The most significant topic of the meeting was the detailed examination of BOA Case Number 08-D2023. The applicant, represented by attorney Steven Grunberg, sought a D1 use variance to convert a previously approved self-storage concrete pad into an outdoor vehicle storage area. Grunberg clarified that the application was intended to amend prior approvals, which had expired over a decade ago. Board attorney John Drill emphasized the need for clarity on the expired approvals and the potential requirement for an amended site plan approval for the other concrete pad still designated for development. “Approvals run with the land except if there’s an express provision that they expire,” Drill noted.

Engineering and planning expert John Hansen presented an aerial imagery exhibit labeled A1, depicting the subject site and its surroundings. Hansen highlighted that the property, located in the B5 low-intensity highway district and developed for around 20 years, is well-maintained with mature landscaping. He described the existing metal structures with an Earth Tone color scheme, blending into the environment. He also reviewed the historical context of the site, noting that a prior approved site plan from 2003 included specific impervious coverage and parking space requirements that had been adhered to.

The discussion turned to the proposal’s logistics, particularly the removal of existing concrete pads to be replaced with pavement for outdoor storage. Hansen explained that the decision to remove the concrete was due to safety concerns arising from uneven surfaces created by the stepped construction. Photographs attached to exhibit A1 were used to illustrate the current state of the site. Board members inquired about the parking layout for larger vehicles such as boats and RVs, with Hansen clarifying that there would be no additional lighting proposed and the remaining concrete would stay as it is.

Security and safety emerged as concerns. A board member questioned the adequacy of the parking design, specifically the angled parking layout, and whether it would permit easy access for larger vehicles. They emphasized that prospective renters should ensure their vehicles fit the design to avoid being “essentially caught in a spot and can’t get out.” Fire safety was also a concern, particularly regarding access for emergency vehicles. A proposed condition to ensure parked vehicles would not extend over striped parking spaces was favorable to maintain accessibility for emergency services.

Security measures were scrutinized, particularly the storage of campers and the risk of theft or vandalism. The response highlighted that security cameras were installed throughout the facility, and access was controlled via a keypad to ensure only authorized individuals could enter. However, concerns remained about potential vulnerabilities, such as someone cutting through or climbing the fence.

The board also discussed signage at the facility, specifically a freestanding sign on the property identified as “100 and Storage 2 Flemington.” The applicant sought approval for additional signage, including a two-by-two private property no-parking sign. Deliberations revealed the need for clarity on the sign’s location and compliance with zoning regulations. The applicant was advised to revise plans to show the precise locations of proposed signs, with some potentially requiring a variance due to visibility and placement.

Towards the end of the meeting, procedural matters were addressed, with the board agreeing to continue the hearing to October 17. A timeline for the submission of revised plans was established, with a “drop dead date” set for September 26. Any amendments to the application would require a new public notice, particularly concerning the proposed building closest to the highway. The meeting concluded with the board acknowledging receipt of new plans addressing previous professional reports and agreeing to proceed without seeking an adjournment despite receiving materials on the day of the hearing.