Sides debate definition of permitted use on site
BY DAVE BENJAMIN Staff Writer

JACKSON - A number of issues surrounding an applicant's plan to build a warehouse and other facilities on a Herman Road property remain unresolved.

In the latest twist, the applicant has agreed to ask the Zoning Board of Adjustment if what is being proposed is a permitted use in a light manufacturing (LM) zone and whether the Planning Board should continue hearing the application.

Tri-State Gunite, a pool supply and pool installation company, is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval to build a 16,000-square-foot warehouse and office building, and a pole barn structure of about 6,000 square feet for sand storage. The site is in an LMzone on Herman Road near the intersection with East Commodore Boulevard.

The application has been the subject of several hearings before the Planning Board and was discussed once more in that venue on Feb. 25.

Planning Board engineer Douglas Klee said a question was raised about the multiple uses at the site as well as about prior approvals that had been granted. The applicant has submitted a revised plan as well as an environmental impact statement (EIS) which addressed the majority of the board's typical comments, Klee said.

Planning Board planner Anna R. Wainright said there are several variances involved in the application and said the applicant had submitted an EIS which has some issues as far as what is on the site. She said the applicant has not submitted a tree save plan.

Attorney Denis Kelly, representing the applicant, said there was a site plan approval in 1986 and at the time the property was an M1 (manufacturing) zone and currently it is an LM zone.

"That was a 1986 approval for Hovnanian [to do] warehousing," Wainright said. "That's a totally different use from what's on the site now."

Wainright wanted to know how the gunite business got there.

"There are a lot of non-conformities," she said. The present board "is not part of that original approval in 1986," the planner added.

"This is a permitted use in the zone and under the ordinance," Kelly responded.

Wainright disagreed, noting there are about 27 permitted uses in the LM zone. But, she said, she was not sure what Kelly considered to be a permitted use.

Environmental scientist Ian M. Borden said he was certain the application fits into the permitted uses for the zone. Borden said the storage of materials creates no hazard of fire or explosion and said that fits the definition of a permitted use in the zone.

"The materials to be stored meet all

the performance standards," he said. Wainright said the definition may be a little vague, but said there is a difference between light manufacturing and industrial use.

"Light manufacturing means just that," she said. "Generally, it doesn't involve large concrete trucks, silos, etc. If [the board] decides it is a permitted use and that they are expanding that permitted use

then there are several variances. In regard to the fact that much of the site is not going to be paved, they will only use a portion of the site. There's a large structure on it. Is it an accessory structure and is there a new principal use on the site?"

Wainright said there are many issues to be covered.

Board Chairman Kenneth Bressi wanted to know the definition, for sure, and whether the applicant's use was permitted or not permitted.

Borden read the definition and board member Robert Hudak noted that the sand and cement create dust, which he said is not acceptable.

Borden said he had never seen dust in the process, noting that it was just a big pile of sand that was to be stored.

Bressi wanted to know how the sand would be stored and Borden said the majority of the sand would be stored in the pole barn.

Kelly said the applicant was proposing a pole barn to keep the sand dry.

Wainright noted that some of the sand would be stored outside of the pole barn.

Borden said did not believe there was a limitation as to indoor bulk storage.

Board Vice Chairman Todd Porter said the application was more in line with an industrial zone.

"We are of the opinion that this site and condition is consistent with the LM zone," Kelly responded. "The use is permitted."

"Mr. Porter said this was a permitted use in the industrial zone, but not in the light manufacturing zone," said the board's attorney Gregory McGuckin.

Also at issue was the lack of a tree save plan, to which Borden said the landscaping plan has all the details of the tree save plan and Wainright again disagreed with the applicant's professionals.

Klee said perhaps the zoning board needs to determine if what the applicant is proposing is a permitted use in the LM zone.

"That's one option, but there are other variances," Kelly responded.

McGuckin said there is nothing that would prevent the applicant from going to the zoning board and asking for an interpretation.

Kelly agreed to make an application for an interpretation to the zoning board.

Tri-State Gunite is expected to return to the Planning Board on May 19 with a determination from the zoning board.