Good evening. My name is Frank Brennan. I'm an attorney here in Cranberry. We represent uh the Metobrook Realy LLC. With respect to an application this evening uh involving a
property on Route 130 uh south in Cranberry, it's probably best known as the Valvoline property where there's a a Valvoline uh oil change business located there, but there's also uh several other
uses at the property. Uh the property is owned highway commercial and similar businesses to Valvalene whether it was called the oil well or different iterations have been operated the property since 1998.
Uh the prior owner Steve Feebas uh was granted a use variance to demolish two structures on the property and construct the quick loop within the past 25 years. Since that time, there's been whole series of
applications before this board of various purposes uh both expanding and changing the property over time. Uh the property is no longer owned by Mr. Feebas. Uh it's it's now owned by our client, Metal Brook Reality. And the uh
uh when they took ownership of the property, they were not aware of all of the zoning history which is set forth in great detail in our application with and attached to the application is all of the resolutions of approval of which
there's probably eight, 10 or 12. probably one of the most uh probably one of one of the most uh uh rich resolution resolution rich histories I've seen on some of these cranberry properties. There was a lot
going on here for a lot of years uh and and probably a lot of bad uh blood if I may between Mr. Feebis and the board and the town and uh to some extent uh you know our client has perhaps uh inherited
that history but that's not they're not part of Mr. Feebas and that history. the the here though they were not aware of of some of those resolutions and one of the resolutions in 2007 talked about uh
an area of the property to the west where there was a drive lane uh and it said in that resolution in 2007 that that you couldn't have parking there. Unbeknownst to them uh that that existed in the resolution, they went in uh in
2024 and paved the the area of the that western part that had been stone and it was approved as stone, a stone driveway in 2007. And they there was also an area
parking area south of the building uh that had not that apparently was paved before our clients even purchased the building. But that paving had not been approved. It was also stoned uh back in 2007. So, we are here before this board
number one with an apology for not being aware of the 2007 approval that prohibited parking and and uh change in that drive lane to the west and also not being aware uh that paving was a change
in in the site plan which triggered a site plan approval. So because of that history, they received a notice of violation. They since have been in uh came to see me. We filed this application to to seek approval for the
for the changes that have been made that should have received prior approval before they did it. Uh so as part of this application, we are requesting two bulk variances or or waivers. One is for having parking uh less than 25 ft from
the property line or 10 feet from the building. And the other is to have uh parking in excess of of the minimum number of spaces required, which is kind of a strange situation for an applicant
in Cranberry to be in where we where we we have a violation for providing too much parking. But the various uses of the site over the years have have dictated that the ordinance and those
ratios were not appropriate for the uses they had there. And so they actually needed more parking, which is why why that parking has been added and why we're seeking approval uh and relief from that particular provision of the ordinance. The uh for the testimony this
evening, we have two witnesses. One is Jeff Brown who is an engineer had been with Prince and Junction Engineering for years is now with Roberts Engineering and Troy Bixler who is a project manager
for the applicant. So uh we prepared to proceed with those witnesses. We can have both sworn at the same time or one at a time. Sure. Gentlemen, if you'd stand up, we'll swear you testimony about to give his truth. Thank you. We'll start with each of you.
Give your uh full name record and tell us a little bit about your background. Bunie, go over to the mic. Okay. Yes. My name is D. Jeffrey Brown. Um I'm employed by Roberts Engineering. I was for many years the president of
Princeton Junction Engineering. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Weler Polytechnic Institute. Um I've been a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey for almost 50 years. I'm also a licensed planner and a licensed land surveyor in New Jersey and
I've testified before many boards in the state of New Jersey. Thank you. Uh so for those reasons, I would ask the board to accept his qualifications. He has been qualified uh as a as a witness many times before this
board. Go ahead. Yeah, we'll we're going to start with Mr. Brown and then we'll move to Mr. Bixler uh towards the end of the presentation. So So uh Jeff, uh you you're familiar with this property.
I know you've dealt with it for many years, but if you would please just give this board an overview of the property uh as to how it exists today, what happens there and and where the various buildings and improvements are on this
property. Okay. Uh it's located at uh 2661 Route 130 on the southbound side of 130. It's about 500 ft north of Maplewood Boulevard. Uh
the e existing quickloop building is this orang-ish building shown to the right of the plan. The other larger building is a rental building. It has several tenants. Um
and has has also has several entrances. There's entrances here and on the north side. Uh there's a door here on the west side. So there there's quite a few doors and entrances to that building. Uh traffic enters the site off of 130
here. It's one way in, one way out. Um and then to go to the quick loop, they would go through in a a clockwise uh manner through here. They would come come in the back, come through the bays, and back out there. Uh there's parking
in the front of this building. There's parking in the rear of the quick loop building. I wanted to address the issues in uh Dave Hoder's report. Um first first thing I wanted to address
was the uh gravel area in the back. uh this this area where this paved parking lot is now was and and Jeff that that area you're pointing to is this is on the south part of the site south of the building right south south of the larger building
that was stone uh on the 2007 site plan and as Frank said has has now been paved uh but the stone actually extended a little beyond that area so the paved area is a little smaller than the 2007 stone area shown on that site plan. And
if you look in the plans, the existing conditions plan shows where that stone area was. And it is not over the septic system. It is not over the septic system. It is not over the septic system. There is still some stone out around this. Uh but if you just look at it, it appears
to be lawn. So I'm not sure how much stone is really there or it's just remnants from what was there before. Um buffer land buffer landscaping should be provided to the smaller trash area to the rear and the stone area be converted to pavement.
Um that's speaking there's a tra there's a dumpster back here in this corner along the western property line. There's another dumpster area next to the uh quicklue building. Um this this dumpster is enclosed in a fence. When you say
this dumpster, that's the dumpster at the western the western near the western property line. That dumpster is enclosed in fencing that has uh slats in it. So, you really can't see that dumpster. Uh we could put a a little bit of landscaping
in this island here. Um but really, you can't really see that dumpster because of the slats in the fencing. Mr. Chairman, is it possible that I could jump in every once in a while since he's talking about me?
Dave test it will be truthful. I do. Please introduce yourself. David Hoder, engineer for the board. Been here since 2010. I was not here in 2007, but I had visit I have visited the site probably five times. um at at the
urging of uh the previous zoning officer and um zoning board um u members, not people here tonight, but previous because the applicant previous applicant was always a problem situation doing things without permission. I just
remember a lot more stone than and I could be completely wrong, but I remember a lot more stone than what it was shown on the plans and was and at the time I didn't know where the septic was. So, are you saying that that all the stone has been removed except except maybe under the pavement and the rest is
just going to be grass? Yes. Okay. So, that's good. Okay. And uh and then the dumpster area um I think it should be brought up to the standard of what Cranberry usually use uses which includes landscaping.
Okay. Well, as I said, two sides of the dumpster are pavement and the rear is adjoins a 60ft landscape and soil buffer. And so that really the only place that could be pl I guess we could plant a
little bit on the west side and plant this this island to the north. Okay, good. Um uh just for housekeeping, I guess I should mark this A1. Yes, I'm sorry. Let's call that A1, please. Mr. Brown, is that your site plan?
Uh, this is actually a plan that's entitled zoning board exhibit. Uh, and it's dated today and it's based on the site plan. Okay. The next item was provide testimony if additional second floor space in the masonry building was ever
approved by the board. And looking back at that those uh plans from 2007, it appears that that all of those areas were included in those plans. If you go to the parking schedule, it lists the area of each of these buildings and and
it seems that that second floor area is definitely included. Uh storm water management. As I said, these areas were previously stone and actually what they ended up paving is is less than what the stone area was on the
2707 plan. So there shouldn't be any additional runoff from that since stone is considered impervious anyway. It does run off into this this grass area. So it does have a chance to infiltrate there before it runs off site. And and it's
been doing that for the past 20 20 years approximately. Um, moving to the planners report. U provide testimony in support of parking along the western property line which was expressly prohibited in the
2007 resolution. Uh, particularly in light of the fact that the applicants providing more parking spaces than required. I think as Frank indicated, um the the owner has gotten word from the tenants in the buildings that uh they don't have enough parking or didn't have
enough parking and and that precipitated this this change to the site. And Jeff, let's just back up on the the paving of it. The on that western portion uh of of the driveway, correct? Right on the western border. Uh
the area that was paved, is that similar to the south parking area in that it was all stone in 2007 and approved as stone in 2007? Yes. Okay. So essentially the the impervious part
the the layout of that driveway behind the large two-story building along the western part of the property. uh that that was all that was already stone and already in use when it was approved in 2007. Is that correct?
Yes. Although there was a you know a restriction on parking that said that they couldn't park along. Correct. It was a restriction on parking and it wasn't paved. So yes, this this applicant Meadowbrook has paved it but they paved the area that was stone already.
Yes. and approved this stone and and they also are allowing parking there because they've striped it and that's clearly was not permitted in the 2007 ordinance and that's the relief we're seeking this evening. Part of the Yes, that's that's correct. Okay.
the uh so you said the the applicant has indicated that that there's a need for the parking um and and you're saying there's really no change in the impervious between 2007 or storm water issues since 2007 since it was stone before.
Right. And the impervious has actually gotten slightly smaller because the pavement is slightly smaller than what the stone area was. Gotcha. Okay. Understood. Thank you. The uh the traffic engineer also had some comments, Jeff.
Okay. Yes. Uh the DOT letter of no interest. We will be submitting for that. Um confirm the following note will be added to the plan. We will add that note has to do with planting in the site triangles out here along Route 130. Uh
we'll agree not to plant anything uh over 24 ines in height. Um, confirm that the warehouse space within the office warehouse building is for storage. Uh, that's my understanding uh of what it's being used for from the
owner. And confirm the main driveway and circulation aisles for dimension for typical widths and at narrow points. Yeah, let's let's talk about that because the fire company had some some comments about circulation uh around the building also,
right? Um, I think I I think you can see that if a fire truck gets in here, um, he really can't get around this building. He might be able to get around this. We'll have to try. And that and that's that's that's not a change that we made. That's been existing since the building went up and
was approved before 2007. Correct. Um, I did see in the 2007 plans, we did run a WB40 truck around there. I don't know what the size of the Cranberry truck is. So, we have to get that information and try to run that
through there. Uh, but I think as it's pointed out, there are a couple of pinch points back here. Um, behind the building, behind the building along the western property line. U, one of them right here between the dumpster and the building is a little less than 24. It's about 20 ft.
The aisle here, if you include the parking area, is almost 24 feet wide, but again has a a pinch point up here by the building, uh, where it narrows down to, I think it's about 12 or 15 feet.
Um, so yes, there are some deficiencies, but if we were to res if we were to restrict this to just automobiles and I think we talked about employee making that employee parking, uh, I think that's a manageable situation,
right? So, let's talk about that. So, in terms of the the striping of that western area, uh, there's there's some concerns from the traffic engineer about two-way traffic and so forth. And so the applicant has has indicated that that
parking area and the parking to the south could be would be made for employees only. So there' be minimal movements twice a day in and out of that those spots and and easily navigated by people who are familiar with the site on a
daily basis. Correct. I mean if there's two cars here, one of them just has to wait for the other one to go. pretty simple. And if it's if it's that low of a traffic area, it should not be a problem. Okay, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask something
else. Um, I also have the planner's hat on tonight. M couldn't make it. She had a family emergency. Um, so can you provide some testimony on 115-43A, which has to do with the fact that you have to be 25 ft from any property line
or 10 ft from any building for the uh pavement. That's not the case. Um, both on the west and on the south side of the building for the 10 foot and 25 ft against property line on that west line.
Yes, that's correct. Can you provide some testimony on why that's been done? I mean, it looks like the old 13 spaces that were there do conform. I don't know if that's there's no no number, but they appear to be about 25 ft off.
Talking about these spaces. Yeah. Behind. Right. Why do the why do this the new spaces the new edge of pavement not perform? Is there a special reason? Uh because the building is too close to the property line to allow it.
the the uh the the existing larger building is 32 feet off the property line. So if you allow for a 24ft aisle or the aisle that's there with the parking, you
obviously are not going to have 25 ft left. And these are right up against the building, so they're less than 10 ft from the building. Is there any way you come around the front and get to that that uh south parking area or not? No, there's not enough room. This little
green strip here is where you would have to come through and that just isn't wide enough. The the uh and the and the distance from the building, the fact that there's no distance from the building uh from the property line, that was those were conditions that existed
in the 2007 approval as stone. Yes. So to that extent they they're pre-existing conditions. The only thing we've changed we've changed two things. We've paved it but it was stone when it was approved. So it was approved as stone. It was approved close to the building.
Yes. And and we've striped the areas along the west side for parking. Yes. So the the uh and there's not that's that's uh as a as a practical matter or un your understanding that the
people were parking on the stone anyway. It was just a matter of yes making making it a little uh a little neater neater. you have a comment in Liz's letter has to do with the sheer number of parking spaces where you're saying
that 25 and change are required but uh 39 but in we often don't like to see extra spaces because it means more coverage and more drainage whatever you know
right but but based on the experience of the owner they found that the 25 was not enough are are we compliant with the impervious requirement under the land use ordinance. Yes, we're under the maximum impervious coverage
um which is allowed at 60% and we actually reduced it a little bit from 60% down to 59.4%. So, and we're we're also under on floor area ratio 30.3 is allowed and we're at 18 on the uh on
the floor area ratio. So we're we're under on both of those criteria. And at this location on Route 130, is there any parking permitted on the highway? No. So yeah, I don't think you want people
parking on the shoulder along 130. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. The uh Troy, you're under OSA. This is Troy Bixler uh who's with the applicant. I don't know if you have that information at the
ready. Okay. The the uh we could we could find out was it was after 2007 that's for sure. Yeah. The applicant in 2007 was the prior guy feebas
2015. So, let's let's continue on with the traffic engineers comments. Uh, he wanted directional arrows added to the site plan. Uh, yes, we can we will do that. We're okay with that. He want the traffic engineer also was asking for
thermoplastic stop bars at the exit. fine with that. We will do that. Yes. And template analysis for turning of the fire trucks which we'll also do. Right. We will do that also. Uh the uh also there was comment from
the fire company about knockbox requirements for keys which we will of course comply with. Um, and a question about the use uh of warehouse space
uh within the two-story building and is that used for storage? Yeah, it's my understanding that yes, it is. Okay. Uh, so our our next witness is from the applicant himself, Mr. Bixler. Before we
turn to him, if the board or professionals have questions of Mr. Brown at this point, we're happy to entertain him. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Uh, that completes the testimony for Mr.
Brown. If anybody has questions for him at this point, we're happy to hear them or we can move to our next witness. Does uh Before the illegal paving of the stoned area
occurred years ago, what was the percentage of imperous area? Okay. un under the 2007 approval it was 60%.
Okay. And we've removed a little bit of the stone. So we're down to 59.4%. Okay. So you're saying as of today as of today we have 59.4% and what is our 60 is the is the limit.
And you want to pave the stoned area west of that building. It's already paved. Oh, it's paved. Yes. No. Yeah. But isn't there another strip? You said you wanted to extend the paving. Not beyond what's there now. No. Now, was was that area that was paved
west of the building? Was that approved to be paved? It was not approved to be paved. It was shown on the 2007 plan as a stone area, but both the area to the west and the area to the south of that larger building were shown as stone. So you're
saying that even though it was done illegally somehow it came under the maximum of 60%. Yes. And and the re the re the reason for that uh yeah the
is is that the stone the areas that were paid had been stone in 2007. In 2007 they were approved to exist as stone and the impervious calculations in 2007 were
compliant. Now they're paved but less is paved and so that we're even more compliant. We're now down a little under that 60% mark. Right now when you have a stoned area is stoned area cons and we've gotten
involved with this previously. Is a stoned area considered impervious or purvious? Impervious in cranberry, even though it's to some degree that it may very well be, right? But if you put down roadstone and
you drive on it for a while, it's it's pretty much impervious. Okay. So, basically, the calculation was taking into effect that that stoned area was considered impervious. Yes. And they just made it a little more
impervious by legally paving it. Yes. Yeah. Putting it in simple terms as a simple ter simple terms. Just to clarify in the 2007 calculations were done by your firm in 2007. So you
you know you you did those calculations. You were calculating stone to towards that imperous number. a little bit of stones removed when the black top went down. So now there's less impervious.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. Andy, you swear the testimony you're about to get is truthful. I do. Thank you. Would you introduce yourself, please? Uh Andrew Fanda, uh traffic engineer consultant for the board. Okay, you've gone through and addressed
many of the items. Uh the access taken care of. Uh let me go to circulation. Um I asked to that the warehouse space in the building two with the two stories um be confirmed that the space is used for
storage. I I did see when I looked at the aerial that there's training. I I just wanted to make sure that the large storage areas aren't being used for training or something other than storage space because that would make it more intense and obviously require more
parking, right? Um I I don't know. I got a list from the owner and that's what's on the plant. So I believe it's warehouse, but and I did I don't know if I asked there, but I did ask for the breakdown of the
warehouse and office space. And it's a number you can put on the plan. Uh I think it's in the parking calculations. It's broken down in the parking schedule. And it's still those numbers uh within the building then. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Um
there is a requirement that two-way circulation uh have a 24 foot wide aisle. Now, with the parking in the rear of the building, the 24 foot that's paved is not 24 foot available for two-way traffic. There's the parking
that takes up give or take 7 foot, leaving 21 ft um give or take between the building and the parked spaces. Uh typically, that's not sufficient for two-way commercial traffic. Although, what you indicated was that employee
parking will be back there. It's low volume. There's seven spaces and then four space behind the building. I did indicate in another comment that those vehicles would somehow have to turn around in the paved area to the south of the building. Therefore, the seven
vehicles, especially if there's four vehicles parked, even constricting that area a little bit more. But say even those four spaces weren't used and only the seven spaces to leave the site, they would have to go to the rear area and rotate around. and then come back out
the uh drive aisle. That's not sufficient for two-way traffic. So, if you have somebody leaving and somebody turning around trying to 21 ft can fit two vehicles, but it's not typically um accepted for two-way traffic, leaving
distance between the building and the cars that would be moving in and out. Again, if it's employees, it's kind of a dance that gets worked out between the vehicles as they pull out. So, I do appreciate the fact that it's not for
other than employees, guests. It would be employees and they can typically it's lower volume because they're staying for the day and they're not try driving in and out uh throughout the day. But just know that that aisle won't be the 24 foot between
the parked vehicles and the building that is typical. Uh so that that is kind of another waiver as part of the additional parking that's going on here. Okay. Um will there be deliveries to the site? I
know there's existing uh bay doors um in the front of the building. I think there's one maybe two in the front and one off to the side. There's one back here. There's one here. Believe there might be one over here also. Okay. So, there may be four doors
because there's two in that corner, front corner, one going heading south, one heading west, and then to the north of the building. There's a drop uh a door uh where they I I think they back
in towards the west, not across the aisle. And that would be a concern if they were backing across that circulation aisle, but I think they back in along the building. Troy Bixler will pro probably okay more about the operations deliveries and operations on a daily basis.
Okay. Getting to the door in the on the south side of the building. Originally the original approval had delivery vans or smaller vehicles using that stoned area and then dropping off to that delivery door in the rear. Is
that delivery door being done away with for the parking that's now occurring along the south side of the building? Um, it it still exists. Whether or not it's in use, I do not know. I But obviously, if you park if you park four cars there, you can't use that door.
Whether we can get into the operations and whether it'll be used, but does it work with the parking that uh is being placed along the rear of the building if there's four spaces? And again, these are employee spaces. So the employees then if there were a delivery, hey,
don't park in the first parking space or second parking space, but I just want to make sure that there's enough area available should a delivery be made to that southern side door. Well, I mean, they they could park here and, you know, park stuff in. It's it's
not a loading dock or anything. It's it's a door. It's a garage door. Okay. And there would be enough room for that delivery vehicle, whether it be a van. I'm assuming it's not going to be a box truck because there's not a lot of room for a box truck back there, but a van to
turn around. Yes. Um, yeah, there's there's plenty of room here to turn around. I've driven in there several times in the past week and turned around without any problem in a 17t long van. So, and there was discussion about the firetruck. I know the fire department
did make the comment about the pinch points and not being able that's an existing condition with the gravel, with the pavement, whatever. I don't think a fire truck, there's such a thing as a collapse zone of a building. A fire truck would not want to pull in that area because then
they would put the fire truck in an area where if a building fell, it would get trapped. So typically an area like that to the rear of the building, they would drag hoses or do other type of um maneuvers to get to the rear and fight a fire to the rear. So
I understand why um it's narrow and a fire truck wouldn't go that way. The original analysis on 2006 or seven plans had it looping around the site where they would fight the fire from the I guess the east side of the building or
the north side of the building. uh and do the same for the uh quick loop. So, I just wanted to go through that and explain about the fire implications. Um, right. And and not having the driveway here doesn't make that situation any better.
And a fire truck certainly wouldn't be able to turn around in that area at the end. I mean, I'm talking about a van turning around. A fire truck wouldn't get in there. Not going to get back here, right? uh in the March 4th resolution of
approval uh 2007 page 4 number five and I'm going to quote directly from it. Post will be installed along the gravel portion of the rear driveway to prohibit parking along the westerly side of the existing
two-story masonary building. the applicant shall complete said installation on or before May 15, 2007. What they were saying there uh is that there were supposed to be posts put in in the gravel area so that there would
be no that parking would be prohibited. Those posts never got installed per the resolution. gravel remained and then it was paid by the new owner who probably didn't have uh this information that post work to
have been installed. So, in effect, the original resolution didn't want parking there. Um, and that's likely because of the comment that was brought up, I guess Liz and Dave had brought up, the parking would be very close to the property
line. Uh, and the gravel was close to the parking line, but that gravel served a different purpose. That gravel was 24 foot wide for the two-way travel to get to the rear loading area. Um, not parking,
non-mployee parking, but that vans could get to the back, do their circulating on the stone, and then come back out. Should there be two, they'd be side by side. Now, it's being narrowed. the deliveries are going to be lessened or non-existent. We'll get to the
operations. Um, so it'll be employee parking and again employees cars cars are typically 6 to 7 ft wide so they can make it through on 24 foot. Um, but just remember that that additional width was
there in stone for the two-way travel. um be it delivery, be it whatever was happening to the southern part of the site. Now that whole 24T is paved, 7 foot give or take uh of that will now be
used for parking. Will there be fleet vehicles stored on site? I know I've seen uh some vans parked up front, some trucks parked up front. Are those vehicles the reason the additional parking is needed? The
requirement was 26. The constructed parking spaces was 28. Now there are 11 more spaces um because the need and I agree with you, there should be no parking on 130. There'd be a problem with the DOT if parking started
occurring along the shoulder. As a traffic engineer, I'd like more parking so that there aren't concerns and the site can contain them, contain the parked vehicles. But that being said, there are 11 more than the amount that
was supposed to be constructed, 28, which was two more than what was uh required by the ordinance. So those additional 11 spaces that are there now uh they're servicing
because the fleet vehicles are parked there or what is the reason the need for that additional demand and that might go back about the fleet vehicles. Okay, short answer is there's not fleet vehicles stored there. Okay, there's vehicles that come and go as
part of the that are getting serviced there but they'll test. Okay. The uh and I think that was uh the some of my comments that weren't addressed in the testimony that was provided.
Mr. Chairman, I just have one more comment and since it's engineering, I'll ask you if I can. Sure. You have two bad shots, I think, on the plan. the finished floor of that masonary building and the a inlet the back. Yeah.
We'll fix that. It's a bad elevation. Yeah. It's a typo scrim, but you can fix it for the resubmission. We will do that. All right. Thanks. Our
next witness is represent. Yes, I have a question. Go right ahead. Yep. I'm a little unclear in the timeline here. Um, so we have the uh 2007 resolution that was has to do with the previous owner.
Correct. Understood. Then in um February 2024, there was an application uh zoning permit application for Alligator Auto Light that um
was approved. However, there was a caveat, this is from your timeline, that yes, the conditions of that 2007 resolution be satisfied prior to occupancy. Um, but that didn't happen either. So, I mean,
so the original owner didn't put the posts up for the uh to prevent the parking of the back and then the new owner didn't uh uh satisfy the uh 2007 resolution prior
to occupancy. Right. That that that's correct. and and it it's my understanding that that that that requirement of the 2007 resolution approval. I'm not sure how they were reading that.
As I read it, I thought, well, of course, you're going to say you basically have to comply with all prior approvals. Um, so I'm not sure the the I'm looking at that zoning permit application approval that you're looking
at and says uh the uh conditions of the resolution must be satisfied prior to occupancy of the building. It it doesn't say what what conditions weren't satisfied. So I mean it the conditions are outlined in
in PB16006, right? that uh in in what? So So we have those conditions in in the 2007. That's right. You'd have to refer back to it. So yeah, for whatever reason that wasn't that wasn't done. I'm not sure why it wasn't done.
Okay. That was in 2024. And then later in 2024 is when the when the zoning officer issued uh November 2024, whatever, nine months later, 10 months later, that a violation
was issued. Uh that that brings us here tonight. Yeah, I understand that. Yeah. Okay. I have one more question and I apologize that you answered it and I may have missed it. the 11 the spaces for the 11
vehicles which indicated were not fleet vehicles. Could you clarify again for me? Our Mr. Bickler would do that. Okay, great. Thank you. Y All right. So, our next witness is Troy Bickler. Troy, you can come on up and
you can have a seat here. Troy, you've been sworn in. And Mr. Could you spell your last name for our record? Sure. It's Bixer. B I XL Er. So, if you would just introduce yourself to the board, tell them who you are,
what what your relationship is with the applicant and your involvement with this property. Sure. Again, I'm Troy Bixer. I've been with um Metalbrook Realy for a little over 13 years as a project manager. I'm in charge of all their development uh
remodeling and new builds of the properties and redevelopments of them. And just just so the board understands, Metobrook Realy, and I'm I'm asking this a little bit for my own information, but as I understand it, Metobrook Realy is
kind of a real estate arm of Valvaline oil change centers. Correct. Okay. Correct. So tell me tell me so so you're you're here as a real estate manager. Vtobrook owns the property and they own it because the Babylene is here,
correct? And you you have these other things going on. We're also franchises of balcony. Gotcha. The the uh so uh are you familiar with this property? I am familiar with that. And the uh there's a couple questions
that have come up that I'd like to get some information from you about. One is uh how deliveries to this site work. What kind of deliveries are made? What kind of and size of trucks and how frequently do they occur?
To my knowledge, there is daily deliveries from Amazon, UPS that is delivered to the tenants that occupy the space with the building that's in question uh daily. And and those are from typical UPS,
FedEx, Amazon trucks. Correct. There's to my knowledge there's no big box trucks or tractor trailers that make any deliveries. Uh there was a question about the doors at the south end of the property where the parking area is. Do you know whether deliveries are received there?
There is deliveries that do are received there. Yes. By Amazon. From Amazon. Yes. Okay. The uh uh there was also a question about fleet vehicles. I'm not sure what the fleet vehicles refer to. Are you
what's your understanding of that? I did visit the site today and I did uh see that there was two fleet vehicles sitting there. Box truck or not box. When you say fleet vehicles, what do you mean? White vans. Uhhuh. I'm assuming that it's uh one of our tenants that occupy one of the uh
properties there. Um I can get more clarification on what they do if they're there all the time or if they're delivery trucks. Okay. The uh there was a question from the board chairman uh
about the approval that was obtained for the the headlight uh for alligator auto light in part of the building and the approval from the zoning officer said that the conditions of the resolution
the 2007 resolution must be satisfied. Um, are you familiar with with that approval and were you involved in that at all? I was not involved in that and I cannot speak to that. Okay.
The uh suffice to say based on what we've heard tonight that that was not complied with and that's part of why we're here at this point. I agree. Okay. Uh that's all the questions I have for Mr. Bixler.
the board or the professionals have questions. I I have a couple. Um, so who who is occupying the twotory building now? What who what what type of businesses are in there? We do have four tenants that do occupy. There's an office space. There's also a machine shop in the rear of the building
and the headlight facility and there's one other tenant there. I don't know exactly what they do. Okay. So, is it warehousing at all or or There is warehousing. Yes, there is warehousing. Yes. Okay. All right. There is no retail there. No, no
customers come in. Uh it's employees that do the manufacturing or building of the products or whatever and then ship them out. And great. Thank you. And what is the um what what why is there so much parking required for this site?
Well, their businesses are growing and they are hiring more employees. So, they are of course then means more cars that need parking. Okay. Right. That's it. Anyone else on the board? Did you approve Did you approve the
paving of this parking lot extra? I did not. Who Who the the the your company did? The company did. Yes. Your company just paved it without approval. I personally did not. Yeah. My company did. Yes. All right. They just figured pave it.
Was I'm not sure. I can't answer for the my understanding in talking to the applicant, different representatives over the past six or eight months that I've been involved here, um they they just weren't wasn't on their radar that paving would have triggered a site plan
approval. Um the the because it was already stone. Um the the uh uh so my understanding further really is that in a lot of towns if you weren't changing impervious and you weren't changing you were just
changing the type of material that wouldn't have been site plan approval. You would have you may not may not have even needed the construction permit. But be that as it may cranberry cranberry looked at it differently. But here it wasn't simply paving it. that triggered
the violation from the zoning officer. It was that it was then strike for parking and that clearly was not permitted. And I'm sure he was then looking back at his earlier approval for the autoike place in earlier in 2024 and
saying, "Okay, I got to do something now." And I get it. Um, so we we um paved our driveway several years ago and I I think we needed a permit to do that. Uh that's not
required for businesses or I I don't know. Yeah. Don't know how that works on a construction basis. You all right? So we're going to go through some officers to get to see the building.
Mr. Chairman, in Cranberry, you need a site plan to pay and then you need a permit to do the actual construction work from the middle inspector. Okay. I've seen that before. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh any comments from professionals?
Nothing else. Okay. That that completes our application. Uh, thank you. Go ahead. I do have um a question. Um, Mr. Bixler, you indicated that the business was growing. I'm just kind of going back to the additional parking spaces that were
required. Is that your business or the tenants? That's the tenants. That's the tenants. Um, has there been an established limitation or if that tenants business continue to grow, is there going to be a need for additional parking?
we already need the additional parking because of the the growth of our town. I think I think I think what you're asking is that you you're getting 11 additional parking spots and let's say in a couple of years
that is insufficient. Are you going to come back and go ask for more? That's what I think your point was. No, at that point if if they grow that big they're going to have to move facility. Yes. would be too big for our building. Correct. So, so that that begs the question the
um there was an opinion before that the second story of this building was approved. Um but it was approved as part of the 2007. That's the reason they had to come basic
basically as I understand it. I was not involved with Mr. Feebas or any of his applications. It was Don Driger before before me. But essentially he had a fire. Uh he rebuilt after the fire. Yeah. And made it two stories instead of one
story. And then when he went to get a co they said he never got approval for the second story. So after a few iterations, he finally came back in like 2005 to the board with an application which ultimately was approved as a site plan
approval in 2007 which included that second floor and included all the stoned areas that that are paved which is the subject of this application. Okay. I got some for the uh traffic engine. If
they moved the dumpster around back, would it would a truck be able to get around the back like where the loading door was? Trash truck for removal if they put it back in that move the one on the corner to the back. Would you be able to get a truck around there with the because you're losing the spot you're saying now?
I'm just wondering if that would be better option for safety with or without the parking along the side. With the parking. Okay. Um I would first thing I would ask for is a turning analysis to show that it could be done. I I don't even want to guess if it could. I I believe traveling
in one direction, there's 24 or 21 foot with the parked vehicles. It probably could make that 21 foot on a straight uh shot. But getting around the building, the building uh is right up against that drive aisle. It's it's not like there's space in between. The building is right
there. So turning, you wouldn't want the uh trash truck to hit the corner of the building in either direction coming in or coming out. So if the trash enclosure were removed or moved to that area, I would ask for turning analysis to make sure that that could be accomplished
without damaging the truck or the building. Okay. Okay. Any more questions from the board? We have people some folks from the public that want to uh speak. Um they'll
have to be sworn in. Um, do you want to go first? The our attorney will swear you're in and we have to do we have to put these in as exhibits. Yeah, we can accept this. Sure. Okay. You raise your right hand to spare the
testimony you're about to give is truth. I do. Thank you. Could you give us your name and your address, please? My name is Matthew Del Prior. rather than 12 Silvers Lane. 12 Silvers Lane. And you'd like to circulate an exhibit? I would. Sure. And please give one to the applicant,
too. I will note that I uh cut a misprint halfway through printing. So, some of you are going to have two item fives and some of you are going to have an item five and item six. So, sorry about that. Thanks. Mr. Chair, we'll mark this as exhibit
O-1. speaker. Good evening. My name is Mat Prior. I'm a resident of 12 Silvers Lane in Cranberry and here today to discuss several issues with the retroactive variance application submitted by Metobrook Realy for the property on Route 130. Uh these are discussed in
greater detail in the presentations provided. On November 2nd of last year, a contractor excessively pruned the trees which acted as a landscaping buffer between our properties. Since then, we've noticed an increase in both noise and light pollution. And these trees were critical in their reduction.
In the first set of photos, you can see a comparison of the Google Street View taken from before and after the trees removal, clearly illustrating the over pruning. In the next photo taken from the shoulder of 130, our house is now clearly visible from the roadway where before the trees shielded us. The
removal of these trees not only violated town ordinances, but also asurances and stipulations put in place by previous zoning and planning board resolutions. We implore the town to act and hold the business owner responsible for restoring this buffer by replacing the lost trees with similar fast growing vegetation.
Second, I wanted to discuss the paving which was done once the trees were removed. As you can see from the satellite photos, the work that was done in order to place the parking in the rear of the building along the western property line, again, in violation of multiple ordinances and planning board stipulations. While Mr. Brennan states that the owner was unaware of the
variances, the following things I'm going to mention aren't variances. They're just part of the ordinances themselves. The new parking is less than 8 ft from the property line, less than a third of the required 25 ft. The alleyway is too narrow for parking to support it, given that it's two-way, as
stated by Mr. Fernanda. And as Mr. Brown's diagram shows, the back of the building is actually irregular. It's not consistently the distance that's shown on the diagram. Um, again, you know, additionally, uh, parking lots require curbs. There's no
curb on the parking as it is now. The encroachment increases traffic behind the building and imperils the malign trees as the parking lot and new dumpster pads were beneath placed beneath the drip line depinging the roots of water. This parking is already being used to store abandoned cars and
fleet vehicles which creates a safety and quality of life issue for the community. Most importantly, the matter was already decided by the township planning board when they expressly forbade the placement of parking behind that building. Uh and additionally while the applicant states that the employee
it's employee parking it's used for the permanent parking of fleet vehicles. I have a another picture if you guys are accepted that shows one white fleet van. There are others that are parked on the property and around the property.
Next there seem to be some inconsistencies with the application itself. Now while Mr. Brown answered my first question about the impervious parking. The previous planning board did state that poles were supposed to be placed there to prevent parking and Mr. Brown was saying that, you know, stones
being driven over are impervious, but those poles would have prevented some of that compaction from happening. Second, the applicant states that there's no environmental impact and that no soil was removed from the site. How is that possible when both the site plan and town ordinance required parking lots have 12 in of base and subbase material?
Where did the spoil that was excavated to put that material go? Either they did remove soil from the property as there's no big hills or they didn't lay the appropriate underllayment for the parking lot. Uh both of which are violations of town ordinances. Lastly,
the construction has created significant headaches for the owners of Silvers Lane as litter, construction debris, tree parts, and wood chipping have been thrown onto our property. While these violations may not be directly under this board's purview, it further shows a lack of respect that this business has for our community. I know that not all
of the items I've mentioned tonight are in the application, but I bring them up because the applicant requests blanket amnesty for all other ordinance infractions which currently exist on the site, including many of the ones I mentioned tonight. I believe that it's irresponsible for us as a community to give cart blanch to a business which has
repeatedly shown they hold little respect for the rules by which we all must abide. Thank you very much. We'll mark the other photograph you gave us as exhibit O-2. Thank you. That's O-1. The package.
There's a there's a separate photograph next. Yep. on this. Okay. On this photograph, item one, trees. Uh I it's been pointed out to me that if you look at this building here,
they seem to be I guess they call them bolards. Yeah. And they and they're no longer there. Correct. I realize you can't answer that, but I think the applicant should address that.
I'm not I'm not I'm not following your question. If you look, have you seen this? I'm I'm look I'm looking at it for the first time this evening like you are. Yeah. Take a look at the sec the first picture has bolards just to the right of the building on the
at and then the next picture they they're not there anymore. Right. Okay. I I I I see exactly what you're talking about. Yes. That picture I actually have an enlargement of but if you want to see the No, no, I see them.
Yeah. No. So basically the the question is that Angel is this what you brought up? Are these the you had mentioned something about you didn't use the word bolard but I think
you use poles or st the ballards they go in the ground they protect I realize that are those the ones that you're talking about? No, the ones uh that were written into the resolution were on the west side of the two-story building and very detailed. And this is the north side.
That's the north side. The ones that I'm looking at here. Yeah, that's the north side of the building. And there's a loading dock there with fence around it. So, I I'm I'm looking at the same thing you are. And it looks like those ballards were to protect that fenced area. But in the new
um the newer uh aerial 2025 aerial below it, that fenced area around the loading dock is no longer there. So the ballers may have been removed because there was no longer fence to protect there. I I'm only uh guessing based on the pictures that
So you're not So that doesn't concern you, the removal. I would have to hear more about it, but Oh, that's okay. I understand. you can ask ask a more appropriate question than I can. Probably an engineering question, but uh
why were the ballards there uh to begin with and why were they removed? And I think Mr. Bixler can confirm that exactly what you're saying is the case that Ballards were put there to protect the fence. The fence wasn't needed. The fence was removed. The ballards were
removed. Correct. Okay. Okay. But those are not the ballards that we're talking about on the west side of the building. That was something um related to the delivery area on the north side of the building.
And you swear the testimony you're about to give is true. I do. Thank you. If you step over right to the mic and if you could give us your name, spell your last name and your address. Okay. My name is William Frankie F R ke and I live at 14 Silvers Lane North in
Cranberry. Thank you very much. I am Matt's neighbor. Um I lived in my house uh for 30 years. Um my property is 1 acre. It's 170 ft
wide, 250 ft deep of which 60 feet of the property is a landscape buffer and swale easement. And that memorialized in the uh blueprints and and everything else uh
site plan. Um the landscape buffer consists of a three-foot burm uh bisected with a wood fence, two rows of trees in the front of the fence and one row of trees behind plus uh a row of trees on the rear property line, two
large evergreens and two other rows of trees. All this is on my property. We have deer, fox, wild turkeys, uh maybe raccoons are routinely seen in the area by rear property uh borders on the
Valvaline driveth through oil change facility and an undeveloped lot number 66 on the tactics map. Publicly available aerial photos of the properties can be found on Google's maps as well as New Jersey maps website that
is maintained by Roman University and property lines are shown on the map. Um, one comment I would think uh Mr. Brennan introduced the the concept that Valvaline uh was
ignorant of our uh ordinances and things like that. However, they have 125 facilities that they run. So, I would imagine when they buy something and they run something, they should know how to
handle these things. And I also thank Mr. Brendan for showing all the variances on the exhibits and I have them listed but I won't go through them all because they're in in the uh the documents. So the past history
uh shows there's numerous summones, variances, etc. But what's not shown is the conflict with the owner of the oil well. Um and history repeats itself. What uh Feebas did was cut down a lot of
trees. Then he dumped them on my property. Okay. I went to him. I said, "Hey, please remove all this brush that you have there because it can be a hazard, etc. It's my property." He then uh
refused to do it. I threw the stuff back in his yard. And this was a lot. I mean, it was a lot. I had pictures of it. And uh then he called the police on me for illegally dumping his stuff into his yard.
So that was the first and only time I've gone to court in my life is with fevers. And then he claimed that the buffer zone was his. So and all that's documented. All right. So that's an issue why I will
not set foot on that property and I'm very protective of my property. Um so the landscape buffer that comp uh comprises about 25% of my property which
I pay taxes on. I maintain as a landscape buffer and I'm responsible for it. The only enjoyment my family obtains is protection from noise and light created by Valvoline and associated uh tenants.
Uh thus I have sensitivity to illegal dumping the rear of my property line, trespassing, destruction of trees and other vegetation especially when the source of nuisance contributes nothing but more destruction.
Finally, as history goes, the Cranberry Code specifically prohibits drivethrus in a uh highway an HC. Okay. And the Valvoline is a drive-thru
oil change. So, just starting there, we see that there's a lot of things that I don't know if the variance was gotten for drive-thru or not because it was a quick change move in the beginning. Um, so the history of violations, variances,
and approaches to these issues shows to disregard the township and the neighboring properties. So today's issue, in early November of 2024, I heard chainsaws being used behind my fence. And while I investigated, I discovered a
construction crew using high lifts to trim trees along the property line between my property and the Baloon facility as well as my neighbors rear property. I think not very nicely showed you the issue. Tree trees were tripped
up to 50 ft. They also removed trees and landscaping just inside their property line in order to dig a ditch to install a storm sewer line. And I assume that was from that parking area that they just created. So they ran that instead
of running it through their own driveway, they ran it through this buffer zone between my property and their parking. I don't know. It's hard to see.
It's right in here. I have these pictures in a minute. So uh however the uh current owner of a drive-thru facility has done significant construction in November apparently
without approval from the township by claiming it was routine maintenance and I don't think anybody agrees that what you heard is routine maintenance especially trimming the trees they trim the trees the excess destroyed
landscaping behind my home that was previously mandated by the township when drive-thru is being constructed. I have pictures of that, too. So, why is there a need for 15 additional parking spaces for a drive-thru?
What new uses require more parking? So, what are the tenants in the building? And we haven't really heard a good explanation about what the plans are for that building and who are the new tenants. There's been lots of uses for that facility over the years and
there's been conflict about all those uses and there are you know restrictions. Um now there was trespassing. The trespassing was purposeful with no obvious reason. I have video evidence
for each occasion both in the evening and the daytime. On July 3rd, a thousand employees stayed on my property for over 30 minutes. Now, these are pictures here. This I believe is a survey. You can't
exactly tell from the go. I can see the go. I have him walking around. Here's their property over here. So, he's on my property. And I tried to pull uh
well, I pulled out the lead. I didn't get an answer. I called Jeff Brown's office where where is this surve coming from? What are they doing? The other lot number 66 trying to sell that story
around never got an answer. So I have videos of all this. This is another one. This gentleman here from Okay. So this was in January.
This was also January. Next day you have this. He's over there. And then this one is just on July 3rd and he's walking around way over here. So I spent some val.
So I have about seven or eight instances that my cameras have caught people from the Val facility walking around my land. So that's a concern. They have no fence.
They remove the trees to install the sewer pipe. So all these things, quality of life and issues. So you know that's why we're here.
Um Hey, Frank. Um why didn't you call the cops? I did. I can show you. I had the cops tell me that video of that, too. I just didn't bring it because I couldn't show videos here. I did go meet with uh
Sergeant. Not sure what he think. I have I have it in my notes. All right. Did you call the town too to see if they had a permit to take the trees down? Did you I don't know. I'm just asking before I do my research. I was just wondering did they have a permit to take any trees down? Do any trimming or
anything like that? Hey Matt, we reached out immediately after the trees. So he didn't know reached out to him with any ordinances. What did he say?
Barbara Rogers. Is your statement truthful? Thank you, Barbara. Yeah, but so what did they say? Did they have to permit her? It didn't get back to you. No, I copy him and also
it's good that Barbara's here. She can We're trying to push for a code enforcer. So, she's your township committee. We need a code enforcer. I tell you a thousand times that's we have a zoning office. We need a code enforcer. So, these people wouldn't be here. But the town don't like that for some reason. So
that should be your job to get on that was Diane who is I guess the head woman over here or the Dian's fire inspector. No, I uh it was a cheater. It was maybe somebody higher in the
town administrator. Yes, we copied Denise on there and and also Andre spoken to Andre at the phone. So, I mean, yes, we've covered that base. Yeah. But there's no outcome if you're saying you don't have you don't know if they have permit. Yeah. Yeah. Well, if they don't have a
permit, My understanding my understanding of the ordinance is it's you can't you can't trim trees to the point that they might die and and if you remove trees then there's a replacement issue but here so to me these none of these trees were removed so the question is
oh yes they were I can't answer that I didn't go out there show you where they were removed okay I I stand corrected then that's removing constituting 50T in the air over proning to the extent that the tree
might die, not just these over pruning is rather subjective. There's a caveat that goes with that. Now there's no water getting to the roots. So putting the trees in further. Yeah, there is like a gray area in that whole if you read into it.
Okay. Anyway, but thank you. Thank you for the clarification. You don't know if it dies until it dies, right? Uh, and then there were trees. This is a picture from
I think 2007 when I had the last in. And you can see these three rings here and they're gone. Well, they were there when Huh? They were there in 2015. No, but they were they were there in November before
they cut them down to put the sewer pipe in. So you just they just dug a trench right through there. So you know you go look at it if you want. So question uh
let's talk about this trespassing trespassing issue. Are you basically implying that maybe a fence should be put up along the entire property line separating their property from Silver's
Lane properties? Well, I think that would be a good idea. I I have a fence. My fence is 30 feet in. See, that's because they're landscape buffer and that's how they they build the B and then there's the fence. Okay.
So, therefore, so you're saying they never went past your fence. They they went into the 30ft buffer area. Is that I think which is correct. Now, to be practical, how would they know that they were in your property? I'm not
taking sides here. I'm just asking a question. A lot of times when you go ahead and you see property lines, you see fences, you say, "Oh, that's the fence." You know, that may be the property line. How would these people been aware that they were in within your
property, which you consider a 30 foot buffer zone? Well, one way they tell if it's the survey. No, no, no. We're talking about people who were walking on there. Well, he was he was there.
I didn't know who he was. I didn't know who he was. He was carrying something. So, I tried to find out why he was there. And and to this day, I don't know. So, do do you know who he was? Well, I assume he was
I think that that's why I asked like if he called the cops, did they come back and say, "Hey, the guy worked for Volvalene. The guy worked for the business." Nobody told you anything. When you The cops came out, he walked through the yard. He went in and he spoke to the manager, okay, of the facility.
They had the pictures and it was like, "Well, why are you talking negotiating this?" Okay, fine. The lead manager said to me, "Well, there won't be any more problems." Well, I only have a sampling in here. I can
show you all videos. All all the trespassing are people from bal they come out of bal parking. Okay. So the other question was for Rich is the drainage since they had no permits you
have to dig the drainage up. Well um I would assume that part of this tonight's hearing would be them that they would ask for approval for that drainage. What I'd like to see is the drainage on the plan. Right now, the only thing that's on the plan is one
inlet. Okay. Well, we don't know where it goes. Um, so we'd have to get surveyors out there to to find the goes into that. Yeah. No, I know that. But we what they have to do is they have to locate it with a surveyor's transit and then, you
know, put it on a plan, get the get the elevation and find out if it's been put in in accordance with the standards of Cranberry because if it isn't, it could cause damage. So that has to be done. They we need the applicant to go out there, find out
what's going on, do some topography in the area, and understand how that drainage was was constructed. I don't know. We can't tell from here. Yeah. You've seen it though, right? My concern. Yeah. Have you seen the end of the pipe where it exits? Oh, yeah. What does it look like?
Well, it's it's it's a uh bluish colored pipe, light blue pipe. It's probably plastic. And then there's this uh dry drain or whatever you want to call it area. How big do you think the pipe is?
I'd say it's probably six inches. Okay. So, it's not big. And there's some kind of stone around it or something like what what did you say was something surrounding it? Well, there's a clean out right behind mine. The thing goes I don't know. It
must be 150 ft long or Well, no, probably it's probably 300 ft. Probably where it starts. The project manager. I think we're talking about a different pipe then because I don't know anything about it. Honestly, I don't. The the a inlet in the back is what I'm concerned about because that's been put
in inside the new pavement that shouldn't have been there. I'm trying to find out where that pipe goes. I have no idea where I I know where the pipe exits and I I have pictures of them trenching my the entire length of my property line
300 ft. Well, my property line is 170 ft and then wherever the the entrance to that is, wherever the drain is, wherever the catch basin is, I don't I don't terminology. I don't know. No, we we need Okay. So, I'm going to ask the
applicant to provide that information so that they can they can put on the plan what you're describing because I I don't know what that would be and we need to find out if it's a detriment or not. Yeah, I'm concerned about
I Well, I appreciate you um starting this conversation, right? Thank you. You're welcome. U so I I think uh the other part is I I think there's some hypocrisy there that
any all future uh variances be waved that they could do anything they want for forever now and I don't think that that's I don't think that's proper yeah I'll I'll just clarify that that it's a legal catchall that if to to the
extent Tonight, somebody said, "Hey, you know, you're talking about the paving and you asked for relief from this section, but the paving also requires relief from this section." And we'd say, "Well, to the extent we didn't call out
that specific section." That's the catchall. So, it's a it's used in all applications as the catchall. It certainly does not cover and the intent of the applicant is not to ask for relief from stuff that may happen in the future. that whatever happens in the future is
subject to the regulations and to whatever uh you know applications that might have to be brought before this board in the future. Future actions are absolutely not included as part of this except to the except to the extent that the board might require us to take
future actions as part of this application. Um go ahead. Yeah. So in in conclusion then this landscape buffer I have about $100,000 invested in between the land value the fence because I replaced the six foot
fence with an eightft fence. I had to jump through all the hoops that the town made me go through to go two more feet. Um I had to notify all the neighbors. I had to uh write to everybody. I I had to come to about four meetings and etc. to
replace the fence because the fence was a little bit older and that I wanted to put an eight foot fence in. Um so nobody could see the fence on either side actually because well the trees were there and block it on the other side. I had all my trees. So so so that that's
one issue. I have significant investment to do that. Our quality of light because I don't know why these people are wandering around in my backyard, you know, because it's one more step to go into my yard. I mean, go out of the landscape buffer, but that's my
property. If they trip and fall on some of the branches that they when they cut those trees, they threw the branches back into our property. Okay. And ignored removing them. have
pictures of all that. So, they're not good neighbors and they're issues. So, that's why I'm here. Question. Can you leave us that 2007 photo? We'll mark that as an exhibit.
Sure, we can have photos. And also, I have paperwork here because this is the first time. This is from 2005. All the correspondence we've had I file this. You just need that little photo. [Music]
Give it to J. That's exhibit 04 J. This is this is the branch that was cut down. And then these were the board required
during the building to put in these evergreens over here. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, uh, I know we have other members of the public here, and I certainly all members to have an opportunity to be
heard. That said, I just wanted to to put out there logistically, uh, that at the conclusion of the public comment, we'd be seeking a continuation of this application. There's been a number of issues that have come up in the public tonight that deserve thoughtful consideration by this
applicant. We know that there's a drain issue that we don't have an answer for this evening. Uh we want to be able to get a good answer on that and get whatever diagrams and and uh information is needed by the board's professionals. So we have some homework to do before we
would come back here. And so I just wanted to put out that logistically that we would seek that continuation of this meeting to another date. But we certainly would like to hear from all members of the public uh this evening that are here. We appreciate their attendance.
Okay, great. Thank you. Hello, my name is David Goldberg. Uh do you swear the testimony you're about to give is truth? Yes, I do. We have your address. Uh 10 Silver's Lane. Thank you. Um so I look around this room and we have a bunch of our neighbors here. Collectively, we have about a hundred
years of residency on Silver's Lane right here, right just amongst here. So, well, when we talk about our quality of life, we're the residents, we're the taxpayers, we're the people here. And I think we're all pro business and we want to see businesses survive and make it,
but it can be at the expense of the residents. I I noticed the noise level now when they did those trees. I hear a lot more noise under from from 130. my that has impacted my quality of life. I think it's impacted everyone sitting in
this room. And as much as I I think that the the people doing the paving at battle, you know, they're trying to survive and run a business, it can't be at the expense of the people living in the town. And um and we're talking about
to your point, I don't even know what businesses are there. How long have they been there? Why they need why do they need all this parking? I don't even know how if these businesses have been there more than six months and will they be there in six months from now and so we're making all these minations for
someone who might not even be there six months from now when we have a hundred years of residency sitting this in this in this in here. So that being said I think our quality of life has been has been impacted. I know when they built the affordable housing, which is on on
the other side of me, they did a fantastic job. They came to us, they asked us about what we needed. They asked us, "Do we need more, you know, greenery?" Yes, that'd be great. And it's been wonderful. I don't, you know, those people living in that uh complex
on 130, I don't hear them. They did the right thing. So if we're going to sit here and ask for forgiveness for people who did something, it's it's going to happen again and again and again and it's going to impact the hundred years of people sitting in this room. So I
want you guys to understand the impact to us and how impacts our lives. We're the taxpayers. We're the residents. And I think what was been done has been done in a way that's not correct. Like they did the affordable housing. They put
they they listened to to the residents. They put the greenery. They put the shrubbery there. They made it look great. And this is not the right way. And you all should look at it as an example of what not to do in our town. Hi, good evening. Uh, Michael Frankie.
Uh, oh, you swear the testimony you're about to give is truthful. I do. Uh, could you spell your last name? Sure. F R an ke. I live at 24 Station Road in Cranberry. Former resident of 14 Silvers Lane. Also caretaker of property when the residents are traveling. Um I
can tell you that I have uh witnessed the said pipe that was installed. It is well covered now with leaves and other debris, but the pipe was installed. There was a trench dug um significantly. I would say six inches is probably on the low side. I would say it's more probably like a 10inch pipe. pipe runs
from the parking area that was created all the way down to a retention pond or a retention area that's on the north side of the property. So that definitely was there was definitely built. Um I have seen the debris that is was placed on the backyard. I personally cleaned up a lot of it. Um so I know that it was
debris that was moved from that property and left onto the 14 soldiers Lane property. Um uh as a resident of Cranberry for 16 or 17 years, I can tell you that I know that not much is able to be done without a permit in the town. Um so anyone with
the kind of experience that the applicant has with owning over 100 valve locations and having a managed real estate property, they would know that they were required a permit to pave. They would know that they required a permit to put a sewer line in or a drainage line in. So, um, to say that
they weren't aware of some of the history of the town or history of the property, um, potentially, although it's all available in public records, but to say that, uh, they um, weren't aware that they needed permits to do these things is disingenuous. So, clearly, we have a case here. We tried to do
something that they shouldn't have done. Um, the next thing I would say is that, uh, landlords, I've dealt with many landlords in my time, uh, both corporately and my own small business. I can tell you landlords never do anything uh without significant pressure from the tenants especially when the property was
rented as is. Um, so to get them to spend the kind of money to add additional paving, additional parking spaces to run the sewer lines or drainage lines um to that kind of expense, you would need to have some type of documentation uh from the res from the tenants indicating that they
needed these improvements either to do lease renewal or to um satisfy a need of the tenants. So question I would have for the next round of testimony is do we have documentation from the tenants asking for this increase in parking? Um
how many tenants are there? How many employees do they have? How many cubicles are upstairs in the upstairs offices? How many uh employees work downstairs in the warehouse area? uh we'd like to see those kind of things to understand why we ask for these additional parking spaces because the fear is that this is an attempt to add
additional parking spaces for a future use and come back to the board again and ask for another uh variance or another use. So that's what we would like to see as well um from a resident of the town caretaker of the property. Um I me look real quick and see if I made any other
notes while I was here. Um I assume all of the uh documentation on all of the prior restrictions was available um in public records. Someone of this magnitude and this scope clearly has the capability to pull these records and to see what type of restrictions were
there. Um the uh trees were cut down um within the 30-foot landscape buffer. So regardless of whether or not um the we're talking about the tree death, these 30 feet of branches that were cut down were cut down inside the landscape buffer that they were supposed to maintain. So they shouldn't have cut
them down to begin with. Um and I think that's all that I have. But uh I would say that um there's a lot of history with this property um from the prior obviously from the prior ownership, but it's kind
of continuing to go along. Um and uh we need to understand more about this project, why this was done, and what the future um future uses are going to be. Mr. Chairman, I just uh if I could, I just learned something. Um I was confused when they said 300 ft of pipe.
Uh I think that means that the pipe went down to the detention basin that's on the north end of the property, which is good. So, we still need to know where it is, whether or not it's actually on the property and whether it migrated off the property by mistake. If it did, it's got to be pulled on or an easement has to be
given. Um, so so that pipe now has to be located and I would like to see a small drainage calculation to figure out if the 6 in is is adequate for the area that it drains. Thank you. Anyone
else from the public? No. Any further comments from the board or professionals? I've been listening very carefully to what has been said here tonight. And first thing
initially I was under the impression that a lot of these trans train transgressions were performed by the previous owner. Then I heard that the new owner was
unaware of what previously happened. And to me that shocks me because I would have assumed that due diligence would have been performed by a buyer to understand what they were getting into.
So that kind of surprised me. And then I find out that the transgressions continued. I really find it hard to accept that this board is being asked to give
absolution to what has been done inappropriately. And that really, you know, re really kind of blows blows my mind. Uh,
I think that the residents, the silvers lane residents are have legitimate concerns and as a resident
of Cranberry for 56 years, I understand these type of problems that can really have effect on daily life. I mean, I I I really appreciate what what you people
are saying. I've lived in Windwood for 56 years and I guess I'm lucky. The only thing I have to worry about is noise from the cemetery when they're digging grapes. I mean, we're isolated, so we don't really have that situation.
But I think that the applicant has to do a better job in presenting his cases, his case to the satisfaction of our two experts here, the traffic and the uh
I guess the planning site engineer site engineer and to the residents of Silver Lane. I think that is very important because unless these problems are resolved, I cannot consider a yes vote on the
application. That that's my feeling. Thank you. Mr. Bixler, if I could ask again, um I know you're the project manager and in understanding now that there was a pipe
buried and a runoff retention area, I can't imagine that being done without an engineering services. Was there an engineering organization involved that you worked with for this project to
I could not speak to that. It it wasn't part of my project. That pipe that is in question. Okay. I will find an answer for it. Please. Yes. Thank you. Since there's going to be a continuation
or request for continuation, something that would help to know is more precise information on the history of the tenants on the property. How can it be in a property that um the need for parking by the tenants has grown by
almost a third? Um when it it raises a question in my mind is the is the property being used for permitted uses or is it has the use somehow been expanded? Um, so I would just want to know that if we could. Yeah. And I would I would say there's 32
spots already without the seven. And if it's a drive-thru following, who goes in the other say if you have four workers, you still have uh, you know, 20some spot. Like I don't I can't see all this parking being needed. You know,
some of those spots are taken up by a dumpster that isn't shown yet. So there's a dumpster that doesn't have any of the fencing or anything like that. Here's a picture. So that takes up two of the spots. Oh yeah.
And when I was out there last week, Mr. chairman. Yeah. Um to help sum this up a little bit, um the applicant has to decide whether or not, and I'm sort of putting the planners hat on now from uh because Liz is not here. The applicant has to decide whether or not they want to keep the
improvements that they're asking for tonight and then somehow enhance the property either through landscaping or buffering or something else to replace trees, limbs, whatever was done there.
Okay. Um and then uh or you know or or remove the uh items that have been put in including the parking and the pavement and that kind of stuff that would would then uh bring the property back to a point where uh less of that
mitigation would be needed. And so it's not really up to the board to decide that. It's up to the applicant to come back in with a feasible plan one way or the other that will satisfy the board uh
that the public hasn't been harmed. I I would add to that I I if um you decide you want to keep what's there. I mean we you have to bring the stuff up to code. I mean it sounds like the the paving wasn't done properly. there's no
curbing, you know, all that needs to be included. The uh drainage system needs to be examined. Um, you know, to make sure everything complies with our ordinances because what you have now does not. Okay. So, thank you. Yes. To to to repeat my
earlier request, we would be seeking a continuation as pointed out by Mr. Hoder. We've got some homework to do, some considerations to be made. We appreciate all members of the public coming out and giving their views. Those are all also appreciated. They're very informative to me and I know to the
applicant. Uh so we've got our homework to do and and we'd ask that this hearing be continued. Uh and we'll be back another another day. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we should ask Mr. Brennan, how much time do you think you need?
The It's now August 7th. I I would I would say we'll we would be probably shoot for the October meeting at this point. We also understand we we were we had filed this application months ago and I know this board just it was it was tough to get in front of the
board. We we got pushed a couple times. So, uh but I think we'd be gearing up to file in order to be in in October. We'd be filing in September. So, that's probably pretty aggressive. That's but that's what we'd be shooting for.
Well, the reason I ask is that the board would have to adopt an oral resolution tonight to continue the hearing to a specific date and no further notice would be given to all these folks out there who are interested. So, we got to pick a realistic date.
Yeah. So realistically, why don't we, since we're talking about the first Wednesday of each month for this hearing, why don't we look at the November November. November maybe. Do you have the date?
October is October 1st. November is November 5th. November 5th. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a more realistic schedule, I think. So, I I would suggest
that you entertain a motion to extend the the hearing to November 5th and there will be no further notice and then if things collapse in between then, we can let everybody know. So that that should be a motion by somebody to continue and all the
neighbors hear the new date and hopefully in between uh they'll start to be good neighborish and maybe invite you in to take a look at some of the revisions, some of the plantings, some of the things that they
plan to do going forward before the meeting so that you all might have a good idea of what you're talking about. Pearls of wisdom. That's a a great idea. Thank you. So So go ahead.
Let me see if I can get I make a motion to continue this applications meeting for the 5th of November without the need for additional notice without the necess without the
requirement for additional notification. I'll second that. And just do all in favor. Yeah. All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. So, a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn.
Thank you. Second that. We are journ. Thank you. Okay. At the November 5th, there's a holiday. It's known as guy for standing.