I previously wrote about both potential Royal Farms back in April. If you aren’t familiar with the details, you can read about them in this post.
 |
| Site plan for Royal Farms at Sunbird Plaza |
Royal Farms at Sunbird Plaza has been scheduled for a special session before the Planning Board on Monday November 26th. This project was stalled as the developer tried to petition the state for a left turn lane on Route 73N at Sunbird Plaza. At the same time the developer was trying to get a new traffic signal that would slow traffic, the State Department of Transportation presented its plan to alleviate traffic problems on Route 73 from the old Marlton Circle to one block away from where the Royal Farms was planned. It seemed counter-intuitive that the state would allow a left turn arrow at Sunbird after potentially spending millions to speed up traffic.
 |
| Site of Former Scaturro's, possible future home of Royal Farms |
I have no more details on what will be discussed at the Planning Board, but presumably Royal Farms has come up with a plan that they believe allows them to build a profitable enterprise. I'll update this with the time of the meeting as soon as it is announced.
Royal Farms at Lincoln Drive East was previously approved at the Planning Board, but notice has just been sent out to nearby homeowners that Royal Farms will be on the agenda at the upcoming Zoning Board meeting on November 19th at 7PM at the municipal building. It was reported back in August that nearby homeowners had filed suit against the Evesham Planning Board as well as the developer.
Numerous variances were granted to Royal Farms at the Planning Board to allow them to build, but at issue at the Zoning Board is that the developer is seeking an interpretation from the Board that the project "meets all conditions of a service station including, without limitation, the condition that requires a proposed service station to be located at least 500 feet from a playground. In the alternative, if the Zoning Board does not grant the Applicant’s interpretation request, the Applicant requests a conditional use variance from the Zoning Board, along with preliminary and final major site plan approval and the following variances:” The public notice then lists all the variances that were granted at the Planning Board , which I summarized after the meeting.
In other words, the developer is saying that Royal Farms does not violate the requirement that they are 500 feet away from a playground, but if it does violate it, they want a waiver from the Zoning Board.
Those are all the facts that I have at this time. What follows is my own interpretation – I am not a lawyer and have no legal training whatsoever, so take all of this with a grain of salt.
At issue is Chapter 161 of the Township of Evesham code entitled ‘Zoning Modifications and Additional Requirements’, section 161-1 ‘Conditional Uses’. This section notes that a ‘service station’ is a ‘conditional use’, and sets certain requirements for its development. Subsection 4b notes “No service station/auto repair shop shall be located within 500 feet of any fire house, school, playground, church, hospital, public building or institution…."
 |
| Royal Farms plan approved on April 5, 2018 at the Planning Board |
Google Maps allow you to measure distances 'as the crow flies'. While more technological means of measuring would be used in any hearing, they give a good approximation.
 |
| Using Google Maps, it is 242 feet from the center of the pool to the edge of the Royal Farms property |
Where do we measure from? Do we measure from where the gas pumps will be to the 'playground'? Or from the edge of the Royal Farms property to the pool? What is a ‘service station’? Is it the gas pumps only? Or is it the entire property that contains the gas pumps? The eCode provides the definition for service station:
“Lands and buildings providing for the sale of fuel, lubricants, and automotive accessories, maintenance and repairs for motor vehicles may be provide....” (emphasis added)
So the definition of 'service station' would appear to include the lands upon which it sits. So the appropriate 500 foot measurement would be to the edge of the property, not to the fuel pumps.
The definition for ‘playground’ is also contained directly within Evesham statutes.
Based on this definition, it would appear that the area at the Orchards is not a playground, as it does not satisfy B1, B2, B3 and C2c at a minimum. However, it would seem that the intent of the law is to keep gas stations away from large gatherings of the public. The law, which states “any fire house, school, playground, church, hospital, public building or institution…” doesn’t specifically list ‘pool’ or 'recreation complex', but the intent is clear. Is the pool a 'public institution’? Can the entire complex, including tot lot, pool, tennis courts and basketball court, be considered a public institution?
 |
| Recreation complex owned by Orchards Greentree Homeowner's Association |
Again, I am not an attorney, but the requested ‘interpretation’ as to whether the law is being followed would presumably fall to the Evesham Township Zoning Board’s Attorney, not the Zoning Board members. If the attorney determines that the law is being followed, I’m not sure that the Zoning Board will be asked to do anything. If it is determined that the law is not being followed, it would fall to the Zoning Board to determine whether or not to grant the variance requested.
Like my Facebook Page to get the latest posts - A View From Evesham. You can email me at MarltonNeil@yahoo.com.