Mahwah September 1, 2010 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 7 Board sets hearing on service station concerns by Frank J. McMahon The Mahwah Zoning Board of Adjustment has set a tentative date of Sept. 15 for a public hearing of the concerns expressed by township officials and neighboring property owners about the reconstruction of a service station and convenience store on Route 17 North. The zoning board approved the reconstruction of the service station in March 2007, and affirmed that decision via a memorializing resolution in April 2007. The applicant in that matter was ADPP Enterprises, Inc., which is owned by the same principals who own several Valero service stations in Mahwah, including the one on the south side of Route 17. They are also the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Pilot Corporation, which is constructing a gasoline and diesel fuel service station and convenience store on a 4.5-acre site on the southbound side of Route 17. The zoning board approved ADPP’s plan to demolish an existing convenience store and a two-story frame dwelling and garage on one of the four lots owned by ADPP and to construct a new 3,675 square foot convenience store on the site with a reconfiguration of the parking lot, additional parking spaces, a new traffic island, new signs, new landscaping, new fencing, a landscaped and terraced berm with retaining walls, a new trash and recycling enclosure, new striping, minor renovations to the two rows of fuel pump islands closest to Route 17, and the removal of an existing shed. The property is in the B-40 highway commercial zone, and the applicant’s proposed use was a conditional one which did not meet all of the requirements of the conditional use ordinance, thereby necessitating the variance. The zoning board placed several conditions on its approval of the application. Under those conditions, ADPP was to provide documentation that the uses within the convenience store were permitted by the township, design and construct a buffer system sufficient to block all noise and light from the property and not affect adjacent property owners, reconfigure the parking and on-site traffic circulation in conformance with township ordinance requirements, install new landscaping, have a maximum of three employees working the fuel pumps and three inside the convenience store, allow no customer or truck parking in front of the convenience store, design the drainage so there would be no off-site impact, and properly maintain the storm water system on an annual basis. The approval also contained conditions that required a new fire hydrant in the area near the exit driveway, installation of signs prohibiting horn honking and indicating that a residential zone is nearby, and removal of an opaque window from the rear of the proposed building; the replacement of an exterior light near the entrance driveway. The applicant was also required to limit construction to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and to perform the construction in strict conformance with the plans submitted. Concerns that have been expressed by township officials and neighbors include the applicant’s failure to construct an island with a three-foot high block wall within the parking aisle area of the property, construct a three-foot high block wall around the air pump island, install the air pump island at the correct length and the additional parking space in the vicinity of the air pump island, and build the light/sound barrier wall on the property to the proper length. The concerns also involve the following items: a gap between the convenience store and the adjacent wall on the property, wall lights installed on the rear of the convenience store that are contrary to the board’s approval, two flood lights that were located on utility poles outside the property, canopy light shields that have not been installed, the walkway installed at the rear of the convenience store that is contrary to the board’s approval, the chain link fence proposed on the property near the terminus of Avenue A that is contrary to the board’s approval, and the rear emergency access door to the convenience store, which is also said to be contrary to the board’s approval. Peter Flannery, the attorney representing ADPP, has responded to these concerns, and some have been addressed. Darrel Siss, the attorney representing a couple who own a neighboring property, recently told the board that, while the applicant has addressed many of his clients’ concerns, his clients still have objections to the project. Those main objections now pertain to a crawl space that has become a basement with lights, and the sight line to the canopy lights. He also said trucks idle at the island and noted that the air pump has been knocked over. Siss said the board should become involved to make sure the project will be built as approved. ��������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������� ������������������������� ����������������������������� ������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ������������ ��������������������������� ����������������������