Land Use Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BURLINGTON

LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES

JANUARY 23, 2013

The City of Burlington Land Use Board held a monthly meeting on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 in the City Hall Complex, 525 High Street, Burlington, New Jersey.

Members present: Chairwoman Claudine Conaway, Vice Chairman Samuel Richter, Officer Matthew Mercuri, Councilwoman Helen Hatala, , Raymond Schobert and Charles Johnston (6). Absent: David Ballard, Victor Carnivale, Michael Johnson and David Tishler (4).

Also present: Board Solicitor M. Lou Garty, Engineer K. Wendell Bibbs and Board Secretary Diane Burns.

APPLICATIONS

Shailesh Vyas

Application #662-13

410 High Street (Block 32, Lot 4)

Preliminary & Final site plan / pre-existing use variance / liquor store

Attorney George Hulse represented the application along with the Property Owner,Dixit Chaurushia, Partner Bhavish Pujara and the Project’s Engineer Adnan Kahn. Mr. Hulse explained that the applicant proposes to open a retail liquor store in the vacant, building formerly used as a grocery store. The Board’s Engineer’s review memorandum dated January 23, 2013 was received. The Applicant’s Engineer, Mr. Kahn explained the general nature of the proposed changes to be made to the building for the proposed business use. The proposed liquor store is atthe site of a vacant storefront which had been a furniture store. The property is located in the C-1 Commercial District. 99% of the property is covered with pavement and/or covered by the building. Mr. Kahn further identified on plans where the storage and stock rooms are located in the rear of the proposed retail liquor store. Deliveries to the store will be made by a box/beer truck in the rear of the store where the food store has its deliveries made. The door in this location is a double door. The Board’s Engineer, Mr. Bibbs reviewed his memorandum. Mr. Bibbs pointed out that the condition of the parking lot has not been addressed. Mr. Kahn testified that they will provide parking spots for 3 employees and noted there are 3 employees in the grocery store. Applicant feels that High Street parking will be adequate for their customers and noted many patrons will be walking to their store. It was noted the alleyway is utilized to reach the rear parking lot. Recycling will be provided as currently on site; but, it was testified the trash and recycling area will be enclosed. The existing lighting in the rear parking area was noted to be inadequate, but the Applicant agreed to add additional lighting onto the existing pole or add another pole but did not specify the strength or placement of the proposed improvement to lighting. It was noted the alleyway was dark and poses a safety hazard. Mr. Kahn testified that he wouldreview the area and suggest some type of additional lighting for the alley, but did not state specifics as to placement or strength of the lighting. Applicant’s Engineer stated he would coordinate additional/new lighting with the Engineer as well as submit a revised plan. When questioned, it was noted the applicant proposes no signage at this point. Members noted signage will be subject to HPC review. Board Engineer testifiedthat the rear parking lot is in disrepair and noted significant potholes and other problems with the surface which pose a safety hazard. The parking lot would have to be repaired, surfaced, striped and made ADA compliant.

Board Chairwoman and members voiced concern with the condition of the alley, particularly as to lighting and a safety concern. Property Owner Chaurushia assured the Board the alleyway will be cleaned. Attorney Hulse stated his office is next door and noted the parking lot and alleyway has always been a nuisance and maintenance problem; but, asserted that through this application, there is an opportunity to address the conditions. Chairwoman Conaway stated she has safety concern about the parking lot and alley areasbeing maintained to provide for better safety. The Applicant agreed to add a trash receptacle to the rear and to the front. When questioned, Attorney Hulse represented to the Board that his client has a “D” liquor license for a liquor store which was being purchased from Burlington City Beverage, LLC which transfer is subject to approval by the Governing Body. Officer Mercuri asked if the license has an address. Mr. Hulse represented that he was not aware of the transferee’s address and that they were attemptingto find it. A question was asked whetherthe license is currently being used. Mr. Hulse stated they are under contract for the license; but, he did not know and would attempt to find out whether it is being used. Mr. Hulse noted that if there is no liquor license there will be no liquor store.

Mr. Bhavish Pujara sworn in. It was asserted that he is a partner in a company owned by the Applicant and that he has the authority to speak for the other partners in the partnership. It was noted that the Applicant was a person, not a corporation and that no documentation had been submitted as to the existence or structure of the corporation. Mr. Hulse represented to the Board that Mr. Pujara is a partner in an LLC owned by Mr. Vyas. Mr. Pujara stated that he agrees to work with the Board Engineer to resolve the deficiencies cited. Mr. Pujara has owned the property and been involved with the grocery store since 2005. Chairwoman Conaway stated the condition of the alleyway is horrible and questioned why it has not been cleaned, maintained and the parking lot made safe prior to this application. Mr. Hulse stated his clients have not received complaints from the City. Mr. Hulse further commented that Iris Lane is owned by the City. He agrees that the pot holes in the parking lot are horrible and have been that way for the past 15 years. Mr. Hulse asserted that this application would change that area because it would be paved as a condition of approval for this use. Board members commented concerning the condition of the alleyway and noted a significant safety concern as to lighting and the persistent condition of trash and debris in the alleyway. Mr. Hulse argued that a Resolution approving the Application would provide the City with enforcement power. Members voiced concern for safety as there is much unseemly activity in this area which poses a threat to safety in the area and for pedestrians traveling past the area. Mr. Hulse suggested that a condition or provision for maintenance could be included in the lease agreement. A question was raised as to the existence of a lease and neither the Applicant nor the Attorney could produce an executed lease between the Applicant and the property owner.

Mr. Hulse also suggested that the Applicant would agree to and provide for dusk to dawn lighting. He stated he would be willing to produce the document for the next meeting. He concluded his comments by stating it will be to his benefit the area be kept clean and maintained as his office is near to the subject premises. Officer Mercuri commented that this level of enforcement is hard for one person to enforce with a property that has not previously been addressed. He noted that the front of the property is also in poor shape and thathe has never seen anyone cleaning up the premises. Mr. Mercuri also stated he has concern with the number of signs in the grocery store windows. He expressed a concern that the landlord-property owner has not previously addressed these conditions and noted his observation of unabated loitering in front of the grocery store, which hebelieves would be worse with the presence of a package goods type of liquor store.

Mr. Hulse addressed those concerns by commenting on his own problems as a business owner with bus stop patrons. The Property owner stated there had been a gate across the alleyway which fell down and he noted that the alleyway lights had beendamaged. Members discussed their concern with pedestrian traffic that now simply walk across from Library Street. Mr. Hulse asserted that people cross in the area all day and further assertedthat this proposedliquor store is ina downtown area located only a block away from what he asserts is a depressed neighborhood. Mr. Hulse asserted that another prior liquor store in the immediate area was only open for six months. Mr. Hulse stated this is a change of use and asserted that a vacant storefront is not a positivepresence for that area. Councilwoman Hatala stated that prescribed maintenance should be a condition of approval. Ms. Hatala referred to another business applicant who came before the Board, that the loitering concern at that location was pointed out to the Applicant, that promises were made, the Application was approved but that since the approval, she has seen no one at that property. Board Solicitor Garty indicated that various documentation should be provided for the Board’s consideration, including a lease indicating the respective maintenance obligations. Mr. Hulse agreed.

Board Solicitor Garty swore in Mr. Dixit Chaurushia who asserted that he is a business partner of the Applicant. Mr. Chaurushia testified that for two years, he has owned and operated a liquor store in Camden and that Apat Pathea owns the license. Mr. Chaurushia asserted that he will be the primary one working in the proposed store and thatthere will be two or three employees at this location. He recited the proposed hours of operation and testified that the store will sell beer, wine and liquor. He agreed with the assertion that the front of the store will have to be swept, cleaned and maintained, and agrees to place trash receptacles on the site, agrees to clean the alleyway and the rear of the building, and agrees to the trash/recycle enclosure as discussed this evening. When questioned by Officer Mercuri, Mr. Chaurushia stated the address of the liquor store in Camden. Officer Mercuri asked about the operation and condition of that store. Mr. Chaurushia states the landlord cleans the exterior every night and they clean during the day. Officer Mercuri noted the Camden location is in a strip mall. Mr. Hulse asked if there is loitering at this store, Mr. Pujara admitted that there is some loitering and noted that the Camden police help them with dispersing loitering. He further admitted that persons pan handle for change at that location but that has decreased within the past 6 to 7 months due to police enforcement. When questioned, Mr. Pujara stated they do call the police when persons do not move along when they request them to do so.

Mr. Mercuri questioned the plan that indicates the location of an entrance door. Mr. Kahn stated it is proposed to allow entrance directly into the store. Councilwoman Hatala questioned the truck route for deliveries. Mr. Hulse asserted that the route will be into the lot from W. Broad Street similar to how food delivery trucks entered for the grocery store. When questioned, Mr. Chaurushia stated the Camden store will be run by his wife who works there now with him. Members questioned the application being submitted by an individual, not a corporation, and that the individual is from another state. Mr. Hulse admitted that the application process appears to raise some procedures concerns, that when the application was made, Mr. Dixit Chaurushia was in India andassured the Board that beforethe next hearing the application will be properly amended. Mr. Hulse, made certain representations as to how the LLC is comprised.

Mr. Bibbs noted that a substantial amount of work has to be done to the drawings for the Board to have enough documentation to know how the various features addressed on this property will be situated, how the various safety issues will beremedied specifically and indicated that the plans submitted with the application are significantly deficient. He also believes the application should be resubmitted. He continued by stating he wants details of the parking lot, a better floor plan per the new entrance, wants to see how the unloading/loading zone for trucks, utilities poles need to be protected by bollards which may decrease parking, appropriate lighting details. He wants to see the restroom facility laid out on the floor plan. It was explained HPC approval is required for certain exterior items which needs HPC review first. Mr. Hulse questioned why a floor plan is being requested. Mr. Bibbs stated the dimensions of the proposed liquor store have to be nailed down specifically. Mr. Hulse noted the area already exists as it is the actual size of the vacant furniture store.

Public Comment: John Kong of 433 Locust Avenue was sworn in. Mr. Kong stated he has a lot of concerns as this type of store feels like a problem to him. He noted he lives right behind this proposal. He continued by saying this area is very close to a depressed area. He did a quick Google search and submits to the Board Members copies of two print outs. One is a finding on “Low-Income Neighborhoods Home to Higher Number of Liquor Stores” and the second entitled “Off-Premises Liquor Stores Targeted to Poor Urban Blacks”. He wonders why anyone would want to put this liquor store in this location due to the cited safety concerns and what he believes will be a negative effect on the area. He stated last spring his wife and he started cleaning up Iris Lane and wound up with bags and bags of liquor bottles. He stated Iris Lane is a cut through to Broad Street by many vehicles. Mr. Hulse stated there is no easement and that the cut through lane could be closed off. Mr. Kong wonders how they know the deliveries will be made from W. Broad Street and noted that the property has not been cleaned or maintained in the last 2 ½ years since he has been here. Mr. Kongstated that he doesn’t want to see the town going down like Camden. He concluded his remarks by noting there are already 4 liquor stores in the area people can walk to. He stated it is his experience now is that people continually walk up to him asking for money and that this activity and the littering will only increase. The Public portion closed.

Mr. Hulse statedthat in closing, he has been a business owner in this location for 20 years and has seen the decline of the area. He stated people are moved and come right back which is the way in small towns. He stated the proposed use is a permitted use and stated approval can set a control of the use and area. He feels this is a great opportunity to impose conditions. He also feels the approval could lead to other businesses and owners cleaning up. Chairwoman Conaway wonders how having it is writing will make the property owners clean up if he hasn’t felt the need to do so far. She believes people need to feel safe and that the use of this property as a liquor store with the lack of lighting, the poor condition of the parking lot and previous failure to maintain the building will decrease an already challenging property as it relates to safety and maintenance. Mr. Hulse assertedthat his client is committed to improving the property, that the improvements will take more than a $40,000 commitment, but that the Applicant wanted to get feedback from this Board first. Board Solicitor Garty stated safety is a very great concern as to this property. There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Richter moved to continue this application not beyond April so as to allow time for the applicant to submit an amended application and site plan and to obtain the HPC recommendation and submit other recommended documentation as suggested and requested by the Board. The Motion was seconded by Officer Mercuri. Roll call vote. All in favor. Mr. Hulse commented he will re-notice for a hearing date when this matter is ready to proceed.

BOARD BUSINESS

Solicitor Garty stated the Board did not appoint a secondary newspaper at their reorganization meeting. Councilwoman Hatala named the Burlington County Times, second from Mr. Schobert. Roll call vote. All in favor.

Mr. Richter moved to accept the minutes of the November 28, 2012 meeting, second from Mr. Schobert. Roll call vote. Not Voting: Councilwoman Hatala. All in favor.

Officer Mercuri moved to accept the minutes of the special reorganization meeting held on January 10, 2013. Motion seconded by Mr. Schobert. Roll call vote. All in favor.

PENDING RESOLUTIONS

1). Burlington County Historical Society / 451 High Street (Block 137, Lot 56) – granted a waiver from site plan – change of use to utilize the proposal as its administrative offices. Board Member Johnston moved for approval, second from Mr. Richter. Roll call vote. Not Voting: Councilwoman Hatala. All in favor. 2). Cementex, Inc. / 650 Jacksonville Road (Block 221, Lot 3.04) – minor site plan approval and variances to construct an addition. Officer Mercuri moved for approval, second from Mr. Schobert. Roll call vote. Not Voting: Councilwoman Hatala. All in favor. 3). Resolutions appointing Professionals and Conflict Professionals for the 2013 Board Engineer, Solicitor, Planner. Board Member Schobert moved for approval, second from Mr. Richter. Roll call vote. Not Voting: Councilwoman Hatala. All in favor.

There being no further business or public comment the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

DIANE BURNS, Secretary to the Board