Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

Before we start, I'd like to make sure everyone's signed in for this meeting in the back entrance of the room. If you've not, please do so because it must be on the record. I'm Robert Tanner. The other board members tonight are Richard Hul and Charles F. Uh I'm going to designate them both as voting members for this evening as their alternates. I'll introduce the following members. We have Matthew Puzz, zoning development officer. Julie Majio, assistant zoning and development officer. Jeremy Toman, board solicitor. Tomorrow, Doxy, court reporter. After the presentation by the appellent, the board will hear from those in question of the appeal, those in favor, and those opposed. Any documents or evidence that's presented must be kept for a period of 60 days for our records. And after all the presentations are made, the board will recess. We'll then reconvene and make our decisions. The board has 45 days to render a decision, but they're usually made this evening. If you do not care to wait for the decision, you may call the zoning office in the morning after 8:30 a.m. I'd now ask that everyone please stand to be sworn in.

Yep. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please answer, I do. Thank you. Uh we have two appeals for this evening. Uh, first one is going to be appeal number 25-25 Timothy Pagano for property located at 1842 Zimmerly Road seeking a density variance to construct a dwelling duplex in the R2 lowdensity residential district. If you uh please come up uh state your name and address and tell us about uh your request. So my name is Timothy Pagano. I live at 311 Mohawk Drive in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Okay. So, I am here tonight to present information uh in support of my requested variance for the property I'm purchasing at 1842 Zimmerly Road. Um the property is currently zoned R2 per the 2022 zoning ordinance change. Two family dwellings are permitted use in R2. Yes. Sorry.

Um but unfortunately the current parcel lacks adequate lot square footage to meet the zoning ordinance requirement for a two family home. So due to the ordinance square footage requirements, a variance is needed to make that lot buildable. Otherwise, it is not buildable. Um on my application, I'm requesting a relief a relief variance for zoning ordinance section 146-16, sorry, 145-16G related to minimum lot area. The submitted variance application included a sketch showing the proposed building in relation to the property lines existing garage in Zimmerly Road. The zoning hearing board is authorized to vary from strict application of any requirement if strict application would deprive me of reasonable use of this land. So for purposes of this meeting, I will go through the five variance criteria. Number one, uh the criteria of this property has unique physical conditions. The subject property is an uh existing lot R2 district. The lot square footage is 9,680 square ft. Due to the zoning ordinance requirements, this lot must be 10,890 ft to allow for a duplex. The unique conditions is that the lot size preceded the zoning ordinance change in 2022 is now um unbuildable unless a dimension variance is granted. The second criteria is that because of the physical conditions of these lot, there's no possibility the property can be developed in strict conformity with the ordinance for reasonable use of the property. Because of the existing lot square footage, the property cannot be developed if strict conformity with the current uh zoning ordinance. The next criteria is such that hardship has not been created by the appellant. The 2022 zoning ordinance change requires the minimum lot size for a

duplex to be higher than its current lot size. As a result, it renders the parcel unbuildable without variance relief. The change in the zoning ordinance is what presents the hardship and therefore the hardship was not caused by myself. The fourth criteria is that the variance, if authorized, will not alter the character of the district nor impair use of the adjacent properties nor affect the public welfare. The building will be an improvement to the property and my proposed two family dwelling use is permitted in R2 and will not alter the existing character characteristics of the neighborhood. The final criteria is that the variance if authorized will represent minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue. Um, my variance request is minimum is the minimum variances to afford relief. Thank you and I look forward to your approval.

Okay. So, Matt, just to confirm, um, excuse me, this is R zoned R2, which does allow for a duplex. Correct. Uh so the only issue as it's stated here is that the lot size is uh 1,210 square feet too small to a lot. So it's allowed by zoning but not by square footage area. Correct. Correct. The density or the maximum units per lot is the issue at hand.

Okay. And you know, as far as the usability of the property, what other us are there any uses on an R2 lot that would fit with that lot size?

The a single family detached dwelling would be permitted. So that's that would be the limit, correct? And is it true that before the zoning update was the square footage requirement not in place or was it different? I believe before the zoning update that area was classified R1 single family residential. Okay. So the the township's overall desire is that hey this this works for R2. There's just a glitch in the the size that would allow it for that lot. Correct.

I I didn't follow that follow that question what he answered and I didn't understand it's allow this is R2 which allows single story duplex. You said something about before the um it was it was R1 before which is single family detached. They resed area. They reszoned it to R2 which allows multi. Would this have made it in the old No, I have no questions. Okay. Me neither. Okay, Jeremy. Um, do you know are there other duplexes in the neighborhood? Yes, I believe there's one across the street and then there's a either a three or a four unit uh just maybe an eighth of a mile down the street. Okay.

Those are just very obvious to the eye. I'm not sure if any of the other ones the lot size though. Sorry, with the same You're asking with the same lot size, you mean? I'm just curious if there's another duplexes there. There is a It's either a three or four unit just kind of behind the CVS closer to Peach. Um that is brand new. Um and I believe there's a duplex or a threelex. It looks kind of like a single family home, but right across the street. And I'm assuming that those are on larger lot sizes than yours. Maybe a little bit larger, but not I'm not sure what the exact square footage is, so I can't speak to that. But it's not, you know, anything.

Now, this your current lot that consists of what? Two lots. Two of the original, I guess, proposed lots in the subdivision. Is that correct? It it's it's one lot. Well, I understand it's one tax parcel, but at one point in time, I guess it it was two lots, it looks like. I mean, I'm looking at the exhibits in the um in the packet. It's this that could be Yeah, that could be Well, to your point, it's the same thing on lot number 24 and 25. You see the dash, the old property line that runs through it. So, that's a duplex there as well.

And then, you know, had it not be consolidated into two lot or into a single lot, it could be two lots that could be developed with two single family dwellings on it. Is that right, Matt? It's only 80 feet wide. So this is a duplex. I'm sorry I missed the So I guess in that subdivision this was I guess originally considered two lots. Correct. Correct. It looks like uh lot 29 and 30 of the original subdivision and and those individual lots could have been developed with two single family homes. Correct. You mean by two, right? One on each lot. One on each lot.

Okay, that's Yeah, sorry, I missed misheard the original question. I wanted make sure it's clarified. But it it has been combined into 180 foot lot. Correct. You could not subdivide it into two 40 foot lots and build a home on each. That doesn't meet the minimums.

I would have to look into that one further. Generally, since uh the minimum lot size in the R2 district's 5,000 square feet, um you'd be short the 5,000 square feet, but the uh supervisors could grant a modification to create a lot smaller than what's permitted. Yeah, just curious about that. Okay, Jeremy, anything else for him? I don't have anything else for you at this time, but we might. Okay. Yeah, we're gonna open up to the audience. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience would like to come up and speak on this? Yes, please come on up.

Hi, my name is Kathy Blly. I live at 1824 Zimmerly Road and I've lived there for 33 years. When I moved there, I moved there. It was a quiet neighborhood to raise my three children, which I did. But over the past probably five years that neighborhood has changed so much with well probably a little longer than that once they built those apartments up by Leecom that's now a throughway for everybody go to go to Leecom to Milreek community. Uh Dr. Sylvia owns a lot of the properties there. The property that he's talking about across the street that is um apartments. It was a a duplex that used to be a Sarah Reed home. Uh she bought that property. She turned it into I think there's three three uh apartments in there now. She also down by Raid tore down two single family dwellings that she used to rent out and put that apartment in down there. Part of the problem is the traffic on that street is horrendous right there at um West and Zimmerly. It's it's a three-way stop, but it's you can't see like one way. His that property that he wants to build on is like right next to the corner house. There's really not a whole lot of space and it's now going to be competing with the apartment across the street now. And and she's also working on the house right next to the place that she put three apartments in. I don't know if she's turning that into a duplex. They're still working on that. They tore down trees. They dug up, you know, stuff in the backyard and everything. One of the biggest problems in that area is the sewer drainage. I just took pictures of my house. I'm the only house on the street that still has a ditch cuz everybody else covered

theirs up. And all the water fills up into my ditch into my basement. I've been working like a dog trying to keep it dry down there. And I've caught, you know, talked to Mil Creek about it numerous times. They came out one time and they dug the ditch deeper. And then they also dug out my neighbors, he goes and puts stone that blocks the the drainage. And um there's a house a couple doors down from me that there's such a water uh reservoir and when it rains down there that the lady that just moved two doors down, ducks used to swim in her backyard. That's how bad the the drainage is down there. And something would have to be done with that, you know, in order to, you know, be able to have drainage for a whole another, you know, two properties. But it's more of a a safety issue now. The the proper I mean the intersection at Perkins and Zimmerly Road is like a death trap. There's more accident. You can ask the Mil Creek police. They're I mean even for the ones that they show up for, there's tons of other ones that they don't even have to show up for. But somebody's going to end up getting killed there. And I just don't think we need more, you know, traffic in that area, especially, I mean, I don't know how it's going to be. Dr. Sylvia owns a lot of properties on um Ellsworth that she rents to her students, and at the end of the school year, I mean, I know that's not Mil Creek, but at the end of the school year, it's amazing that these future doctors, the way that they leave that street, they just put their junk at the curb. They leave. Is that going to be what happens here? Is it going to be rented to the students? You know, she used to rent these or have the uh residents live in these houses and I don't know where she's having them now.

We we also across the street used to have um uh two of the houses were for um uh rehab places, but now that she owns a lot of the you know rehab places, she sends them there and those are now being rented out just by you know individuals, which is fine because she still takes good care of those. But it's just I mean the whole neighborhood has changed and it's just I mean you c you can't raise a a kid on you know a family on that street anymore. And the house next door to me just went up for sale and that's the one that has the the ditch blocked off. And like I said whenever I had called all they did is came and dug the stones out of his ditch. They didn't fix the ditches. They didn't fix the drainage in the area. So I would hope that somebody would take it that into consideration and you know for the people who have been there living there you know forever you know I I'd appreciate if you could take that into consideration.

So what's your stance on this? Just I I I'm against it. Okay. I think if if it was a single family dwelling that's one thing but because in theory it could be two like we said it could be two single family dwellings. See I don't understand. how that's 80 feet across because I'm the only one on that street that has a double lot. And I only know that because the woman who used to own all that land lived in the house that I live in and that house just had a mobile home on it and for the longest time. You mind coming up here and show me exactly where you're at?

So he's talking about what's lots 29 and 30. Okay. So, it's there's a garage here existing and this was the mobile home. So, it's this whole stretch here is where they're talking about. Where are you located at? I'm right here. I'm on 1824. Yeah. No, it's a single family. It's a single family, but the woman who owned all this land have a double lot. Okay. So, they have the same width as you have. They have a double lot of 80 ft.

Yes.

Even if I could have you go back to the microphone just so people can hear you. No problem. Uh it it sounds as though some of the issues are some code enforcement issues, some uh concerns with uh streets department uh things like that that aren't necessarily either resolved or exacerbated either way by this duplex going there. If there's correct trees that are blocking a a clear sight triangle, that that's an issue that out of our purview, but something that certainly can be reported to those authorities that those are things that seem like they need to be resolved regardless of this. Um, from this standpoint, like I said, it could be two separate single family homes, which ends up being the same.

Yeah. But it's probably going to end up being just like what Dr. Sylvia did at right by rightid. she just put parking and I somebody told me that was a six-unit um place that she put in and that there was parking in the back for the upstairs, parking in the front for the downstairs and I don't know um there's like no garages or anything there. Their their cars are like you know 10 feet from the street because you know there's that's how she does her off streetet parking.

Okay. But um and and you know when did they change the zoning in there from you said to what is it to from one to two? That would have been in 2022. Oh because I don't remember getting anything regarding that. Do they just do that automatically? No, there was a a long series of process that was publicly advertised and everything. I mean, we didn't do it, but um it was But as old as people that don't know how to use computers, sorry, what I said people that don't know how to use computers probably understandable. Yeah.

Yeah. But that that's my stance on it. You know, a lot of it is, you know, just the drainage and the traffic and, you know, all that and and who's going to take care of it. point out, you know, once I mean, if this were to be approved, then he would have to go through all of that permitting and then the planning and all of those issues that would be separate and apart from from us. So, this is just looking at, you know, the lot itself and request for dimensional varating that it is an acceptable thing by the zoning ordinance is that the law's just a a touch small the way the ordinance is written. Yeah. So,

oh, I I understand, you know, but he's saying he just wants a variance so that he can put it on a smaller lot. Correct. That is correct. Yes. But it is it is allowed on that lot. It's just the lot is a little small for what they're asking by percentage. So, okay. Take all that under adisement. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Okay. Hi, my name is Anita Stroop. I live at 1908 Zimmerly Road, which is right where that intersection between West Street and Zimmerly happens. I'm familiar with the lot in question here. It is tiny.

Um, I take walks in that neighborhood very often and the trailer that was on there was in there a long ways. That's how small the width is of it. Um, I I agree with the traffic problem. If we're thinking of putting a duplex in there, parking cannot be on the street. That route is used daily by the ambulances and the fire trucks to get to Peach Street from Kurge. They come up West Street, turn on to Zimmerly. Any cars parked on the street there would be an impediment for like oncoming traffic and so on and so forth. And plowing is done, I must say, very regularly on that part of Zimmerly Road just to keep it open for the emergency vehicles. Um, and I agree too that duplexes are going up all over the place down there. The unit that, um, my neighbor just said she thought was a three unit is a six unit. The bottom floor on the back has four tiny little efficiency apartments in it and then two regular size that you can see from the road. They did a beautiful job updating it, but I don't understand how they're going to get six different units on there. And I'm just wondering if things were considered as far as sewage, electrical, everything. And um the house next to that, which she alluded to, they built a staircase connecting the two driveways, making one think that, okay, we had heard maybe senior living would be happening at this new place right at the corner of Weston Zimmerly. So, is

this other house being is someone going to be helping these seniors? There's there's nowhere for them to do laundry in this new building. And if that's a case, it's going to be administration for the next new building. Is that even residential anymore? Is it a commercial property? Um, and it and it seems like multif family homes are going up everywhere and the the reason zoning sizes were put into consideration, I think, was to make sure there was room enough. We're we're running out of room on Zimmerly Road in my opinion. Okay.

Um, and then the density, I think you're allowed eight units per acre. There's four right along my side of the um I'm I'm on the opposite side of the street from Weston and Zimmerly than this property is. It It just seems like we're trying to cram a few too many people into too few spaces. And I agree with uh drainage systems, too. I do have a incredibly deep ditch now in front of my property which um didn't used to be that deep but I don't know if that was to accommodate all the apartments and stuff built across from Leecom for drainage and all this and all that. So basically every site is looked at as a separate process within the town in ship engineering department

right and they do have to take care of their own storm water and either put ingground systems things like that. So that's that's accommodated for outside of the existing ditches. Okay. But um I'm against turning this in a duplex. It would be great for a single family home. I can't see how you would possibly fit two separate homes in that space. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

How you doing this evening? Uh, I live on 1839 West 53rd, which is a block Get your name, please. Oh, Mark Walker. I'm sorry.

I live a block north of there, which is 1839 West 53rd. Uh the main concern I have around there right now um especially with every all the building that's going on is my personal privacy if you will. Uh another thing is uh the drainage. I mean where are they going to put all this water? Is it going to go out onto Zimmerly or are they going to are they planning to putting like a a retaining pond, you know, somewhere behind that? So if you you know how we get storms around here, you get a lot of rain water. So it would go into there. Um, another thing is um the traffic traffic flow. Uh, the one lady was uh completely correct. I live on at 53rd there and on a lot of occasions you get these people coming around the corner either be off Perkins or off West Street from the time they hit the corner there to the time they get they're doing 50 miles an hour. That's zone 25 miles an hour. And I just don't want to see that increase in traffic in that area. Um, another thing is um I've been living there for almost 60 years. Uh, my parents originally bought the property. I now own it. Uh, back when they originally bought it, that was a pretty it was pretty quiet neighborhood. There wasn't a lot of houses in there. But I would say over the last five to seven years, it's incredible how much building is going on over there. And um for one, uh I don't know exactly, it wasn't really brought to the attention of anyone in this audience who's going to be living in that duplex. I don't know if it's going to be Leecom students. I don't know if it's going to be senior senior residents like across the street or whether basically anybody off the street can come and live there.

And if that be the case, then there's a safety issue there because you don't know who's going to be buying those apartments. Um, what I'm basically saying is I'm going to vote I want you to vote no on this as far as the variance. I don't like everybody else. I don't have a problem with a single residence going in there. That I mean that's what that right now that's what that's uh designated for. So I don't have a problem with that. But when you start putting all these apartment complexes and things like that in there, I got a big problem with it. So I'm just asking vote no. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Anyone else?

Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the next appeal 25-26. So I have to recuse myself from this case. I will in you know ask people to come up but uh because of personal interest I recuse myself and uh Jeremy as well.

I also have a conflict. So um I'll be abstaining from asking questions and u participating in the deliberations on this as well. But um so long as everybody's uh agreeable, including the applicant, um I plan on drafting the um the opinion. Okay. So, appeal number 25-26, Allen and Rebecca Yingling for property located at 6026 Schultz Road seeking a height variance for a detached accessory structure in the CR Conservation Residential District.

Yeah, good evening. Uh my name is Alan Yingling. I currently reside in Mil Creek at 1018 Copper Drive and currently building a residence at 6026 Schultz Road. Uh which is why I'm here tonight. So, thank you for your time. Um I'm here tonight to uh request a variance under the provision 145.27H, which is for accessory structures. Uh we're currently looking at building an outbuilding that is about 5 feet over the township's uh height limit. Um, I purchased a property in the summer of 2022 and had visions of where the house would go, where we'd put the house, where it would be built. Um, but, uh, developable the developable area of the property is limiting us to putting the house in one corner of the property. Uh, there's streams and different things that are a little bit out of my control that are forcing us to put the property uh, where we where we have it built. Uh, we started building the house 13 months ago knowing that the outbuilding was coming. Um at that time we discussed possibly applying for a variance at that point. Um the house is 32 feet tall. The outuilding originally was built to match the height of the house and match the aesthetic. Uh that would have been way over the limits. So uh I spent a lot of resources with local architects uh and the builder to come up with what I believe we're now on our fifth design uh to get the height down to respect the township's uh codes and variances to get it as low as I possibly can. Um, we've actually in this version uh developed a system using a special truss system that will allow us to drop the roof line down but keep the structural integrity of the house to ask for the uh most minimal variance that I can possibly request. Um, the building is mainly going to be used um as a sport court for my children. and I have three kids that are very active and we live in Erie and I want to find a way to keep them moving in the wintertime, but uh also storage, a lot of storage and uh for large equipment. Um due to the depth of some

of the property, we're going to actually put it right next to the house. Uh this building will actually be almost 25% shorter than the house itself. So, it's actually going to come in much shorter than the house is. Um, my goal with this property and with this with this house is to make sure that we match the character and all the architecture of the neighborhoods. There are structures in my area that are larger and taller than this that are detached structures. Uh, but I'm sure that what we're building will match the aesthetic of the house and add to the neighborhood and not negatively impact it. Um the request that I'm asking for is the the minimum of what we could have came up with at uh 5 feet 4 in. Um and uh I don't think there's a way that I could reasonably use the property in it uh with the intended uses if I do not uh get the variance for the building. Uh I've uh spoken with a few of the neighbors who have called out to me in support when they got the letter that they are fully in support of the uh of the variance explained on what we're looking for and they were very supportive of it. Um, I respectfully ask that we take a look at that provision and uh grant us the uh extra exception to make sure that we can use the building for its intended use. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions? No, I do not. Okay. Recuse ourselves. So, uh, I don't think there's any questions for you at this time. I'll open up to the audience. See if anyone has any questions. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this? Okay, thank you. We're going to take a brief recess, discuss these, and uh we'll be back.

Okay, we're ready to call the meeting back to order. Uh, let the record show that we reconvened at approximately 6:48. Uh, on appeal number 25-25, Timothy Pico, do I have a motion? Yes, I make a motion to approve it. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I I wait. Oh, which which one are you doing? Number 25. I approved it. The first one was for Timothy Pagano. Pagano. Yeah, I made a motion to approve it.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I make a motion and not to uh deny that appro that um request. I'm sorry. All in favor of denial. I I So just to clarify, so moved. It has been denied. That appeal number 25-25 for Timothy Pagano at 1842 Simly Road was denied. Yes, that's correct. I took them out of order. I'm sorry. Appeal number 25-26. Is there a motion?

I move to approve. You make a motion. I move that. Do you make a motion? Make motion. I move to approve 25-26 as as presented. Yeah, he's he's moving. So, okay. Is there a second? I second that motion. I abstain. All in favor? I I So moved. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I make a motion to adjurnn. I second. All in favor? I so moved.