HOWELL – L&L Paving is proposing to remove an existing concrete manufacturing facility and to develop a bituminous (asphalt) concrete manufacturing facility at its property in a Special Economic Development (SED) zone on Yellowbrook Road in Howell.
Representatives of the company are expected to begin presenting testimony on July 9 before the Howell Zoning Board of Adjustment.
L&L Paving is seeking a use variance to develop the property on Yellowbrook Road as a bituminous concrete manufacturing facility with improvements consisting of the removal of a portion of the existing concrete manufacturing facility, rehabilitation of an existing storage building, construction of a quality control building and weigh station, the installation of an office trailer, the removal and replacement of approximately 13 acres of impervious coverage with landscaping, and a total of 250 trees and the installation of other associated improvements.
Attorney Michael Butler, who represents L&L Paving, initially sought to have the application heard by the Howell Planning Board, which hears applications that conform to municipal ordinances. Following discussion, the application was moved to the zoning board for consideration of variances from the municipal code.
The application was scheduled for the zoning board’s June 25 meeting. That evening, attorney Ron Gasiorowski, who represents Stavola Leasing, argued that bituminous concrete manufacturing and/or asphalt is not consistent with the SED zone. Gasiorowski objected to the application.
After Butler gave a brief description of the L&L Paving application, he informed the zoning board about a proposed recycling use on the property.
“For your information, we also will be talking about another proposed recycling operation that will be on the property. I say for your information because we want to provide as much information to the board as to how the whole property is going to operate. The board does not have jurisdiction over that portion of the use, it is regulated under state statutes, and we are going through the approval process,” Butler said.
The board’s engineer, Jack Mallon, took issue with Butler’s statement.
“I believe this board does have jurisdiction when you come in for a recycling application. I know you have to have county and state approval, but this board is also going to have to hear something on the recycling because it is not permitted in the zone,” Mallon said, adding that a portion of the application is acceptable, but other issues are not.
Butler responded, saying, “I disagree with Mr. Mallon. This board will hear testimony about the operations of the recycling use on the property. That, however, is under the jurisdiction of the state as a Class B recycling license. There are steps we have to go through … and those steps are being taken. This board does not have jurisdiction over that use.”
Mallon agreed the board does not have jurisdiction regarding the Class B recycling license, but said the board has jurisdiction over zoning issues since recycling is not a permitted use in the zone.
The board’s attorney, Ronald Troppoli, agreed with Mallon’s assessment of the issue.
The board’s chairman, Wendell Nanson, agreed the board has jurisdiction over the use variance.
“Just so you know, you would have to come back to (testify regarding) the use variance once you get those approvals from the state,” Nanson said.
Butler consulted with his client and said he would begin to present the application at the zoning board’s July 9 meeting.