January 22, 2026

Concord Township’s Zoning Hearing Board continued its inquiry into what constitutes a building during its Jan. 21 hearing for Retail Sites. The applicant, also known as Concord Acquisitions, wants to construct a retail development in the vacant lot at Route 202 and Ridge Road.

There was no resolution or conclusion stemming from the January meeting, and the hearing was continued to Feb. 18.

There are two issues for Concord’s ZHB to determine: Do pads four, five, and six constitute one building or three, and does the township zoning code allow for a gas station as an accessory use for a supermarket?

In a November letter to the hearing board, Zoning Officer Manos Kavadias said the three pads should be considered as one building, and that the gas station is not a proper accessory use for the proposed Giant Supermarket, and that

The board’s attention was focused on the first issue during the December and January hearing sessions, and it has not yet heard the issue regarding the gas station.

According to the plans, the three pads include 9,600 square feet for pad six, 32,913 square feet for pad five, and 52,878 square feet for pad four. Pad four is where the Giant is to be located. If the pads are judged individually, there is nothing further required except for routine land development review and approval, but if they are determined to be one building, as Kavadias determined, then the applicant would need conditional approval for the building because it’s more than 65,000 square feet.

Different architectural firms worked on the three pads, and Leonard Altieri III, the attorney representing the applicant, called several architects to testify during the January meeting.

Architect Robert Gehrman, of BCT Design, testified on the issue of pad 6, the pad his firm is designing. He said that pad, along with the other two, is an independent building with its own structural system and is not dependent on the other two pads. He specifically said “no” when asked by Altieri if pad six relied on structural elements from pads four or five.

He added that, in his opinion, the other two pads were also independently structured buildings, and that none of the three relied on structural elements from the other two. They each have their own foundation and elevation and are stand-alone structures.

What he did say was that there are expansion joints between the three buildings. But those joints allow for expansion of a building without it interfering with another building, even if the distance between the buildings is small. Those joints may be covered so the gaps between buildings won’t be seen.

At Altieri’s request, he read from the zoning code, which describes a building: “A building is a structure having walls and a roof which is built for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind.”

He went on to say that each of the three pads fits that definition and added that he found no support in the zoning code for the zoning officer’s determination that the proposed building would be three distinct occupancies within one building, structure, separated by firewalls.

During cross-examination by Concord Township solicitor Hugh Donaghue, Gehrman said the walls between the three pads do not touch.

“So, between the blocks, the spacers, and the rest of it, there’s no contact at all between the buildings. That’s your sworn testimony?” Donaghue said.

Gehrman responded, saying there are the expansion joints, “which is a space.”

During a cross examination from John Long, representing the Save-Ridge. Org group, Gehrman repeated that there was minimal space, just inches, between the buildings, and that is for the expansion joints that separate the buildings. All a person would see is a cover.

Long suggested that it would appear to the average person that it was one building and likened that to something some would view as a strip mall.

Gehrman said he wouldn’t characterize it that way.

“It’s three buildings,” he said.

Altieri then called Kevin Link of 2POV, the architectural firm the applicant hired to design the Giant that would stand on pad four.

Link repeated what had been testified to earlier, that pad for was a distinct structure with its own structural elements, including foundation and elevation, and that it is a stand-alone building despite its proximity to pad five.

Altieri asked again if pad 4 relied on structural elements from pads five or six.

“No, it does not,” was Link’s response. “All three buildings are independent structures.”

Again, the hearing will resume on Feb. 18.