The Franklin Reporter & Advocate Eight Villages, One Community
The developer of a proposed outdoor storage space on State Route 27 is reviewing its plans after appearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on January 8.
The reconsideration came after it became apparent that Board members had many questions about the proposal.
The Board was concerned about two issues, mainly: first, there are no regulations on the books concerning outdoor storage areas, and second, the developer, Jadian IOS, changed its plan from what was originally submitted to the Township.
The original plan was to transform a bus staging area into a general storage area that included space for tractor-trailer storage. The site is located near Churchill Road.
The idea for storing tractor-trailers was scrapped in favor of making the space a storage area for contractors, such as landscapers.
But there was no update to the plans, which would include details such as how the contractors’ materials would be stored and how visible the material would be from Rt. 27.
Adding to the lack of clarity is the fact that Franklin does not have on the books any regulations concerning outdoor storage areas.
In fact, Board chairman Robert Thomas mentioned that in all of his years on the Board, he did not remember ever seeing this type of application.
John Grib, Jadian IOS’s vice president, said there would be between one and three tenants on the property, and that typical operations occur around-the-clock.
He told the Board that there would be no combustible stored on the site, and there would not be constant traffic in and out of the property.
“From materials, it’s typically on the building material supplies, so think granite, your tiles, your cobblestone and stones of that effect, but it really varies depending on the tenant,” he said.
An 8-foot-tall fenced entry gate would be erected, the Board was told.
During the course of the hearing, Mark Healey, the Township’s principal planner, said there were still some details that had to be worked out.
“I think generally, the use of having an area where people can have outside storage, from my perspective, is a benefit,” he said. “There are access issues, and that’s been the big part of the discussions, frankly, that we have had.”
“I can tell you that we have had problems every day with landscapers popping up in residential areas and it’s like whack-a-mole,” he said. “So … having a location or locations where landscapers can go store their vehicles, store their materials in a responsible way, I think perhaps other outdoor storage uses like that, having a location or a few locations in town where they can go is definitely a positive, as opposed to them popping up all in different residential areas and us chasing them around town for years at a time.”
“So, to the degree that this would incorporate those type uses and allow them and, again, control them, as we’re talking about fencing and enclosing the areas of outdoor storage, generally I think if we go in that direction that this could be a positive and perhaps reduce some impacts that we see in the planning and zoning department,” he said. “So, I’ll just leave it at that.”
Near the end of the hearing, Healey repeated his belief that he type of facilities proposed by the developer are needed in town, but there was a caveat.
“With all of that said, we have a site plan that doesn’t match the use that they’re proposing,” he said.
“The site plan is showing 100 and whatever it is, 98 tractor storage areas,” he said. “And we heard that that’s not the use that they’re proposing. They’re proposing an unspecified mix of outdoor storage uses.”
“But we don’t have a site plan that addresses how that would be done,” Healey said. “And then if there are different things that we would want to implement for those different types of outdoor storage uses, we have nothing in the site plan.”
“We don’t have any parameters to review at this point,” he said. “If it’s a landscaper, what are they required to do? If it’s a contractor yard, what are they required to do? There’s no parameters for me to enforce. So that’s where I stand on this.”
“And maybe the applicant needs to come back and refine their proposal that the board was inclined to consider it,” he said. “Have them come back and fine tune it to match what their proposal is right now. So that’s my overall suggestion to you.”
“Maybe you’re right,” Board chairman Robert Thomas said. “Maybe we need to ask them to adjust the site plan to make it fit what they’re, as you said, the use that they’re making at it. But at this point, the concept, I have to tell you, the concept I think is valuable and it’s good and we probably need it.”
“I’m not ready to draft any kind of a resolution because there are just so many things,” Board vice chairman Robert Shepherd said. “I’m not feeling like we’re ready to do that. But I would agree with both what Mark said and what Bob said. It’s something that the town needs.”
“But I think that generally speaking, we like the idea,” he said. “We’re just not comfortable with the way it’s presented.”
“We hear you loud and clear,” project attorney Simone Calli said. “I think it’s most prudent if we can tweak our site plan, get it a little bit more detailed. As Mr. Healey indicated, what’s shown there with the stalls might be confusing since we aren’t proposing that anymore.”
“We can do better, and that’s what we’d like to do and have the opportunity to tweak our site plan and come back,” she said.
The Board is scheduled to take up the application again at its February 5 meeting.
Stay ‘In the Know,’ subscribe to the Franklin Reporter & Advocate!
No other media outlet covering Franklin Township brings you the depth of information presented by the Franklin Reporter & Advocate. Period. We are the only truly independent media serving the Eight Villages.
But we can only do that with your support. Please consider a yearly subscription to our online news site; at $37 a year, it’s one of the best investments you can make for yourself.
To subscribe, please click here.
