Springfield Sun - - NEWS -

Lutke­witte to come back with a re­design in Novem­ber.

Ques­tions re­gard­ing own­er­ship of the prop­erty, whether vari­ances not ap­plied for might also be re­quired and town­ship en­gi­neer Tom Foun­tain’s lack of ap­proval of the plan were raised at the zon­ing hear­ing.

Both town­ship Solic­i­tor David Brooman and Ge­orge Ozorowski, an at­tor­ney rep­re­sent­ing cit­i­zens group Fort Wash­ing­ton Rescape, at­tended the hear­ing.

Karp said the con­tin­u­ance to Nov. 27 would give Bay LLC time to present doc­u­men­ta­tion of own­er­ship, an op­por­tu­nity to The re­design of the med­i­cal mar­i­juana fa­cil­ity sub­mit­ted by Bay LLC at the Oct. 30 zon­ing board hear­ing. amend its ap­pli­ca­tion for zon­ing re­lief and pos­si­ble fur­ther dis­cus­sions to elicit “a pos­i­tive con­clu­sion” from Foun­tain.

“I ap­pre­ci­ate the chal­lenges the prop­erty rep­re­sents,” Lutke­witte said, not­ing Bay LLC, which has a lease, re­cently en­tered into an agree­ment of sale.

Lutke­witte ex­plained the process in­volved in dis­pens­ing med­i­cal mar­i­juana to those el­i­gi­ble, and said no con­sump­tion would take place on the premises.

Re­fer­ring to “strin­gent re­quire­ments that re­quire de­tailed se­cu­rity,” he said the build­ing “will be a highly se­cure fa­cil­ity” with a “se­cure un­load­ing” area, “strict con­trol of the prod­uct in a vault,” and dis­pensed only to those “qual­i­fied by the state, with a doc­tor’s pre­scrip­tion and phar­ma­cist’s rec­om­men­da­tion.”

“Rev­enue is cur­rently in cash” and “we will have an equally se­cure area,” he said.

An­drew Gior­gione, an at­tor­ney rep­re­sent­ing Bay LLC, said, as re­quested by the town­ship board of com­mis­sion­ers, “We would agree to re­strict recre­ational mar­i­juana from the site,” in the event the law is changed to per­mit its sale in Penn­syl­va­nia.

Ad­dress­ing con­cerns of the plan­ning com­mis­sion, he said Bay would like to de­fer an ex­pan­sion of Penn­syl­va­nia Av­enue “un­til the en­tire road­way is ex­panded,” would “not be able to con­sider a 20-foot set­back for park­ing,” but has agreed to re­move an ingress/egress near Com­merce Drive and “ad­dress any light­ing con­cerns and de­sign is­sues.”

Foun­tain has sug­gested the build­ing be built on piers, due to be­ing in the flood­plain, but Marc Kurowski, the project en­gi­neer, said sev­eral feet of fill or stone-type ma­te­rial would be be­low the base of the build­ing to pro­vide “flood vent­ing” if needed. “It would not cre­ate a rise in the base flood el­e­va­tion,” he said.

“I do not be­lieve it could be de­vel­oped in ac­cor­dance with the zon­ing code,” Kurowski said.

Asked by Brooman about evac­u­a­tion in the event of a flood, he said the prop­erty “is not sus­cep­ti­ble to a rapid rise of wa­ter. There would be am­ple time to no­tify [oc­cu­pants] and leave the site.”

Not­ing “we had a lot of feed­back on de­sign” — the plan­ning com­mis­sion said it looked “out of place” — ar­chi­tect Chris Daw­son pre­sented a sketch of a re­design elim­i­nat­ing a metal roof and 12-inch over­hangs, re­plac­ing brick with stone, ex­tend­ing the porch, adding shut­ters “to con­form with prop­er­ties down the road,” and land­scap­ing to screen the build­ing.

“We think we had a good de­sign, but we lis­tened to the town­ship and came back with, hope­fully, a de­sign more palat­able of what the fu­ture vi­sion should be in this part of Fort Wash­ing­ton.” Andy Gold­stein, owner


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.