Attachment

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 15, 2014 Meeting OLD BUSINESS Applicant #V-14-10 Lands of Mathew E. Mitten, South Side of Lafferty Lane. Mathew E. Mitten has appealed the decision of the City Planner to the Board of Adjustment regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definitions of allowed uses in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) Zone in Article 3 §20 as related to a citation to cease operations pending the approval of a Site Development Plan pursuant to Article 3 §20.6 and Article 10 §2. Subject properties zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The Tax Parcels are ED-05-077.00-01-26.00-000 and ED-05-077.00-01-27.00- 000. The owner of record is Mathew E. Mitten. At the request of the applicant, the Board of Adjustment deferred consideration of the appeal from the October 15, 2014 meeting to the November 19, 2014 meeting. ADJOURN 29 Del.C. § 10004(e)(2) THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES October 15, 2014 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Mr. Hufnal, Colonel Ericson, and Mr. Keller. Mr. Senato was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Purnell, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Melson-Williams, and City Solicitor Nicholas Rodriguez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the agenda to defer application V-14-10 until the next meeting as a written request from Mr. John Paradee, and a better synopsis and time table that the Board of Adjustment members can better relate too (to include color photos or actual photos), seconded by Mr. Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2014 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 23, 2014 with the necessary corrections, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. APPROVAL OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2014 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 23, 2014 with the necessary corrections, seconded by Mr. Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development stated that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with the approved agenda. There are two items on the agenda; under new business. The application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor they will adjourn to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736-7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notices for the applications on this agenda were completed in accordance with code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-14-11: 1084-1086 South State Street. Dover Family Properties, LLC has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 6 §3.1 and §3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for parking as related to the maximum allowed parking for the proposed use. Subject property is zoned C-2A (Limited

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 15, 2014 Central Commercial Zone). The Tax Parcels are ED-05-077.17-07-19.00-000 and ED-05- 086.05-02-21.00-000. The owner of record is Dover Family Properties, LLC. In its meeting of August 6, 2014 the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Plan (S-14-16) which includes a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan. Mr. Bill Cook, Planner, submitted the following items for the record: staff report and plans submitted by the applicant. The legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on October 5, 2014, and the public was notified in accordance with the regulations. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Representative: Troy Adams, Mountain Consulting Inc. Mr. Adams stated that the owner is looking to build a new facility at 1084-1086 South State Street. The building is 2,730 S.F. and the combined parcel would be 0.53 acres in size. They would like to maximize the building size, but more importantly is the parking. Under the current zoning and parking calculations they satisfy the regulations with 10 parking spaces and they are able to increase by 25% for a total of 13 spaces. On the Site Plan they are proposing 23 parking spaces stating that this is the minimum amount of parking spaces that would allow this business to function successfully. There will be twelve (12) employees and seven (7) operatories in the building for a total requirement of 23 parking spaces to be exact. This is the request and he hoped that it would be found worthy to be approved so that the owner can have a successful business in the City of Dover. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether the number of employees would increase in the future, Mr. Adams stated that given the size of the building and the number of operatories it is pretty much maxed out at 12. Responding to Mr. Hufnal’s question of the determination of the figure 1.5 multiplied by the number of treatment rooms, whether this was an engineer standard, Mr. Adams stated that the recommended calculation came from research on how to design a dental facility. Responding to Mr. Keller’s question whether the application was approved the number of parking spaces would partially extend into the building setback line even though it is parking only and paved surface area and curbing, would it present any type of problem within the building setback line, Mrs. Townsend stated that it was not a problem it is not an above ground structure. Parking is permitted within setbacks. Responding to Mr. Keller’s question whether the dumpster was a permitted structure that extends into the building setback line on the Site Plan, Mrs. Townshend stated that it was not a problem. They were required to have an enclosure, but it is not the principal structure, therefore it can be within 5 feet of the property line. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 15, 2014 Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question the reason for capping at the 25%, Mrs. Townshend stated that the reason for capping the parking related to the number of years ago when they were seeing a high volume of applications to the Planning Commission, they saw a lot of sites, particularly on Route 13 coming in with two (2) or three (3) times the amount of parking that is required and there was a concern expressed by the Planning Commission of having all of the paved parking lots that most of the year are not used. The challenge that they had was that the large retailers would demand them, but if the code stated that differently, then they would comply with the code. This was the only way to push back on the over parking and paving. Chairman Sheth opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Colonel Ericson moved to approve variance V-14-11 for parking as related to the maximum allowed parking for the proposed use based on the information provided and the testimony given, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. Applicant #V-14-12 200 Garrison Oak Drive. (Lot 12 Garrison Oak Technical Park). Uzin Utz Manufacturing North America, Inc., has requested a variance from the requirements of Article 5 §7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance related to the height of fencing in the required front yard. Subject property is zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center). The Tax Parcel is LC-05- 068.00-02-12.00-000. The owner of record is Uzin Utz Manufacturing North America, Inc. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director, submitted the following items for the record: staff report and plans submitted by the applicant. The legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on October 5, 2014, and the public was notified in accordance with the regulations. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Representative: Mr. Jagals Jiselva from Germany on behalf of Mr. Utz. Mr. Jiselva testified that for an industry area it is better to have a 6ft. fence rather than a 4ft. fence. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question the type of industry, Mr. Jiselva stated that is flooring industry. Mr. Jiselva provided background on the company and their products. 3

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 15, 2014 Responding to Mr. Keller’s question whether the product is produced or shipped here, Mr. Jiselva stated that it is produced here. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question the number of employees, Mr. Jiselva stated roughly 35, but it is a growing company. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Industrial Park Manufacturing zone (IPM 2) requires that it have a 60 foot front yard requirement which is a very deep front yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance restricts a fence height within the front yard to 4ft. The original plan had placed the fence at the setback line, but when they looked at the turning templates for the trucks they determined that the trucks would not be able to make the turning movements that they needed to with the fence in the permitted location. The application is for a variance to move the fence into the front yard. The request from the applicant states approximately 15 feet, but the number is not precise. As mentioned in the Staff Report we need to determine how far into the setback it can go. Responding to Mr. Hufnal’s question if the applicant’s request consisted of two (2) parts, one (1) being to increase the height of the front fence from 4ft to 6ft., and to allow 15ft. into the front yard setback, allowing them to have a 6ft. fence at a 45ft. setback, Mrs. Townshend concurred. Responding to Mr. Hufnal’s question whether the 15ft. was adequate for the trucks to be able to turn around, Mr. Jiselva stated yes. Mrs. Townshend also responded by stating that the text says at least 15ft. in size. Mrs. Townshend stated that this is only the third lot to be developed. There are not a lot of active neighbors. Responding to Mr. Keller’s question relating to the distance from the established building restriction line and Mrs. Townshend comments, would it be not advisable to simply have wording if the variance request is approved to allow the fence to be installed with the building restriction line up to 15ft., Mrs. Townshend stated that there could be a little cushion. Because of the very large setbacks in the zone, it is not like a residential lot or smaller commercial lot that being in the setback is near the road. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question whether the applicant was given authorization for a 20ft. setback and 40ft. from the property line as this would give more room for the fence, but would it be beneficial, Mr. Jiselva stated yes. Responding to Mr. Keller’s question and concern regarding the applicant’s letter to Inspections and Planning that states “the applicant had already contacted Public Works, as the front yard is designated as a 60’ wide utility and drainage easement area. An application for a variance to build a structure inside a utility easement had been filed with Public Works already.” Have we any concerns and is it in fact a utility and drainage easement, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is an easement and she discussed it with the City Manager on October 14, 2014. The City Manager has the letter granting the waiver from the requirement ready to be signed pending action of the Board of Adjustment. He did not want to sign the letter stating that the fence could be placed in the easement unless he knew the Board of Adjustment had granted the variance on the setback. 4

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 15, 2014 Responding to Mr. Keller’s question whether there may be permission granted, would the owner do so at his own peril if in fact there was some need to subsequently relocate utilities or perform drainage work in the area or reset the fence, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Public Works department reviewed the request and was comfortable that it would not inhibit any of the use of the easement. Responding to Mr. Hufnal’s question if the setbacks were 20ft. and the 40ft. would it be enough for the applicant to work with, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. Chairman Sheth stated that it would make sense because you do not want to have a conflict with the decision of the City Manager. Chairman Sheth opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Colonel Ericson moved to approve variance V-14-12 to specifically allow a 6ft. fence to be built in the front yard of the property and that the variance also include, that the fence can be located up to including 20ft. in the setback or 40ft. from the property line based upon the testimony given and the information provided, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any questions. Responding to Mr. Keller’s question whether there was another qualifier on Mr. Paradee’s request for deferring the other appeal, Mrs. Townshend read the letter that was submitted. Responding to Colonel Ericson’s question regarding the discussion of the key issues and visit of the site, Mr. Rodriguez stated no key issues could be discussed, he stated that there was a lot of material to review and he wanted to compliment Staff on an excellent job in a very difficult area. He could not see the photos as Mr. Hufnal had already mentioned which is very critical. The site cannot be visited. Also, Mrs. Townshend stated that Mr. Pepper is representing the City Staff on the appeal and Mr. Mandalas will represent the Board of Adjustment to eliminate any conflict. Mr. Hufnal moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Ericson and unanimously carried 4-0. Mr. Senato was absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:51 A.M. Sincerely, 5

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 15, 2014 Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 6

City of Dover Board of Adjustment October 16, 2014 V-14-10 Location: South side of Lafferty Lane, Dover, Delaware ED-05-077.00-01-26.00-000 ED-05-077.00-01-27.00-000 Applicant/ Property Owner: Mathew E. Mitten Application Date: Appeal Received August 15, 2014 Request for September 17, 2014 Meeting. Meeting was rescheduled for October 15, 2014. Present Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) Appeal Requested: Regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definitions of allowed uses in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) Zone in Article 3 §20. Appeal of the determination of the City Planner to cease operations at the site pending approval of a Site Development Plan. Request for Appeal The applicant has filed an Appeal of a determination by the City Planner regarding the use of Lands of Mitten properties on the south side of Lafferty Lane and the interpretation of Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 20 regarding the definitions of allowed uses in the IPM zone and Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2 regarding the requirement for a Site Development Plan. Property Description The property located on the south side of Lafferty Lane consists of two parcels of land.1 There are activities in cleared areas on the site near the access drive from Lafferty Lane and also large areas of existing woodland. There are no buildings located on the properties. From aerial photographs (dating 2006-2012) there are a number of storage trailers and other materials on the properties. 1 The Appeal application lists one parcel of 4.9 acres on the south side of Lafferty Lane identified as ED-05-077.00- 01-26.00-000. Staff has also included the adjacent property also held in the same ownership and identified as ED- 05-077.00-01-27.00. This second property is also involved in the City Planner’s determination.

V-14-10 Lands of Mitten on Lafferty Lane Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 6 The adjacent properties to the south are zoned MHP (Manufactured Home Park) for the Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park; and R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) for properties related to the Dover Air Force Base. The adjacent properties to the north and east are vacant lands zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and M (Manufacturing Zone). A portion of the subject site and adjacent properties are subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) and are located within Noise Zone A and the APZ-1 Accident Potential Zone. Code Citations Procedures The Board of Adjustment procedures for Appeals are outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and within Delaware Code. See the following code citations. Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, Article 9. Board of Adjustment: Section 2. Powers and duties: The board of adjustment shall have the powers and duties as specified in Delaware Code Annotated (22 Del. C. § 301 et seq.) and as articulated below: 2.2 Appeal of administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination. The board shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Appeals to the board may be made by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of an administrative officer. Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3 outlines the procedures for both variances and appeals. Appeals are subject to a Public Hearing which must noticed by publication in the newspaper and by mailed notice to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. The Appeal must be filed in writing on prescribed forms and is subject to a filing fee. It is noted that this fee may be returned to the applicant (Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.4) under certain provisions: Article 9 §3.4 The board of adjustment may, in its discretion, return to the applicant part or all of the fee paid by him in the event that his appeal under section 2.2 Appeal of administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination hereof is partially or wholly successful. The Appeal (written application and submission items) as filed shall consist of the following per the Zoning Ordinance, Article 9 §3.5: Article 9 §3.5 Each variance application or appeal shall fully set forth the circumstances of the case. Every variance application or appeal shall refer to the specific provision of the ordinance involved, and shall exactly set forth, as the case may be, the interpretation that is claimed, the details of the variance that is applied for and the grounds on which it is claimed that the same should be granted.  A copy of the Appeal as filed by the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 1B. o Exhibit 1A – Application to Board of Adjustment for Appeal

V-14-10 Lands of Mitten on Lafferty Lane Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 6 o Exhibit 1B – Letter from the applicant dated August 18, 2014 with Attachment (Appeal Statement) The provisions of Delaware Code (22 Del. C. § 301) also note a procedure for Appeals: 22 Del. C. §324 Appeals to board. Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as provided by the rules of the board by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.  Copies of materials from the Determination by the City Planner and associated Code Enforcement Case File are attached as Exhibits 2A through 2S. o Exhibit 2A – Email of 6/2/2014 RE: BOA Appeal process o Exhibit 2B – Letter of 6/2/2014 Appeal of Code Enforcement Citation, Case #06-00002574 o Exhibit 2C – Official Citation #06-00002574 of 5/22/2014 with Fourth Notice, and Violation Detail o Exhibit 2D - Letter of 6/5/2013 RE: Expiration of Site Development Master Plan Application: Mitten Industrial Park at Lafferty Lane, Dover Delaware S-10-10 and S-13-14 o Exhibit 2E – Email of 6/25/2012 RE; Mitten Industrial Park o Exhibit 2F – Letter of 6/13/2012 RE: Property Located on the South Side of Lafferty Lane (S-08-06 and S-10-10) o Exhibit 2G – Email of 6/7/2012 RE: Property on Lafferty Lane Owned by Matt Mitten o Exhibit 2H – Letter of 10/3/2007 from Braun Engineering & Surveying, RE; Site Plan Proposal – Mitten Industrial Park o Exhibit 2I – Letter of 9/14/2007 RE: Property Owned by Matthew E. Mitten, Case No. 06-00002574 o Exhibit 2J – Letter of 8/30/2007 RE: Property Owned by Matthew E. Mitten, Case No. 06-00002574 o Exhibit 2K – Letter of 6/3/2007 RE: Site Plan Application for Properties Owned by Matthew E. Mitten o Exhibit 2L – Notes and Sketch Plan from 12/19/2006 Pre-Application Meeting o Exhibit 2M - Letter of 12/4/2006 RE: Property Owned by Matthew E. Mitten, Case No. 06-00002574

V-14-10 Lands of Mitten on Lafferty Lane Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 6 o Exhibit 2N – Letter of 11/15/2006 RE: Case Number 06-00002574 o Exhibit 2O – Letter of 11/15/2006 RE: Property Owned by Matthew E. Mitten, Case No. 06-00002574 o Exhibit 2P – Notes and Sketch Plan from 7/5/2006 Pre-Application Meeting o Exhibit 2Q – Letter of 5/16/2006 RE: Use of Property, 4.9 Acres on the South side of Lafferty Lane o Exhibit 2R – Letter of 3/9/2006 RE; Use of Property, 4.9 Acres on the South side of Lafferty Lane, Site Plan Approval Required with Attachments of Code Reference and 3 Photographs o Exhibit 2S – Letter of 8/23/2005 RE: Parcel B4.2466 Acres, Lands of Mathew E. Mitten with Attachment of Sketch Plan Action by the Board of Adjustment It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide the Appeal where it has been alleged that the determination of the administrative official was in error. This Appeal is regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definitions of allowed uses in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) Zone as outlined in Article 3 §20 and Appeal of the determination of the City Planner to cease operations at the site pending approval of a Site Development Plan as required in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 20.6 and Article 10 Section 2. Background Information Code Citations: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) Zoning District The description of the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and the uses permitted within the zone are given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 20 as well as the procedures for establishment of uses on the property.  Exhibit 3A – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for IPM zone. AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) The AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) establishes additional standards and requirements for properties within the zone including compatibility of land uses, noise attenuation requirements, and height limits in order to project areas impact by aircraft operations of Dover Air Force Base. These provisions are outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 22.  Exhibit 3B – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for AEOZ zone. Site Development Plan Procedures The procedures for a Site Development Plan are given in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 20.6 for activities in the IPM Zone and within the referenced Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2. (It is noted that Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 2 was amended with the adoption of Ordinance #2011-14 on August 8, 2011 and with the adoption of Ordinance #2014- 08 on July 14, 2014.)  Exhibit 3C – Zoning Ordinance excerpt for Site Development Plan Procedures

V-14-10 Lands of Mitten on Lafferty Lane Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 6 Property Information: Lands of Mitten on South Side of Lafferty Lane (Identified as 4.9 ac on Lafferty Lane and as 141 Lafferty Lane), Dover:  Property Ownership: From our records it appears that the ownership of these properties changed in 2003 from Julian Dev. Co. to Mathew E. Mitten.  Business License: o There are no Business Licenses issued for the subject properties on Lafferty Lane. o Mid-Atlantic Dismantlement has an active Business License as a Contractor: however, is associated with outside of City address. License was renewed as #15-00010454 for license year beginning 7/1/2014; this license was initially issued in July 2003 as #04-00010454 and has been renewed yearly.  Building Permits: No Building Permits associated with the properties since 1998 other than a Fence Permit #03-1000 that was withdrawn.  Code Enforcement Case #06-00002574 entered 9/27/2006 – Violation of permitted uses in IPM zone and lack of Site Plan for property. On-going Code Enforcement case activity from 2006 to the present.  Site Development Plan Applications: The following Site Development Plans were filed for review with the Planning Commission for this property. A summary of each application and its status is provided. The complete Application files are available in the Planning Office. o S-07-24 Mitten Industrial Park – Application filed for seven commercial buildings and a processing area. Application held by Development Advisory Committee (DAC) due to compliance issues. Application superseded by Application S-08-06. o Preliminary Land Use Services Review (PLUS): PLUS Review (#2008-01-12) of the Mitten Industrial Park project occurred on January 23, 2008. o S-08-06 Mitten Property: Site Development Master Plan - An application for a Site Development Master Plan (S-08-06) for industrial park and processing area was granted Conditional Site Development Mater Plan Approval by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008. A one-year extension of approval was granted by the Planning Commission at their March 16, 2009 meeting. This plan expired in 2010 as there was no submission of an Administrative Site Plan for Phase 1 and no there was construction to make site improvements. o S-10-10 Mitten Industrial Park: Site Development Master Plan – An application for a Site Development Master Plan (S-10-10) for nine buildings and a processing area was granted Conditional Site Development Master Plan Approval by the Planning Commission at their May 17, 2010 meeting. The Planning Commission granted the first one-year extension of approval on April 18, 2011 and the final

V-14-10 Lands of Mitten on Lafferty Lane Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 6 second one-year extension of approval on April 16, 2012. This Master Plan expired on May 31, 2013 as there was no approval for the Administrative Site Plan for Phase 1 and no submission of a Building Permit and construction to make site improvements did not commence. o S-13-14 Mitten Industrial Park: Phase 1 – Administrative Site Plan filed on 5/14/2013 for Phase 1 of the project and was working through the agency review process. The associated Site Development Master Plan expired 5/31/2013 voiding this Administrative Site Plan. o S-13-16 Mitten Industrial Park: Site Development Master Plan – Application filed on 6/6/2013 for Site Development Master Plan Review to permit the construction of nine 9,600 S. F. buildings for a total of 86,400 SF and a 4.591 acre Processing Area on two parcels of land. The plan also consists of a Parcel Consolidation Plan to consolidate the two parcels of land into one parcel of land. Application was held by Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and Staff due to compliance issues on July 3, 2013; application was not heard by Planning Commission in July 2013. No additional activity with application to date.