Revised parking lot draws look from Planning Board
BY REBECCA MORTON Staff Writer

MARLBORO - Testimony on an amended site plan for the Triangle Business Park, Amboy Road, is scheduled to resume at the Nov. 7 meeting of the Planning Board.

The matter was discussed at the board's Oct. 17 meeting.

The owners of the property, Bernard and Steve Meiterman, are proposing an alternate parking configuration in which they would stripe and provide three parking spaces in front of overhead garage doors for tenants who would have no need for that type of door.

Planning Board Attorney Dennis Collins noted that a previous board had approved the seven buildings in the business park. The only item that is up for discussion now is the change to the parking plan.

Attorney Jonathan Heilbrunn, representing the applicant, read a letter into the record from Marlboro fire official John Borden. According to the letter, Borden reviewed the new parking configuration and stated that it would allow better emergency access to the site.

Also added to the plans is the construction of a 10-foot by 10-foot guardhouse. Lorali Totten, the applicant's planner and engineer, explained that the structure would not serve as a guardhouse, but would be an aesthetically pleasing location in which electrical equipment for the sprinkler system and gate would be housed.

Totten said the purpose of the change in the parking configuration is for flexibility. The revised design leaves at least one space at each building for emergency access. Totten also explained that the flow of traffic in the complex would be one-way.

Testimony revealed that the new proposed parking spaces in front of the rollup garage doors would have concrete bumpers, which could be removed if in the future a new tenant wanted to use the doorway for loading purposes.

The applicant's professionals reiterated that the revised plan makes no additions or changes to the already approved buildings.

Board members expressed concern about the types of businesses that will be occupying the spaces. Tenants include a children's day-care center, an indoor recreation facility and a karate school.

Councilwoman Patti Morelli, who sits on the board, was concerned about the safety of youngsters. She said she was worried about a day-care center possibly being next to a business that would use the roll-up door space for loading purposes.

"It's dangerous," she said, noting that trucks could be loading items at one business next to the entrance to a neighboring business.

Heilbrunn said the regulations for the IOR (Industrial, Office and Research) zone, which Triangle Business Park is in, allows businesses to be arranged like that.

Board Chairman Peter Bellone said there is a concern about someone driving through the overhead doors. He said if the overhead door to a business was open and a car jumped the curb that could be a potentially dangerous situation.

The applicant would be happy to submit a design of a concrete stopper for the board professionals' approval to address this issue, according to Heilbrunn.

Planning Board engineer Jeffrey Staiger said the original plans called for 30 percent office space and 70 percent warehouse space. Staiger said that evening was the first time he had heard about a proposed childcare facility.

Any traffic conditions caused by the business park were expected to be Monday through Friday.

Morelli explained that with the type of uses now being discussed the traffic would also extend into the weekends.

Tenants of the Triangle Business Park addressed the board during the public session. Each tenant spoke about their desire for parking spaces in front of their business. Some said the roll-up doors were going to be made into a storefront and said nearby parking makes sense.

Board Vice Chairman Gerald Bergh said the board could not deny the application because all those extra parking spaces were going to be needed with the increase in traffic that would be created when the businesses open. Bergh said he was a part of the hearing for the original application and said it was never mentioned that the recreation uses would be a part of the plan.

Collins reiterated that whether or not the board approves the amended parking configuration, those tenants will still be occupying the space as they have already received their mercantile licenses.

To clarify, the board's planner Jennifer Beahm said she researched the issue and determined these uses are permitted and that an indoor recreation space had no parking obligation. She said the tenants appeared before the board because they would like to see changes made in the parking configuration.