[RP TownTalk] Jeys Auto 5731 Baltimore Avenue

[Bruce Wernek]

Hi Jonathan

 

While we are on the subject of imminent domain, why has Jemal been spared?
His buildings have been vacant for almost as long.  It appears that Jemal is
doing something, but so has Jey.  Jey’s cleaned up his place recently.  

 

I can’t see the difference between Jey and Jemal.  To be honest, I feel more
confident about Jey getting something going vs Jemal given his track record.


 

Bruce

 

From: towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org
[mailto:towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan W.
Ebbeler
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 5:25 PM
To: towntalk at riverdale-park.org
Subject: [RP TownTalk] Jeys Auto 5731 Baltimore Avenue

 

Hey Bruce – 

 

I am going to have to quibble with a couple of the points you brought up or
at least offer my sentiments.

 

I was not in town during the original proposal you speak of so cannot
comment on the events that went down but the portrayal is factually
inaccurate from a zoning/land-use perspective.  Prior to land being rezoned
to M-U-TC zoning in 2004 the land parcel was zoned C-S-C.  When the gas
tanks were removed and the Use and Occupancy permit expired, specific land
parcels only have 180 days under County Code for ‘grandfathering’ the use.
After the 180 days of a U&O not being in place, normal County zoning process
and procedures apply.  A gas station under C-S-C is treated in the identical
fashion as under M-U-TC – it is only permitted under the satisfaction of the
Special Exception process.  It would not have mattered if Jey had filed the
paperwork before the zoning ordinance or after – the impact would have been
almost identical.  Either before or after the U&O would only be approved via
the County’s Special Exception processing which is a fairly high barrier to
overcome; the owner lost grandfathering on that use a long time before the
2004 Ordinance.  The assertion that if Jey had filed a few weeks prior to
the 2004 Zoning Ordinance would have been meant that he would then have a
conforming use is factually flawed.

 

I am not sure why a business owner’s personal financial situation is even
being discussed, but to that point the property was paid off and banks are a
great source of equity financing when an asset owned free and clear.  The
developer has been approached numerous times by 3rd parties wanting to buy
outright, lease, and/or develop it out as an equity partner and to date has
only made the most basic of overtures of developing the site with
non-conforming uses.

 

Since I attended the M-U-TC meeting, I can share your frustration with the
process, but as someone who has had to apply the same standards consistently
with every developer in the zone, I respectfully have a different memory of
the meeting.  I listed out in a prior email what everyone is required to
bring to the meetings for evaluation of permits.  His architect did come but
only had a single copy of a site plan; nothing was provided to committee
members prior to the meeting.   The site plan does not show the façade,
schedule of materials nor is an elevation drawing.  It does not show
landscaping, lighting, screening, tree canopy coverage, etc.  We were shown
a color picture of what looked to be an existing Dunkin Donuts from
somewhere else that looked larger than the existing building on the site and
had no correlation to this site. 

 

The fundamental problem with that night was that the applicant had applied
for permits under one use and came to the M-U-TC committee prepared to talk
about another use.  We can only consider a permit that is in front of us,
not permits that may or may not ever be filed.  There was also an erroneous
interpretation of the zoning rules by the applicant in that they
misinterpreted the language to read that the M-U-TC standards do not apply
since the existing  building has some form of grandfathering.  It is true
that since the applicant only proposed an addition of 245.99 square feet
that is 3.595 sq. ft. under the trigger for full-review; there is a caveat
to that.  That trigger only grandfathers the developer from not having to
comply with the Building Placement and Streetscape page (i.e. the building
is not required to be picked up and moved closer to Route 1); the rest of
the voluminous standards apply. 

 

If I wasn’t down in the weeds with the details I would be completely
confused by what exactly we were supposed to evaluate.  Before the meeting,
the M-U-TC committee was told that we were going to be considering a
coffeehouse, when I looked up the permits I saw the applicant had applied
for a convenience store, and when presented Shanty expressed that they had
considered a Starbucks/Caribou but knew the area could not afford a $4 cup
of coffee so they decided to bring in a Quick Service Restaurant/Dunkin
Donuts.  We are perfectly willing and prepared to negotiate a development on
the parcel but first need to know what it is not just be told by the
applicant to ‘just approve it and then I will give you quality.’

 

The developer was provided a detailed checklist of all the mandatory
standards prior to the meeting that it could use for guidance.  We are
applying the same standards to this site that were applied to the
Spiropoulos’ build-out of Town Center Market and the same set of standards
that will be applied to Town Center when Douglas Development comes before
M-U-TC.  This parcel and development is in no way being singled out or
treated any differently than anyone else that has come before M-U-TC.   

 

At this point we have not heard any response to our requests for additional
information, items that should have been readily available if the applicant
was preparing to move forward, nor have we been notified that the applicant
has elected to pursue the Special Exception process.  The Town would love a
thriving business on that site since it is a gateway property.             

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

Jonathan W. Ebbeler | Councilmember - Ward One

Chair, Economic Development Committee

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20130303/234c23ee/attachment.html>