Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Franklin ZBA Hears Proposal to Subdivide Church Property and Build Large Warehouse; Residents, Counsel Press Traffic, Land‑use Concerns

Zoning Board of Adjustment (Franklin Township) · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a March 5 Zoning Board hearing, applicant Creation Equity (with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church property owner) presented architecture, traffic and planning testimony for a proposed warehouse and minor subdivision at 135 Davidson Ave; witnesses said screening, parking and signal improvements will mitigate impacts, while objectors and public raised questions about master‑plan consistency, truck trips and annual large events. The board carried the matter to May 7 and granted an extension through May 31.

The Franklin Township Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 5 heard testimony on a consolidated set of applications asking the board to subdivide the Ukrainian Orthodox Church property at 135 Davidson Avenue and permit a large warehouse on the newly created lot.

Applicant counsel Peter Lanford told the board the application package has been supplemented since earlier hearings and that, if approved, the board could consider both preliminary and final site plan approvals. Architect Wayne Scott Winger (Nelson Architecture & Interiors) described the building plan and materials, saying the project is planned as a multi‑tenant warehouse with articulated precast facades, office spaces at building corners and rooftop mechanicals set toward the center "to minimize sight lines from Davidson Avenue." Winger summarized the building program as roughly in the low‑to‑mid‑hundreds of thousands of square feet and said the design includes landscape buffers and a wall to screen trucks from Davidson Avenue. (Architectural testimony: Wayne Scott Winger.)

Traffic consultant Alan Lothian (Langan Engineering) testified the church parcel and the proposed warehouse will share access patterns. He described existing access points, proposed improvements to the signal at Davidson Avenue and Executive Drive to facilitate truck turning movements, and said the Easton Avenue driveway would be gated for emergency use only. Lothian reported weeklong traffic counts, used the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip‑generation approach and said the conservative analysis shows no significant change in intersection operations for the studied intersections in build versus no‑build scenarios. He also testified the church parcel will retain 82 parking spaces and that his inventory and demand estimates indicate that will meet typical daily and most event needs. (Traffic testimony: Alan Lothian.)

Planner Sean Moronski (Langan) summarized land‑use history for Block 469, Lot 1.06 and explained the relief the applicant seeks: a D2 variance related to the reduced church lot area, a D1 use variance to permit a warehouse in the BI zone (warehouses were removed as a permitted use in a 2023 ordinance) and several C variances (including driveway width and loading area depth). Moronski argued the church remains an inherently beneficial use and applied the CICA test to justify the D2 variance; for the warehouse, he said the site is "particularly suited" because of its proximity to Interstate 287, existing industrial and commercial development along Davidson Avenue, and proposed mitigation measures including screening, landscaping and intersection improvements. He also noted a recent planning‑board master‑plan reexamination recommending conditions under which warehouses could be permitted in the BI zone. (Planning testimony: Sean Moronski.)

Objectors' counsel and several board members pressed the witnesses on technical and policy points. Cross‑examination queried whether the traffic study had appropriately modeled peak truck movements, whether the correct ITE land‑use code had been used for a speculative tenant, whether truck turning templates and county‑controlled intersection turns were specifically evaluated, and whether large annual events tied to the cemetery and cultural center (one public commenter estimated about 1,000 attendees) had been included in parking and traffic assumptions. The traffic engineer stated the counts included projected traffic from the adjacent IDI development and that, on a conservative basis, the team estimated roughly 55 truck trips over 24 hours for the proposed warehouse site and that peak truck activity generally occurs outside commuter peaks. (Cross‑examination: Peter MacArthur; public comments: Igor Kreptyk, Mark Anthony Datz, Olena Sharvan.)

Public commenters raised several detailed concerns. One resident and a local parishioner emphasized a yearly cemetery observance that brings large crowds and buses and said the cultural center's parking is integral to safely staging that event; another attendee said a Saturday school serving more than a hundred students had operated on the site until recently, calling into question assumptions about "non‑church" activities. The traffic witness acknowledged large special events were not incorporated as a recurring daily demand in the base counts but said the project team discussed off‑site coordination and shuttle arrangements as mitigation for occasional very large events. (Public comment: Igor Kreptyk, Mark Anthony Datz, Olena Sharvan.)

On zoning policy, objectors' counsel and several board members focused on the 2023 ordinance that removed warehouse uses from the BI zone and on the higher standard (Medici) for reconciling a use variance where the ordinance explicitly omitted a use. Planner Moronski said the board may weigh the evidence given the site's particular characteristics and pointed to the planning‑board reexamination recommending that some warehouses be considered under defined conditions; opposing counsel disputed that reconciling the application with the 2023 change had been demonstrated.

The board did not take final action on the application. Following procedural motions, the board voted to carry all three applications to a continued hearing on May 7, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. and granted an extension of time through May 31, 2026; roll call recorded affirmative votes from the present members. The board adjourned.

What the board will next consider: expected supplemental submissions include the township engineer's confirmations of additional topographic/soil testing, final traffic templates or truck turning demonstrations at county intersections if required, and any expert planning reports objectors file in advance of the May session. The applicant was instructed to provide required expert reports for any new witnesses at least 10 days before the next hearing. Ending: the hearing was carried to May 7, 2026 and no final determinations were made at the March 5 session.