submit architectural plans for the warehouse building. Mr. Pfeffer stated that the owner placed stucco on the front of the existing building. The owner did improve it and clean it up when he acquired it.
Mr. Sullivan asked if the statement of operations is basically how they are operating at this time. Mr. Pfeffer replied yes, except for all of the outdoor storage of materials. All that will be removed. Dr. Campbell asked if they will stipulating no overnight parking. Mr. Pfeffer replied yes.
Mr. Heller asked about the restrooms. He asked if there is going to be plumbing. Mr. Macfarlane replied yes, there will be plumbing in the building. They have water and sewer going to the building. There will be bathrooms for each of the units. There is one small office in each unit.
Mr. Bressi stated that their frontage on Diana Road is going to be 24 feet, but the rest of that is 15 feet. The applicant is going to use that road a lot. He asked if there is any contribution or anything the applicant can do to take the rest of the roadway and widen it to that 24 feet. He realizes they are not obligated to do that, but he thinks it is important, even if it is just from where they come out and make their left that way. They are increasing the traffic. Mr. Bressi said one of their trucks could sink in a hole out there. Mr. Pfeffer stated that if the Board is going to insist that it is a condition they have to do it. But they are improving a lot of the area. The roadway is currently traveled. They are doing their part. Mr. Bressi said they are increasing the traffic substantially. It would be the right thing to do. It is an expense for the applicant, but sometimes it goes along with the application. Mr. Bressi would like to see that as a stipulation. Dr. Campbell stated the Board is considering a quite a number of variances, so it is a trade. Mr. Pfeffer offered 23.5 feet. Mr. Sullivan said it is beneficial for the applicant because it will make the road safer for his vehicles. Mr. Macfarlane offered that if the applicant is to undertake that additional road improvement that they get credit for that cost taken away from their contribution to the Pedestrian Safety Fund because the applicant is being asked to make additional improvements which are not along his property frontage which in his opinion meets the definition of offsite improvement. He is not really sure the Board has the authority to require offsite. Dr. Campbell did not think the Board could do that. Mr. Klee agreed. Mr. Shea explained that the Pedestrian Safety Fund is a creature of ordinance, so that is a calculation. The applicant would have to request a waiver from that from the Township Council to be exempt from that ordinance. Mr. Pfeffer did not know if there are trees or not that are blocking that roadway to make it a full 24 foot. Mr. Macfarlane stated they are now also going to limit the movement from the site onto Diana Road as exiting movements only, so their traffic in theory is only going to be using half the road, not the full road. Asking the applicant to fully improve the road to 24 feet when he is going to be restricted from using one half of the road is a little bit of a stretch in his opinion. Maybe there is a middle ground somewhere. Mr. Peters strongly suggested to Dr. Campbell that the Board should not get into negotiations with the applicant. They are required by ordinance to do frontage improvements, period. If there is something that the Board thinks is over the top, that is fine, but he strongly cautioned about getting into negotiations with an applicant. Dr. Campbell asked if it can be done, will the applicant take a look at it and consider it. Mr. Pfeffer replied yes.