NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD
MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE
NEWTOWN, PA 18940
MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2005
7:30 PM
Approval of Minutes of January 6, 2005: Mrs. Laughlin moved to accept the minutes of January 6, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The Newtown Township Zoning
Hearing Board met on Monday, January 6, 2005, in the Newtown Township Building.
In attendance and voting were: Mario Lionetti, John Lenihan, Gail Laughlin,
Victoria Bowe and William Wall. Also in attendance were: James J. Auchinleck,
Jr., Esq., Solicitor; Thomas Harwood, Zoning Officer and Justine Gregor,
Stenographer.
Call to Order
Mr. Lionetti called the meeting to Order at 7:35 PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance
The agenda was reviewed.
Reorganization of Board
Approval of Minutes of December
2, December 6, and December 13, 2004
Continued Application of Acme
Supermarket – 48 West Road
Continued Application of W.
David and Beverly Fleming – 258 Durham Road
Continued Application of
Brandywine Realty Trust – Silver Lake Road
Application of Newtown Bucks
County Joint Municipal Authority- Linton Hill Road
Application of George David and
Julia Hansbarger – 35 Swamp Road
Reorganization
Mr. Lionetti read a statement explaining that he has been
a member of the Zoning Hearing Board for 13 years, and as such, could not
support the nomination of Mr. Wall as chairman. He said that there had been
some off the record discussion of proposing Mr. Wall for chairman, and he felt
that such an appointment had to do with political partisanship. He noted that
Mr. Lenihan had been re-appointed to the Board this month to serve a five-year
term, and had been part of the Board for seven years. Mrs. Laughlin has been on
the Board for two years, and Mrs. Bowe has served for one year, while Mr. Wall
has only served four months. He noted that the Zoning Hearing Board is a
quasi-judicial Board, and as such, should not have partisan political
motivations. He said that he would like to step down as chairman and nominate
Mr. Lenihan, who has acted as secretary and vice chairman during his years on
the Board.
Mr. Lionetti moved to nominate Mr. Lenihan as chairman
of the Zoning Hearing Board for 2005. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion failed
2-3, with Mr. Wall, Mrs. Bowe and Mrs. Laughlin voting nay.
Mrs. Laughlin nominated Mr. Wall to serve as chairman of
the Zoning Hearing Board for 2005; Mr. Lionetti to serve as vice-chairman; and
Mrs. Bowe to serve as secretary. Mr. Wall seconded.
Mr. Wall said that he
intends to be a non-partisan member of this Board and would continue to uphold
the tradition of non-partisan zoning decisions.
Mrs. Laughlin said that
she would have liked Mr. Lenihan to continue to serve as vice-chairman but he
had declined.
Mrs. Bowe said that she
would keep the best interest of the community first and foremost in her
decisions on the Board.
The motion passed 3-2, with Messrs. Lionetti and Lenihan
voting nay.
Mrs. Laughlin moved to appoint James J. Auchinleck, Jr. Esquire as solicitor for 2005. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Lionetti moved to accept the minutes of December 2,
2004, December 6, 2004 and December 13, 2004. Mrs. Laughlin seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
Continued Application
of Brandywine Realty Trust
Mr. Auchinleck informed
the Board that he had a telephone message and fax from Mr. Coughlin, attorney
for Brandywine, requesting a continuance to February 3, 2005.
Mrs. Laughlin moved to continue the application of
Brandywine Realty Trust to February 3, 2005. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
Continued Application
of Acme Supermarket
Mr. Auchinleck reminded
the Board that this application had been read into the record on December 2,
2004, and continued to December 13, 2004. Due to the length of the December
agenda, it was continued to this evening. No testimony has been given.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone
present wished to be party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Bob Wurz of Sign
Edge, representing Albertson/Acme Supermarkets, was sworn in.
Mr. Wurz explained that
the Acme chain was re-branding its pharmacy as Sav-on, and would like to add
the Sav-on logo to the sign to identify it. Acme would like to reduce the size
of the existing Acme sign, and add a smaller channel box sign for Sav-on. The
existing sign, which is 132 square feet, had been granted a variance. The new
Acme sign would be 90.21 square feet, and the second sign for Sav-on would be
32 square feet. Although the total square footage would be smaller than the
current sign, there would be two separate signs where only one 20 square foot
sign is permitted. This second sign would be 22 feet above the ground, as is
the current Acme sign.
In response to Mr. Wall’s
question, Mr. Wurz said that Albertson’s headquarters is in Boise Idaho, and
that Albertson’s is a western chain of supermarkets.
Mr. Lionetti noted that
the application requests a 38-foot sign. Mr. Wurz said that he has misspoken,
and that his request is for a 38-foot sign.
In response to Mr.
Auchinleck’s questions, Mr. Wurz confirmed that the total square footage would
be smaller than the existing sign, and that the color and illumination would be
the same as now. He said that he would be adding to the multi-tenant sign at
the entrance to the shopping center to include Sav-on, but that no variance is
needed. Mr. Wurz explained that this package would be used by 10 Acme stores,
and that he was attempting to stay within the 132 square feet that had already
been given.
Mrs. Bowe said that she
felt that business is very good at the Acme store, and that Acme should be able
to keep within the 20 square feet that the ordinance allows. She said that the
neighbors to the shopping center are very sensitive to any additional lights at
the shopping center.
Mr. Harwood had no
comment.
Mrs. Laughlin moved to grant a variance from Sections
1106(H)(4)(a), 1106(H)((4(d)(2), 1106(H)(4)(c)(2)(a) of the Joint Municipal
Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to Acme Supermarket, Newtown/Bucks Assoc. owners, to
permit a fourth wall mounted sign where only one is permitted, with the sign
height of 22' 6" where the maximum height is 9 feet, and with a sign size
of 38 square feet where the maximum is 18 square feet. Mr. Lionetti seconded
and the motion passed 4-1, with Mrs. Bowe voting nay.
Continued Application of W.
David and Beverly Fleming – 258 Durham Road
Mr. Auchinleck reminded the Board that they had already
heard testimony from the applicant, presenting his case, and from the Township
in support of the violation notices, and this evening, Mr. James McCrane, a
party to the application would present his case. Mr. Mc Crane had been sworn in
at the previous meeting.
Mr. McCrane said that the barn at the winery had burned
down on August 2, 2002, after which a tent was erected on the north side of the
winery property. Although he could hear noise coming from parties in the tent,
he had never made a complaint, as he has assumed that the tent was erected as a
temporary measure after the fire. In 2003, the tent was again erected on the
north side of the property, and again Mr. McCrane made no complaint, as he was
attempting to be a good neighbor and support the winery’s attempt to continue
in business despite the fire. In April of 2004 a much larger tent was erected
on the eastern side of the property, closer to Mr. McCrane’s property. This
tent has a clear roof, and there is light visible through the roof. The music
was much louder from the larger tent placed closer to Mr. McCrane’s property.
Mr. McCrane said that after he was unsuccessful in his attempt to contact Mr.
Fleming about the loud music he made a complaint to the Newtown police, who
responded and had the music turned off at 11:00PM.
Mr. McCrane said that he met with Mr. Fleming and learned
that the tent was to be used for parties and weddings all summer, into the
fall, and was not a temporary solution to the burned down barn. He also learned
from Mr. Fleming that the tent had been relocated on the property because the
party guests were disturbed by the noise from Rte 413.
Mr. McCrane said that after his initial complaint, the
music was turned down and the decibel level was lower, however the base sound
reverberated throughout his house. He said that some of his neighbors had told
him that the base sound was keeping their children awake.
Mr. McCrane said that although the noise was very annoying
to him and to his neighbors, he never telephoned the police again. Instead he
spoke to the Township employees and had spoken to some of the Board of
Supervisors. He had also spoken to Mr. Fleming again.
He said that while he understood that events such as wine
tastings are agricultural accessory uses, he felt that the winery was now a
dance club, and should be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. He said
that the testimony given by Mr. Carroll of Crossing Vineyard stressed his
attempt to be a good neighbor to the residents living near Crossing Vineyards,
where all amplified music was indoors only. He said that while he understood
that agriculture is a permitted use in the conservation management district,
these regularly scheduled large events are not an accessory agricultural use.
He noted that he would not object if these events were held inside a walled
building, but the tent did nothing to shield the neighbors from the sound.
Mr. McCrane confirmed that his correct address is 3 Blayze
Court, Newtown.
Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-20 a letter stating that
Rosebank is in an agricultural security district.
Mrs. Laughlin said that Newtown does not have an
agricultural security district, and so some Newtown farms are part of the Lower
Makefield Agricultural Security District.
Mr. Tim Deegan of 5 Blayze Court was sworn in.
Mr. Deegan said that he had not been at home the night of
the April 2004 event at Rosebank, but after the second event, he contacted Mr.
Fleming about the persistent base pounding noise in his child’s bedroom. He
noted that the Crossing Vineyard hosts only 5% of its events with amplified
music, and he would not have objected to activities such as those described in
Mr. Carroll’s testimony. He said that he objects to the events at Rosebank
because these are not small wine promotion events, but a catering business with
large events lasting late into the evening.
Mr. Marshall asked if there had been any other noise
issues with Rosebank after the May 29, 2004 event.
Mr. Deegan said that there had been no other noise
problems after that evening.
Mr. William Barrier of 13 Blayze Court was sworn in.
Mr. Barrier said that while he is in support of
agriculture and a winery in his neighborhood, he is very much against the
hosting of large events because of the noise. He said that he lives closest to
the winery of all of the neighbors, and he hears the low base sounds that are
not measured by the decibel meter. He said that the winery is producing the
bulk of its revenue from the hosting of events rather than from the sale of
wine, and that these events are not for the promotion of the wine business.
Mr. Walter Iwaskiw of 144 Crittenden Drive was sworn in.
Mr. Iwaskiw said that he is not affected by the noise, but
is very concerned about the size of the commercial business in this residential
neighborhood. He said that the tent has grown twice in size, and can host up to
300 people. He said that he has seen over 100 cars parked on the property. He
said that the presence of a major commercial business infringes on the rural
lifestyle of the neighborhood.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Iwaskiw about the number of attendees
and cars at the playing fields next to the winery, and about the proposed park
to be built along the other side of the winery.
Mr. Auchinleck said that Mr. Iwaskiw could not know those
numbers.
Mr. Allen Fidler of 611 Newtown Yardley Road was sworn in.
Mr. Fidler said that he is in an agricultural business in
Newtown. He has toured the winery and has seen the improvements Mr. Fleming has
made to the property, including the new tent area, the restrooms and
landscaping. He was given a demonstration of the amplification system with the
sound box facing the dance floor and away from the residential neighborhood. He
walked about 400 yards into the open space beyond the tent, and using a decibel
meter was unable to measure the music. The decibel meter only registered noise
from the traffic and the school playground.
He said that while he understands the neighbors’ concerns, he thinks that for agricultural businesses to stay viable they must be allowed to have accessory uses.
In response to questions from Mr. McCrane, Mr. Fidler said
that he toured the winery and measured the sound during the day. He
acknowledged that the sound would travel farther on a still evening. He said
that he had walked about 1/3 of the distance between the tent and the neighboring
homes when the music could no longer be heard.
Mr. Joe Doody of 15 Blayze Court was sworn in.
Mr. Doody said that he hears the noise from the schools
and playing fields but that these sounds are during the daytime. He said that
the noise, especially the low base sound, is very noticeable until very late at
night. He said that he does not think it is fair for the winery to be allowed
to host an unlimited number of events.
Mrs. Dorothy McCrane of 3 Blayze Court was sworn in.
Mrs. McCrane said that when the first tent was installed
she was able to hear some noise. Now that the tent is larger and relocated
closer to the residential neighbors, she is much more aware of the noise. She
said that she agrees with all of her neighbors that she would like to be a good
neighbor and support this agricultural business, but that the events in the
tent are very noisy. She said that there is very little landscape buffering
between her neighborhood and the winery and the wind carries the noise to their
homes.
Mr. Marty Sommer of 250 Eagle Road was sworn in.
Mr. Sommer said that he could hear the music from the
tent, but because he is in an older home he is not bothered by the vibrations
described by the neighbors on Blayze Court. He said that he does not think that
the winery should be allowed to hold an unlimited number of events in a
residential neighborhood.
In closing, Mr. Marshall said that there are two
applications to be considered, one for a variance to erect a tent for
non-recurring events for seven months, and one to allow an H-5 use in the CM
district. There is also an appeal from the enforcement notice of the zoning
officer. Mr. Marshall reminded the Board of Exhibit A-14, the Township letter
dated September 18, 2002, which assured Mr. Fleming that permits for a tent
would continue to be issued in the future. He said that Mr. Fleming had relied
on this letter and made improvements to his property and booked future events
based on that assurance.
Mr. Marshall said that the events held at the winery are
non-recurring, as each one is a different, separate event.
He said that the issuance of the violation notice was
based on the experience at Stonehouse Bistro, and was a change in the
Township’s position on the winery. Over its twenty years of operation and hosting
of events, this was the first time the activities were considered in violation
of the ordinance.
Mr. Marshall reviewed the exhibits he had already
entered as Exhibits A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, and A-10, which all show that the
winery is a farm and that the promotion of wine at events is an accessory use
to an agricultural business. He reviewed exhibits A-13, A-14, and A-15, permits
issued for the hosting of events, including weddings.
Regarding the testimony of the neighbors, Mr. Marshall
read from section 305 of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983, which
defines agriculture as “a significant and important use” in the CM Conservation
Management Zoning District. He pointed out that ½ of Newtown Township is zoned
Conservation Management, and the Township encourages farming activity in the CM
district. He noted that farming has a certain nuisance quality, and that
Newtown’s noise ordinance is a nuisance ordinance, and agriculture is not
subject to nuisance ordinances. He said that the cluster provision of the
ordinance, which allows for residential development, has not made for “good
neighbors” for the farmers. He noted that the activities conducted at the
winery pre-date the residential developments. He reminded the Board that the
Planning Commission did not recommend that the Board of Supervisors oppose this
application.
Mr. Marshall cited DER v. Flynn, noting that Mr. Fleming
had relied on the letter entered as Exhibit A-14, when he thought that permits
had been issued in good faith, that he relied on the letter and permits to make
improvements to his property and he had expended funds justifiably based on the
letter. He said that this constituted a variance by estoppel.
Mr. Marshall said that Mr. and Mrs. Fleming would agree
to certain conditions being added to any variance granted, including:
Mr. Marshall again stated that the prime use of this
property is agriculture and accessory to agricultural use; that viticulture is
agriculture; that all other wineries in Bucks County host events which are
customary and incidental to the making and selling of wine; that activities at
the winery have been taking place for twenty years; that complaints of
residents are new; and that the property is otherwise ideally suited for these
activities, as it is surrounded by parks, open space and schools.
In closing, Mr. Sander said that he agreed that farming
has certain nuisance issues, however what the Flemings are doing at the winery
has no relation to farming. He said that the erection of a 5500 square foot
tent to host 300 people and 100 cars for weddings, bar mitzvahs and other
parties is not the same as farming. He said this is a large-scale banquet
facility, a commercial use in the middle of a farm.
Mr. Sander said that the legal issue to be considered is
whether the zoning officer acted properly in denying a permit and issuing an
enforcement notice for hosting of regularly scheduled parties and events. He
said that the Township permits the erection of a temporary structure during
construction and in special circumstances for non-recurring events, and some of
the events at the winery might qualify, however the testimony shows that the
winery is marketed as hosting events throughout the spring, summer and fall,
which makes them recurring.
He said that the applicant has the burden of showing
hardship, and this burden has not been met. The property is used and can be
used as A-1, agricultural, A-6, accessory agricultural sales, and B-1,
residential use, but this is a large-scale commercial venture. The use of this
tent is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the CM
district.
He said that the enforcement notice was properly issued,
as the use of the property is the growing of grapes, and the making and selling
of wine, not the hosting of weddings, reunions, etc with amplified music, and
catered food. This large commercial venture, which generates traffic of up to
200 cars and 300 people, is not an accessory to the winery business. He said
that the events now being hosted are on a much larger scale than the reunions
and seminars for which permits had been issued in 2002. He said that these
larger events make the winery into an E-5, eating place, and E-9 entertainment
venue, neither of which are permitted uses in the CM district.
He again stated that an accessory use must be
subordinate to and incidental to the agricultural use. He cited Champaine v
Zoning Hearing Board of East Bradford Township, which found that to show that
the hosting of weddings is customary, it must show that other wineries are also
hosting such large-scale events. The applicant has not shown that the other
wineries are hosting large-scale events. He said that this is not a realistic
accessory use, and that eating-places and banquet facilities are not permitted.
Mr. Sander said that the tent is not a non-residential
farm building just because it is on a farm. It is not a barn or a silo, and
Section 1403(C)(1)(b) of the Ordinance does not apply. He also noted that no
evidence has been presented that supports the test that these events are in
support of the sale of agricultural products.
In reference to Exhibit A-14, the Township letter dated
September 18, 2002, Mr. Sander reminded the Board that at that time there had
been a smaller tent at a location farther away from the residential neighbors
and the events taking place were much smaller in scale, such as wine tasting
parties, without amplified music.
Mr. Sander asked that the Zoning Hearing Board uphold
the notice of violation and deny the variances.
Mr. McCrane made no closing comments.
In rebuttal to testimony given and closing statements of
Mr. Sander, Mr. Marshall said that the record had shown that the party rental
revenue for Rosebank had been $15,000 and the wine sale income had been $135,000.
Mr. Marshall read Exhibit A-14, a letter dated September 18, 2002, from Newtown
Township to Mr. Fleming, confirming that future permits would be issued. He
noted that the letter specifically refers to “weddings”. He asked that the
Zoning Hearing Board deny the notice of violation and issue a variance for the
tent to remain in place for seven months. He said that the winery is not
requesting a use variance, as the use is an accessory use to the vineyard.
Mr. Auchinleck reviewed the questions before the Board.
He said that the Board must consider whether the hosting of events is an
accessory use allowed by the Ordinance or not. If it is an allowed use, then no
variance from Section 401 (A)(1) is needed, and the action of the Zoning
Officer in issuing a notice of violation should be reversed. If this is not an
allowed use under the Ordinance, then the Board must decide if they wish to
grant or deny a variance for this use. If the Board decides that the hosting of
events is a permitted use, then they must decide if they wish to grant a
variance from Section 803(H-7) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance
of 1983 to permit a temporary tent to conduct functions accessory to a lawfully
existing winery which may be recurring where temporary structures for recurring
events are not permitted, and for the tent to remain in place for seven months.
If the Board wishes to grant this variance, they could place conditions on the
variance, such as those suggested by Mr. Marshall. The Board has the option of
denying both applications and upholding the action of the Zoning Officer.
In response to Mr. Wall’s
questions, Mr. Auchinleck explained that if a use variance were granted, then
this would apply only to this winery for this use. If the Board reverses the
actions of the Zoning Officer, they will be interpreting the Ordinance to
include the functions as an accessory use to a winery.
At Mr. Wall’s suggestion, the
Board discussed the options presented by Mr. Auchinleck off the record.
Mr. Wall moved to grant an appeal from the actions of the
Zoning Officer determining that weddings, parties and other functions are an
accessory to retail sales of wine in the CM District, and to deny the
application for a variance from Section 401(A)(1) of the Joint Municipal Zoning
Ordinance of 1983; and to grant a variance from Section 803(H-7) of the Joint
Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a temporary tent to conduct
functions accessory to a lawfully existing winery in which may be recurring
where temporary structures for recurring events are not permitted with the
following conditions:
Mr. Auchinleck suggested that the Board consider
requiring the applicant to pay for transcription by the stenographer of the
proceedings, and that the use be consistent with the testimony given.
Mr. Wall amended his motion to include that the
applicant assume the costs for transcription of the proceedings and that the
use be consistent with testimony given. Mr. Lionetti seconded the motion as
amended.
Mr. Lenihan said that he is very concerned about the
traffic issues, as the accessory use has evolved to what he would consider no
longer only accessory. He said that he
has experienced problems on Rte 413 when a driver is looking for the winery
entrance, and backs up after he has passed the driveway. He said that he would
like a traffic study required.
Mr. Fleming said that he is only permitted one sign and
it is north of the driveway on Rte 413.
Mr. Lionetti said that maybe a deceleration lane of a
widening of the driveway would be necessary. He suggested that perhaps the
motion should be amended to require the use of an off-duty policeman for
parties of fewer than 250 people.
Mr. McCrane asked that the music end by 10:00 PM.
Mr. Auchinleck said that additional signage would
require another variance.
Mr. Marshall said that the applicant would apply for
temporary signage for the day an event is held. After some discussion, the
applicant agreed to hiring a policeman to help with traffic for smaller events.
Mr. Wall amended his amended
motion to require That an off duty police officer be employed to direct traffic
for events of more than 200 guests, beginning ½ hour before the start of the
event until ½ hour after the end of the event. Mr. Lionetti seconded and the
motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Lenihan voting nay.
Application of Newtown Bucks County Joint Municipal
Authority-
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the
application of Newtown Bucks County Joint Municipal Authority, Harry Patel,
owners requesting a variance from Section 401(B), 401(C) and 903(B)(1)&(2)
and Special Exception under 401(A)(3)(e) and 905(IV)(B) of the Joint Municipal
Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit wastewater pumping station and gravity sewer
line on 13,158 square foot lot where 10 acres is required and to permit minimum
front yard of 50 feet where 100 feet is required, rear yard of 20 feet where 60
feet is required, lot width of 135 feet where 200 feet is required, crossing
within the floodplain by a wastewater pumping station and gravity sewer line
and installation of a sanitary sewer line and related facilities within mapped
floodplain, mapped flood plain soils and/or Waters of the Commonwealth. The
subject property is Linton Hill Road, Newtown, in the CM Conservation
Management Zoning District.
Mr. Ed Murphy represented the
applicant as special council.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present
wished to be party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Murphy reminded that Board that
at the December 2, 2004 meeting, the Sewer Authority had presenting testimony
about this pumping station. He had asked for party status at that time,
representing Harry Patel, the property owner whose lot was to have been
subdivided for the pumping station. When it was discovered that the original
application had included the entire property rather than the 13,158 square foot
lot to be subdivided, Mr. Murphy said that the Sewer Authority asked him to be
special council and to revise the application to clarify the relief sought.
Mr. Ken Finger, of Gannett Fleming,
Planners and Engineers, had been sworn in at the December 2, 2004 meeting. Mr.
Auchinleck reminded Mr. Finger that he was still under oath.
Mr. Murphy
entered as Exhibit A-1 a site plan of the Patel property.
Referring to the plan, Mr. Finger
pointed out that the northwest quadrant of the property, outlined by a red dash
line, is a 13,158 square foot lot to be subdivided for the Sewer Authority to
use as a pumping station. He noted that the red and green dashed line indicated
a 30-foot easement for a gravity sewer along the north of the property line.
The gravity sewer line is to run from Rte 532, through some private properties
to the pumping station. A minor sub-division plan would need to be submitted to
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Murphy entered as Exhibit A-2 a
pumping station layout plan dated December 2, 2004.
Referring to A-2, Mr. Finger said
that the gravity sewer leads to a wet well below grade, then into the pumping
station. Wastewater is then pumped through a force main to Linton Hill Road,
then to Wrights Road where it connects with the Golden Acres line where the
creek crosses Wrights Road. The 10 by 20 foot building would resemble the Patel
home, using similar colors and materials. Only the structure is above grade.
The width of the lot would be 135 feet, where 200 feet is required, the side
yard would be 24 feet, the front yard would be 50 feet where 100 feet is
required. There is to be a side yard setback of 12 feet from the paved area, 20
feet from the building, where 60 feet is required.
Mr. Finger said that he had submitted
the Act 537 plans to the DEP, and had received voicemail with some technical comments,
but assurance that the plan as designed and submitted to this Board would be
approved for this location.
Mr. Murphy submitted as Exhibit A-3
plans of Eagle Glen and Eagleton Farms pumping stations.
Mr. Finger noted that the Eagle Glen
station is on a 100 by 135 foot lot and the Eagleton Farms station is on a 67
by 89 foot lot. Both pumping stations are similar in size to that proposed for
this station, and both have been designed to resemble the surrounding homes.
Mr. Murphy entered as Exhibit A-4
elevation plans for Eagle Glen and Eagleton Farms pumping stations; Exhibit A-5
a photograph of Eagle Glen station on Sibelius Way; Exhibit A-6, a photograph
of Eagleton Farm pumping station at Eagle and Stoopville Roads; and Exhibit
A-7, the Resolution of the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors dated July 14,
2004 approving the Act 537 plan.
Mr. Finger said that the Township had
held meetings at which it was agreed that because of malfunctioning septic
systems in the Mardot Village/Winding Lane area, sewers were needed. Because
this site is downstream of the homes to be served, it was determined that this
would be the best site.
Mr. Harwood was sworn in.
Mr. Harwood asked if the application
had been amended and if the property is to be purchased.
Mr. Murphy confirmed that this
property would be subdivided and purchased by the Sewer Authority.
Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a
variance to Newtown Bucks County Joint Municipal Authority, from Section
401(B), 401(C) and 903(B)(1)&(2) and Special Exception under 401(A)(3)(e)
and 905(IV)(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit
wastewater pumping station and gravity sewer line on 13,158 square foot lot
where 10 acres is required and to permit minimum front yard of 50 feet where
100 feet is required, rear yard of 20 feet where 60 feet is required, lot width
of 135 feet where 200 feet is required, crossing within the floodplain by a
wastewater pumping station and gravity sewer line and installation of a
sanitary sewer line and related facilities within mapped floodplain, mapped
flood plain soils and/or Waters of the Commonwealth. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
Application
of George David and Julia Hansbarger
Mrs. Bowe read into the record the
application of George & Julia Hansbarger - Holland Floor Covering,
requesting a variance from Section 405(A), 405(C), 803(E-1)(4) of the Joint
Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of a 2,991 sq. ft.
sales and showroom addition to existing 4,900 sq. ft. building (where such use
is not permitted) with a 40 ft. front yard setback instead of 100 ft., and 29
parking spaces where 70 are required.
The subject property is 35 Swamp Road, Newtown, in the R-2 High Density
Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Don Marshall represented the
applicant.
Mr. Wall asked if anyone present
wished to be party to this application. There was no response.
Mr. Roger Hansbarger and Mr. David
Hansbarger, Jr. were sworn in.
Mr. Marshall entered the following
exhibits:
§
A-1 the
plan for improvements
§
A-2 the
deed to the property
§
A-3 the
previous decision of the Zoning Hearing Board
§
A-4 the
plot plan for the property as originally developed as C-1 Commercial property
§
A-5 the
old C-1 Zoning Criteria
§
A-6
photographs of the property
Mr. Marshall noted that at the time
of the decision entered as Exhibit A-3, only Mr. Lionetti and Mr. Lenihan were
on the Board. He said that the
property, located at 35 Swamp Road, is zoned R-2, Residential, although it is
surrounded by Pizza Hut/Wendy’s, the High School, a car wash and the Meglio’s
shopping center. To the rear of the property, along German Avenue are a dance
studio and an auto body shop. He said that the property had been developed as a
nursery school when the area was zoned C-1 Commercial. When the area was
re-zoned, this portion of Swamp Road to the Church became residential. Although
the nursery school had been a permitted use in the R-2 district, the carpet
showroom was not, and a use variance had been granted in 2002.
Mr. Marshall reviewed that use of the
property. He reminded the Board that this is a flooring showroom only. Holland
Flooring has a warehouse location in the Business Commons, from which all
deliveries are made. Customers come into the showroom to select flooring and
place orders, but it is not a retail business.
Mr. Marshall said that the property
is 32,709 square feet. The existing building is 4900 square feet. The addition
would bring the size to 7891 square feet. As an E-1 retail use, 70 parking
spaces would be required for the expanded building. The property has 18 spaces
on site, and there are 11 on-street spaces available at the rear of the
building along German Avenue. The other relief requested is for a 40-foot front
yard setback. Because the rear of the building faces German Avenue, this
property has two front yards.
Mr. Roger Hansbarger said that he is
the son of the applicants. He works in the business at this location. They
currently have display areas for flooring samples and five employees. At the
location, a sales associate shows samples to customers. Occasionally a customer
would take a sample home to view, but no sales are made directly from the
location. The additional space is needed to expand the selection available.
Some floor area would be used for tables to view the samples.
Mr. Hansbarger said that since he
moved into the location in 2002, he has never filled all 18 parking spaces. He
has 5 employees, but they do not all work at the same time. Typically there are
3 or 4 sales associates and at most 6 customers. He said that he does not want
the space to increase the number of customers, but to increase the available
samples. He said that his inventory is in the Business Commons, and all
deliveries are made from there.
Mr. Marshall noted that the property
had originally been developed as commercial, and under the commercial criteria
retail sales were permitted. He noted that the property is serviced by public
water and sewer, as required. He said that the nature of this business is more
like a wholesale business, for which only 1 parking space per 1000 feet is
required. Deliveries are made to the Business Commons site. Display items are
brought to this location from the Business Commons in a van, not a delivery
truck.
Mr. Marshall said that the plan
currently shows 50.9 % impervious surface. After the addition is built there
will be 48% impervious coverage because the paved playground area and sidewalks
around the building are to be removed.
Mr. Marshall said that the addition
to this business would not change the neighborhood, would not increase traffic,
and because it is a use variance, a new variance would be needed if the
building were to be sold.
In response to Mrs. Bowe’s question,
Mr. Hansbarger said that he has not considered other properties because he
wants to provide convenience to his customers.
Mrs. Bowe reminded Mr. Hansbarger
that the last time he had appeared before the Zoning Hearing Board he had said
that he would not be back.
Mr. Lionetti said that he did not think that this was
conducive to the area. He said that Mr. Hansbarger had created his own hardship
in moving a retail business to the R-2 district.
Mr. Harwood was sworn in.
Mr. Harwood reviewed the plans and
commented that the parking spaces along German Avenue are on a private road and
should not be included if relief is granted.
Mr. Auchinleck said that these
parking spaces exist and are currently being used. He said that the Zoning
Hearing Board does not have the right to say that these spaces are for Holland
Flooring. Any variance granted should be for 18 spaces only.
Mr. Harwood also noted that no
reference had been made to the 5 unit residential building on the other side of
German Avenue.
Mr. Chuck Tompkins was sworn in.
Mr. Tompkins said that Holland
Flooring has another showroom in Holland, which is primarily filled with tile.
They would like to broaden the assortment of samples carried. They never have
more than 5 customers at a time. 70% of their business is with builders. He
said that the shopping center next door is very busy, and that customers of
those businesses sometimes use their parking spaces. They are a family business and they are trying to remain
competitive by offering a large selection.
Mrs. Laughlin said that she passes
this business often and has never seen the parking lot busy.
Mr. Marshall said that while he
understands the concerns of Mrs. Bowe and Mr. Lionetti, he feels that when
Holland Flooring first applied for a variance the building was an eyesore and
had been vacant for two years. The property should not be zoned R-2 at all, but
there is not adequate parking for a commercial business. This business should
be welcome in the Township.
Mr. Lionetti moved to adjourn at 11:15PM. Mrs. Bowe seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted
______________________________
Mary Donaldson