WEST HEMPFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD
January 11, 2011
The West Hempfield Township Zoning Hearing Board met in the meeting room of the West Hempfield Township Building at 3401 Marietta Avenue, Lancaster, PA, on Tuesday, January 11, 2011. Gary Lintner called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Board members Amelia Swiernik and Daryl Peck were also present, along with Rhonda Adams, Court Reporter; Bernadette Hohenadel, Solicitor; Edward Hinkle, Zoning Officer; and Darlene Diffenderfer, Recording Secretary.
REORGANIZATION: The first order of business was to reorganize the Board for the year 2011.
Motion: Amy Swiernik moved, seconded by Daryl Peck, to retain the current makeup of the Board: Gary Lintner, chairman; Amelia Swiernik, vice chairman; and Daryl Peck, secretary; and to keep the same meeting schedule of the second Tuesday of the month at 7:30 P.M. with meetings held at the Township building for the year 2011. Discussion was held regarding the November meeting date falling on Election Day. It was agreed to hold the regular meeting at the regular date and time in November 2011. Motion carried 3-0.
Approval of Minutes
Motion: Daryl Peck moved, seconded by Amy Swiernik, to approve the minutes of the meeting of
December 14, 2010 as presented. Carried 3-0.
Case 1120 – Daniel S. Flosser (continued)
For the second consecutive month, there was no representation present for this case.
Mr. Hinkle stated the applicant was going to submit a letter to withdraw the application, but no letter was ever received.
Ms. Hohenadel stated that the Board should make a motion, for the record, to deem the case denied or withdrawn by reason of failure to appear for two consecutive months.
Motion: Amy Swiernik moved, seconded by Daryl Peck to deem case 1120 to be withdrawn due to the fact there was no representation for the case for a second month. Carried 3-0.
Case 1121 – James & Carol Martin/Charles & Josephine Misal
This application was submitted by James and Carol Martin, 2517 Ironville Pike, Columbia, PA and Charles and Josephine Misal, 2519 Ironville Pike, Columbia, PA for a variance of .65 acre to Section 301.3.A.1 for minimum lot area and a variance of 18 feet for minimum front yard setback to subdivide a lot from 2519 Ironville Pike and construct a single family dwelling on the new lot 2733 Burma Road, zoned Rural Agricultural.
Carol Martin and William Sell of Light Heigel Associates were both sworn to provide testimony. Dwight Yoder, Attorney with Gibbel, Kraybill & Hess, 41 East Orange Street, Lancaster, PA was also present to represent the applicants.
Mr. Yoder presented a series of Applicant Exhibits numbered A1 through A7. Mr. Yoder’s questioning of Mrs. Martin described the Exhibits as follows: A1) a Google aerial map showing the Misal property and the proposed lot on Burma Road; A2) an agreement between the Misals and the Martins for the Martins to acquire the proposed new lot; A3) a copy of the Zoning Hearing Board application for Case 1121; A4) a copy of a Quiet Title action to obtain the abandoned railroad bed which lies between 2519 Ironville Pike and the proposed new lot on Burma Road; A5) a series of pictures showing neighboring properties; A6) a proposed site plan for the proposed new dwelling on the new lot; and A7) an agreement between Nathan and Melissa Graham, 2517 Ironville Pike and James and Carol Martin to grant an easement through the Grahams property to connect public sewer and public water to the proposed new lot on Burma Road.
In reviewing the Exhibits, Mr. Yoder stated the Quiet Title action would soon be final and the land would be added to the proposed new lot. When reviewing the pictures in Exhibit A5, it was pointed out that the proposed new lot would be similar in size to other neighboring lots on Burma Road. It was noted that the lot would be .35 acres after the Quiet Title action is final and the Misals lot at 2519 Ironville Pike will be .39 acres.
Mrs. Martin testified that she and her husband currently live with their daughter at 2517 Ironville Pike and wish to build a new house of their own on the proposed new lot. She stated the new house would be one level for their convenience and would also allow them to remain living near her parents and her daughter’s family. Mrs. Martin further testified that she has lived in the area for 50 years and their proposed plan would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way.
Mr. Hinkle pointed out that, even though there are currently two parcels separated by the rail bed, there is only one tax identification number. Mr. Yoder stated that, once the quiet title action is finalized, two separate deeds could be written with two separate ID numbers.
Mr. Yoder submitted a resume of William R. Sell of Light Heigel as Applicant Exhibit A8 to introduce Mr. Sell as an expert regarding the preparation of site plans.
Mr. Sell testified that his firm prepared the site plan for the proposed lot on Burma Road in Exhibit A6. He confirmed that the dimensions shown in the Exhibit are accurate.
Mr. Sell testified that the proposed lot became non-conforming when the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. His testimony noted that the proposed lot could not be used in any permitted use in the Rural Agricultural district without some variances. He stated a single family dwelling would be the best use for the proposed lot and pointed out that numerous other properties in the area are less than one acre.
Mr. Sell stated that the hardship for the applicant is that the lot could not be used in any other way and was not self-created.
Mr. Sell testified that the proposed lot slopes from Burma Road to Ironville Pike at a steep rate of 10 to 15%. He stated the house would be positioned towards the higher portion of the slope to allow storm drainage away from the house and garage and facilitates the drainage of sewage through the gravity pipe system to the main in Ironville Pike.
It was noted that the proposed new lot would be connected to public sewer and public water via an easement through the property at 2517 Ironville Pike to the mains in Ironville Pike. Mr. Sell stated the house must be higher than the system to allow the gravity system to function properly.
Mr. Sell stated it was his opinion that the lot size and slope of the lot created an unnecessary hardship for the applicant in an attempt to meet the front yard setback; that the hardship was created by the unique physical aspects of the lot, not by the applicant.
Ms. Swiernik stated that she did not think there was a hardship for the front yard setback; that the house could be sited without a variance. Ms. Swiernik also stated concerns about the safety of the proposed size and location of the driveway.
Mr. Yoder pointed out that the required setback of 40 feet would be out of line with other houses in the area which are situated at 10 to 12 feet back from the roadway. He also added that placing the house further back on the lot could affect the gravity and would cost more to construct.
Mr. Yoder stated that, for a dimensional variance, the requirements are not as strict as for a use variance. He added that the Board can consider factors other than the physical characteristics of the lot.
Mr. Hinkle pointed out that the applicant must provide for storm water management and it would have to be placed in the back yard. He stated that keeping the house forward on the lot would be helpful to install the seepage pit.
Following a discussion with Mrs. Martin off the record, Mr. Yoder stated that the applicant would be willing to push the house back to 30 feet from the proposed 22 feet. It was determined that the edge of the proposed porch is at 22 feet with the house wall at 26 feet and pushing the house back to 30 feet would place the edge of the front porch at 26 feet rather than the 22 feet.
Mr. Lintner stated that looking at the numbers only, the variance request for the front yard setback is excessive. He added that, looking at the characteristics of the neighborhood, it does fall into line with what already exists. He agreed that pushing the house back an additional four feet would be more acceptable.
It was determined that no time extension for pulling a building permit would be necessary. Mr. Hinkle stated that he had already received an application for the construction and zoning permits along with permission from Mrs. Martin to delay processing that request within the required time frame.
For the record, Mr. Yoder requested that the applicant’s request be amended to a request for a variance of 14 feet for the front yard setback with the edge of the porch placed at 26 feet and the front house wall at 30 feet.
Motion: Amy Swiernik moved, seconded by Daryl Peck, to grant a variance of .65 acre to Section 301.3.A.1 to build a single family dwelling at 2733 Burma Road with the following conditions: 1) the lot be connected to both public sewer and water; 2) that a separate tax identification number and deed are established before building permit is issued; 3) the railroad right-of-way be attached to the Burma
Road lot as described; 4) easements for sewer and water connection be obtained and recorded and 5) all else be as described before the Board. Carried 3-0.
Motion: Amy Swiernik moved, seconded by Daryl Peck, to grant a variance of 14 feet to Section 301.5.A.3 for minimum front yard setback at 2733 Burma Road with the condition that the 14 feet apply to the edge of the porch pad and the front house wall be no closer than 30 feet. Carried 3-0.
Case 1122 – Harold & Tracy Dubensky
This application was submitted by Harold and Tracy Dubensky, 1014 Prospect Road, Columbia, PA to amend a variance granted on March 14, 2006 which allowed a second principal use on their property, a variance of 25 feet to Section 303.3.B for lot width at street line, and a variance of 75 feet to Section 303.C.1 for lot width at building setback line to subdivide a one acre flag lot from the parent tract to build a single family dwelling, zoned R-2.
Mr. and Mrs. Dubensky were both sworn to provide testimony.
Applicant Exhibits A1 and A2, labeled Hempfield Gardens, were reviewed. A1 showed the property as it currently exists and A2 indicated the proposed changes to the property.
The Dubenskys stated they now own 3936 Concordia Road and are able to use a portion of that lot to create a flag lot behind that property. They testified the flag lot would be subdivided from the parent tract to allow construction of a new residence for themselves, removing the proposed new residence from the lot at 1014 Prospect Road as proposed in the 2006 approval. They stated the existing residence would still be demolished as stipulated in the 2006 approvals which removes the second principal use on the parent tract at 1014 Prospect Road.
Mr. Hinkle stated the applicants would be completing a Land Development Plan to subdivide and would need approvals from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to allow the flag lot.
Applicant Exhibit A3 was submitted and reviewed. This exhibit is the Land Development Plan showing as-built details for the existing property at 1014 Prospect Road.
Mrs. Dubensky stated the new lot would be one acre and would be accessed from Concordia Road. She added that the lot at 3936 Concordia Road would also be one acre and 1014 Prospect Road would be just over 5 acres.
Motion: Daryl Peck moved, seconded by Amy Swiernik, to rescind the variance approved at the March 14, 2006 hearing for Case 1115 for a second principal use at 1014 Prospect Road with the following conditions: a) the condition that the existing house at 1014 Prospect Road must be demolished within 90 days of receiving an occupancy certificate for the new proposed dwelling shall be attached to Special Exception granted March 14, 2006 to allow a retail greenhouse, as condition number 8, with the clarification on the new proposed subdivided lot be added; b) the proposed flag lot is approved by the Board of Supervisors; and c) the Subdivision Plan and revised Land Development Plan be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Carried 3-0.
Motion: Daryl Peck moved, seconded by Amy Swiernik, to grant a variance of 25 feet to Section 303.3.B for lot width at street line for a new one acre lot subdivided from 1014 Prospect Road with the following conditions: a) the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed flag lot and b) the Board of
Supervisors approve the Subdivision Plan and revised Land Development Plan. Carried 3-0.
Motion: Daryl Peck moved, seconded by Amy Swiernik, to grant a variance of 75 feet to Section 303.C.1 for lot width at building setback line for a new one acre lot subdivided from 1014 Prospect Road with the following conditions: a) the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed flag lot; and b) the Board of Super-
visors approve the Subdivision Plan and revised Land Development Plan. Carried 3-0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Daryl S. Peck, Secretary
Secretary
