. That's correct. Okay. And and what how does that relate to the Parker's property other than the fact that it it joins it? Well, uh essentially Papa Echo is an is an LLC that, you know, bought the property to the north, but the family Papa Echo is the family that leases from the Parker family. So the person that's the the family that's leasing from Burger King is essentially Papa Echo. So So why don't the Parkers buy the lot to the north? And am I right? I'm on I'm on it right.

I I suppose you know the property was for sale for some time and they expressed no interest. Um the Parker family, you know, the people are getting older. uh they own a couple of properties in the area and they're just holding on to it as an investment and so they're happy with what they own and didn't want to buy anything additional. Okay.

Um and whether it's yourself or the applicant. Um because I know we the issue at hand is that you can't have a standalone parking lot as a sole use, a principal use. Um, this works as long as there's a Burger King there. So, if there were some sort of condition applied that tied it in with a Burger King's use, would that be acceptable? I don't know. Come up. The applicant's here. I'll have him since it's his property. I'd rather have him.

Sure. Uh, so Grayson Patterson, I'm the Burger King franchisee and we just to add color to that. So we lease from the Parker family, but our company owns Pop Eco Holdings. So just Bob to make sure I understand. Yeah,

it's an approved use of the property contingent upon it remaining of Burger King or contingent upon us being the lei. We'd have to talk about that, but you know, ultimately we don't want a situation a parking wouldn't be allowed as a principal use if this we're gone. And I don't know what that scenario is. And I'm not saying I would. It's just something I wanted to see if it was well whether talk with you about that offline. You know, if it's a condition we'd even propose, but uh somehow tying the two together, I guess, is all I was thinking.

You have a 26-year lease on the property from the Parkers on the parcel on the corner. More than that, but close. Yeah. Close the 40 years. Well, I mean 26 more years. 52 or uh middle of60, right? It's it's a lot whatever it is. Yeah. And we have the right of first refusal to acquire the Parker property also.

So in an ideal world to your question of why didn't Parkers buy this? I've tried to acquire the Parker property and you know someday I hope that comes true and this is never you know something that matters in the future. So principally, yes, I would want to understand the language just because we reserve the right to well, as you know, we're building a new Burger King, but say in 20 years, I end up subleasasing that out to a Wendy's or whatever. You know, I wouldn't want to tie it to specifically our use case, but just the use case of, you know, we while we're in control of the property, maybe, you know, while fast food enterprises is the lei and, you know, have the ownership of that, then there's a contiguous use case. I would be comfortable.

I wouldn't say Yeah, I wouldn't think it would make sense to tie it to a Burger King use because even though you're building a new building, you could do something else. You said that use, so I just want to make sure. Yeah, I'm saying a a use, not necessarily the specific Burger King versus a Wendy's or whatever it may be. Um, just to make sure that this is somehow because I'm sure Lydia is going to bring up some points from the township trying to find a medium in there to tie this parking lot to the use of this so we don't just have, you know, parking lots built around for no reason. Makes perfect sense what you're doing. I just want to have it. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the Parkers would be from our conversations with them, they also see this as a net gain to their real estate. Recognizing as Mike said, getting that ingress and egress opportunity a little further away from the intersection.

Yeah. Helps them should we ever walk away from it as well. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Uh I don't. Do you have any questions? No, I don't. Thank you. I do not. No. Thanks. anyone in the audience you

um just me um Leah Caparosa on behalf of the township. Okay. Um the township doesn't have a position one way or the other, but um with respect to some of the questions you raised, Mr. Tanner, um our concern is we don't want there to just be eventually potentially a just a single lot that's a parking lot. Um, so our request would be that there is a condition that to the extent the board is willing to grant this variance that use of the lot owned by Papa Echo is conditioned on um the Parker property or whoever if it changes hands um be limited to an eating and drinking establishment. So if the use changes from an eating and drinking establishment, that parcel can no longer be used as a parking lot. We'd also want to see um a shared parking agreement between the parcel owners. We do that in a lot of our um under the zoning ordinance for some where there are parking lots that different owners are sharing parking spaces for just so that we know that there is an agreement between the parties.

Okay. Um and that to the extent that again it's no longer eating and drink establishment, this variance would terminate. Okay. Grayson, you mind coming up? And certainly if um Papa Ekko was able to acquire the Parker parcel, it would really eliminate the issue because I assume they would be consolidated into one lot and therefore it would all be one use. So she said it much more eloquently than I did, but that sort of thing where it's linked to an eating and drinking establishment. I'm comfortable with all that. And we actually inter company already have some a parking arrangement where there's a contract between the two companies. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience with any comments? Uh, please come on up. State your name and address. My name is William Oaker. I live in Fairview. Uh, I'm the owner of uh 5520 Westridge Road where my mother resides. Um, we have concerns. I know you said at the beginning of the meeting Guardian Towers the issue was going to be tabled till another meeting. That's correct. But we we had concerns that we were here tonight with we're actually still in the Parker the first we aren't on that appeal at all tonight. So we're still in the one that we were just discussing relative to the Burger King parking lot. Okay.

So I I can state regarding that because I said that I don't know if you came in after that but Guardian Towers is tabled till about next month or whenever we be notified like we were for this meeting. Yeah. Because we definitely have concerns. They came to us and tried to approach us with the tower as well. So, okay. Yes, that'd be fine. Yeah. So, we will have some comment on that. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. No one else on the Burger King property. Okay. Go ahead. Uh Matt Waldinger, 3608 West 26 Street, director of planning and development for the township. Uh I just wanted to say that I'm happy to talk to uh you offline after you know when they go to recess and talk to you about it. Um and maybe hopefully answer some of your questions. But to answer your direct question, yes, you all the notifications that went out for this meeting would be repeated for the future. So Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're going to take a recess and we'll be back.

Okay, let the record show we reconvened at approximately 6:32. Uh, on appeal number 26-10, do I have a motion? I make a motion to approve. I second that. All in favor? I. None opposed. Appeal number 26-11. Uh, I make a motion to grant the use variance uh with two conditions. one that the neighboring parcel remains an eating and drinking establishment and two that the parties provide a shared parking agreement to the township. Uh do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I so moved. Uh do I have a motion to adjurnn? So move.

Uh I second. All in favor? I I second. So moved.