Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

uh when you came in we have uh a little internal business to take care of and then we have two requests before the board um one is by lucky lucky LLC there are four variant requests on uh basically uh dimensional issues and we have John and Nancy Lacy who are appealing uh notice of violation for an impoundment lot all right I'd like to call our meeting to order it's 5:30 for uh Tuesday February 25th 2025 anyone wishing to offer testimony with respect to either one of these variant requests request before the board please rise EXT stand and raise your right hand you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth if so I do thank you the other thing I would uh point out is when you come to the podium to speak please state your name and your address for the record please okay one small bit of internal business do I have a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting motion to accept as presented I'll I'll second those in favor I I Mo pass okay the first uh petition before the board will be by lucky lucky LLC uh good evening Mike Sanford 4721 Atlantic Avenue I'm the land surveyor that put together the the plan and the application so I'm here tonight along with um lucky Singh to present information and support of this requested variances for the property at

the northeast corner of Edinburgh Road in mer um the applicant seeking four dimensional variances as you mentioned and to construct the gasoline service station on the property um our submitted variance application provided a lot of details on exhibit and background but for purposes of this hearing if you don't mind I'll just go through the the hardships and the various things just so the records complete the four requested variances the first one is the proposed project proposed Landscaping does exceed the overall 30% that your ordinance requires the proposed perimeter is about 50% provided when only 25 is needed by your ordinance however the proposed internal Green Space is about 2% and 5% is required so what we're requesting is a variance to reduce the internal Green Space from 5% to 2% but that difference would be provided in more than provided in the perimeter Green Space so on this project there is uh a few areas of internal Green Space I can see see if your pointer Works yes so we have this larger area here this large oval the Northern end and then we have an endcap island here and an endcap island here just the way the maneuvering works for this whole site uh there just is with the gasoline trucks that come in and out and people with the boats and trailers those are the only real internal Green Space we can provide and that represents about 2% but like I said we're setting aside the remainder in the perimeter the second variance is that the off street parking according to your ordinance off street parking in the front of the development can only cannot exceed more than 10% well this is this triangle lot it's basically all front yard so there just is really no way to comply with putting the parking if you will behind the building um and so I just don't know that your ordinance contemplated a strange lot like this and I will go through the hardship in a little bit but

just because there's corner lot because of this acute angle because of a large setbacks it just gets us in this situation we have to provide the parking in essentially the front yard the third variance is we propose um he would like to construct some EV charging stations as an amenity to his customers and we have them proposed here along the southern southern side along Hershey Road and so those would essentially be accessory uses um the main building complies with all the setbacks the canopy complies with all the setbacks um it and we actually chamfered this corner of the canopy if you look real close to comply with the setback but the EV charging stations we needed to put those somewhere on site that was convenient but yet kind of out of the way so that people can park there but yet the customers to the building can come and go as they need to so what we what we were requesting is that uh they would be located along the Hershey roads side of the development but within the front yard setback so we would like to reduce the front yard setback for those EV charging stations from the 100 foot that's required from Center Line to 50 foot uh provided essentially re resulting in a 50 foot variance being requested the fourth variance is that the proposed pole sign and that's he would like to locate it out here along Edinboro Road um he has quite a bit of Frontage on Edinburgh Road but a lot of it this is the rain Garden for our storm water control so so that's why we've placed the sign just a little bit south of that close to the intersection um and our variance is that that pole sign so it's not a monument sign would be pulse line would be um but your ordinance says anything exceeding 48 ft needs to be located behind the setback line well the setback line for Edinburgh Road is way back here it's 125 ft from Center so this sign is located within the front yard within the front yard setback so what we would like to do is reduce the

required minimum setback for the sign from 125 ft from Center Line to 45 ft resulting in an 80ft bar but the sign would comply with the 10t clear span so you can look under the sign it doesn't pose a traffic concern you can see under so we do understand that a land development plan is required for this proposed building and parking and development but approval of these variances needs to be considered before we can submit that Land Development plan to the township so as you're aware your zoning hearing board is authorized to vary from strict application if strict application would deprive the owner of reasonable use of his land so just again for purpose of this meeting to have a record complete your ordinance requires five criteria to be met and I just want to go through those real quick the first is that the property there are unique physical circumstances or irregularity in the lot shape that's peculiar to this property I think that's self-evident it's this acute angle lots and lots of Frontage um and so I think this unique triangular shape is subject to front large setbacks from both streets the both collector streets I think that presents a unique physical challenge to the property number two is that because of these physical circumstances there's no possibility that property could be developed in strict Conformity with your ordinance and as I mentioned because of the state of physical condition there is no possibility that this development could be constructed in trick Conformity to allow the owner reasonable use of his property therefore we are requesting four dimensional variances the third is that the unnecessary hardship or necessary hardship has not been created by the applicant so in this case the applicant did not create the parcel shape he purchased it but he did not create the parcel shape he did not create the zoning ordinance which essentially requires these large setbacks and so therefore the hardship is not uh created by the applicant number four is that the

variant if authorized would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or District or substantially or permanently impair appropriate use of adjacent property and so in this case these this is a I believe this is Mu if I recall correctly zoning so it's neighborhood and so this this is a permitted use um this is your ordinance was just redone fairly recently so these variances are are not contrary to the ordinance in terms of uh affecting other properties negatively and that number five and the final uh hardship we need to explain is that the variance if authorized would represent the minimum variance to afford relief and so we looked at this plan every way to Sunday we looked at different options how we could put it where the building could go where the parking could go we we looked at this a lot different iterations and the plan we presented tonight is really the minimum to afford building so I'm here to answer any questions you might have um yeah a couple uh first of all this charging station is fairly close to the center line of the road um are you planning to put some protection against those as far as like posts or anything or someone you know maybe speeding or something and coming in there and hitting those uh if that's a concern we certainly can address that concern what I can tell you is I don't have a scale with me but I would estimate those charging stations are about 35 horizontal feet from the edge of pavement certainly they're close to the rway line but the from the actual edge of pavement of Hershey Road which is shown on that drawing this is the edge of pav Hershey Road right here M and so what I can tell you is the distance from the EV stations to the RightWay line that's that's 20 ft so then this is just at least another 10 or 15 so I'd estimate these charging stations to be about 35 ft from the edge of pavement but but your comments heard

and and we have no issue with placing a Ballard uh behind those as further protection absolutely could be done all right the second question I have is you know this is supposed to be back you got 45 for a little more can you move that shine back into the center of that area it's a it's a pole sign I assume how big is it how big is it uh that hasn't been determined all I know is it's more than 48 sare ft it hasn't been uh actually identify that you know maybe somewhere in there I was a possibility yeah I just I just asked uh m client there and my reason for asking those questions and any other one is safy you know someone traveling too fast ice something and they go off the road and I'd like because you're bringing things out closer I I'd like to make it sure that it's protected sure um I I will also add to that safety thing it doesn't show on this plan but your ordinance in mu requires quite a lot of plantings along the along the road here and so there will be trees and shrubs along here as well now those would be certainly lower than the sign that's up in the air um so I'm just saying there will be some trees and shrubs planted along the road frontages because your ordinance requires that um but you know I mean we place this sign here it is outside this 20ft buffer but if there's a concern we want to hear that concern and and if the sign needs to move back another 15 ft um and I'm I'm hearing your concern so how far is that mic from the from the edge of Edinburgh Road to where you where you're suggesting from the edge of the pavement to here um well this is 20 ft from here

to the black line so I would estimate 25 or so from the edge of pavement and and and I just thought was the just like we talked about the EV station and the potential concern of cars coming off and putting uh we could put ballards there to protect them we could do the same with the sign if the sign stayed in this position we're talking about we could put ballards around the the PSE as well that other questions we have I have no others is there anybody else out there who wishes to offer testimony with respect to these requests anyone being none you uh we're going to take these variances one at a time if you don't mind uh we'll have a motion on the first variance of reducing from 5 to 2% internal Landscaping I make a motion that we accept the accept the variance of 5% interior to 2% I will second all in favor I I um second request uh exceeding the 10% parking up front I would uh suggest a variance to the off street parking uh requirement uh to not exceed the 10% of the required spaces that they may exceed that they may exceed the 10% okay I will uh second that all in favor I I okay um the setback for the EV stations I'll make a motion that we accept the reduction in the front yard setback uh with the caveat of uh having some kind of protection on Hershey Road

uh for those for those uh EV machine or EV stations okay I'll second all in favor I I and finally the uh setback for the pole sign I would make a motion that we accept the variance to uh for the sign structure next has excess of 48 sare ft uh that it not have to be placed behind the building but placed in the spot that they presented I will second that all in favor I I very well that concludes requests on for our first petition welcome to Sumit okay our second one um thank you John and Nancy Lacy good evening my name is Gary nsky and I'm the attorney representing John and Nancy Lacy in case uh 2025 0025 um my understanding is that as of last Monday February 17th 2025 Summit Township has added impound lock as a permitted use as outlined in table 31110 of the summit Township zoning ordinance as such uh petition commers John and Nancy Lacy asked that the notice of violation issued to them on January 3rd 2025 be rescinded and the appeal quashed as moot very well thank you just well just for the record um Miss Cass does attemp to intend to withdraw its notice of violation yes so then I guess I would have the board approve it uh upon withdrawal of the notice of

violation the appeal would be rendered Mo um with property owners consent So based on that I make a motion that the uh with the information presented tonight that the uh the appeal be presented would be moved at this point I'll second that all in favor I I very well thank you thank you very much it concludes a business we have motion to adjourn motion to adjourn I second all in favor I