Board carries TJS Ventures warehouse proposal at 164 Applegarth Road after detailed questions on height, parking and site calculations

TJS Ventures sought use‑variance relief and preliminary/final site plan approval to operate a family‑run beauty‑products warehouse at 164 Applegarth Road, a property located in an R3 residential zone and partly in a flood hazard conservation district. Principal Danny Nagpal testified the operation would be storage and distribution of lotions, colognes and related goods, with about four employees on site and one or two box‑truck deliveries per day; no retail, no tractor‑trailers, and no overnight truck parking were proposed.

Engineer Sharif Ali and planner Mark Remsa testified the applicant intends to reuse the existing building footprint (8,762 sq ft), add landscaping and a sidewalk along the county frontage, re‑stripe parking for 16 spaces, add two EV spaces and improve the site’s curb cut and driveway circulation. Planner testimony noted multiple existing nonconformities (front yard setback, lot frontage/width) and that the building’s peak reached approximately 38.2 ft — about 3.2 ft above the 35‑ft maximum — creating a height bulk variance need. The applicant said the higher peak was an architectural/design outcome; the taller portion of the roof sits farther back from Applegarth Road.

Board professionals and members pressed the applicant for precise measurements and plan accuracy. The board flagged several open technical items: recalculation of impervious coverage (site plan showed gravel areas that could be removed to reduce coverage), removal or relocation of gravel patches and clarification of whether those areas would be paved, the proposed screening for residential interfaces (a recommendation to add a six‑foot solid fence along the southern property line), parking space dimensions (applicant requested 9x18 stalls and a waiver from the 10x20 ordinance standard), and whether the second‑floor attic space would be used for storage only (applicant agreed it would be storage only, not occupied office space). Board professionals also requested final architectural elevations reflecting no second‑floor windows and clearer HVAC/mechanical locations and noted a waiver request for an environmental impact statement.

Given unresolved technical and plan inaccuracies, the board voted to carry the application without re‑notice to a future meeting date so the applicant could submit corrected plans and responses to the review letters. The applicant agreed to revise the plans, recalculate impervious coverage after removing unnecessary gravel areas, show definitive parking and curb lines, add proposed screening and finalize sign/lighting details; the board emphasized that any increase in operational intensity (additional employees, larger trucks or leasing to third parties) would require return to the board.