Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

the meeting at the back entrance of the room. If you've not, please do so because it must be on the record. I'm Bob Tanner. The other board member tonight is uh Charles F and I'm going to appoint him as a designated voting member from Alternate. Like to introduce the following members. We have Matthew Puzz, zoning development officer. Julie Mazu, assistant zoning 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 a 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. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please answer, I do.

Thank you. Okay, we have four appeals uh for this evening. Uh number one is appeal 25-27 Michael Filer for property located at 402 Clifton Drive seeking a variance to move an existing non-conforming garage or apartment and a height variant to increase the height of the existing non-conforming structure in the R1 single family residential district. Uh please come up and uh state your name and address and uh tell us about this

one procedural point. You'll see that there's only two board members that are participating today and that's enough forum to have the meeting. Um, however, in the event that there is a tie vote, like one votes in favor of the application and one votes to deny the application, then it's a deemed denial. So, I just want to give you a heads up on that before we get started. So, if you would prefer to have the full complement of board members, all three board members, um, we could request, you could request a continuation to the next meeting, uh, which I believe is Yeah. So if you're okay to proceed then we'll just carry forward but if you do not wish to proceed and you wish to uh seek out a continuation just let us know

I don't see a problem okay you can state your name and address and then tell us about this uh Michael Filer 402 Clifton Drive 16505 Okay. Um, I originally had a structure there. It was a garage with an apartment on the back. And over the winter I lost it, caved in. And Okay.

And I'm proposing to actually move the building because that was set literally on the property line. I'm going to move it 21 ft off of the property line onto mine and about 13 foot off of my house. And I was going to put the apartment in the upstairs instead of the rear of the garage because I'm going to keep it under a th00and square foot of the footprint. So that's about where I'm at with that. Okay. So uh we've got two requests for variance. Number one is moveing a non-conforming structure for any reason um for any distance shall conform to requirements of the zoning district. So that's the first one. So Matt, can you tell us a little bit about uh that side of it?

Yes. the moving the non-conforming structure plus being a nonconforming use. Um, as I read the ordinance, that would require um authorization from the zoning hearing board. It's not an administrative um decision I can make. Okay. So, it's moving. Sorry, you said 21 feet. 21T. So, we're moving the It's no longer going to be a sideyard set issue. It's just a height issue. Correct. That in the use

so I mean we're moving on the same lot so we know what's going on there. Um the second one is [snorts] the garage or apartment permitted on the same lot as an existing dwelling. Now there was a garage and an apartment on the lot. Correct. Is non-conforming. So we're looking to continue the nonconforming but move it again in a different location. So it's kind of one and the same almost. Correct. The ordinance would permit it to be reconstructed in the exact footprint. In this case, it's not in the exact footprint. It's moving. It would require a variance

because then there's also a note underneath says structure to be increased four feet in height. Correct. So, being an out building, it was already over the permitted height. It's going over by more. So, correct. So, it's really two requests or is it Yes. The first request would be to move the structure and the second one would be to increase it. Okay. Above the well, excuse me, the maximum height would be 20 foot. It was at 22 foot and he's proposing to go an additional 4T. And what was the size of the existing structure? It was uh 26 by 42. Okay.

So, our overall footprint is smaller. Yes. Gotcha. And your reason for height is just just because I'm putting the second floor on it. Give the head room up there. Okay. And technically in this zoning district, a second dwelling unit is not permitted. Correct. So this is going to be a garage garage with an apartment on top. It's more of like an in-law apartment, I guess. Yep. Okay, I think I understand everything. Uh, Chuck, do you have any questions? I don't have any questions, Jeremy. Anything?

Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this? Okay. Moving on. We have appeal number 25-28, George T. Baldwin for property located at 2517 Sherwood Drive. Seeking a variance to expand reestablish a non-conforming mobile home in an existing mobile home park.

Good evening everyone. Uh good evening board members. My name is Isaac Baldwin. I'm here representing my father George. Um I my address is 3345 West 26th Street Erie PA6506. Um what we have here is a mobile home lot that was originally a mobile home lot. Um a few years ago we demoed the mobile home that was on the lot. It was uh in poor repair. This the roof was caving and the tenant or previous owner moved out of it and left us with it. So we had to tear it down and we didn't have the money then to buy a new mobile home and stick it on there. Uh after a couple years of recovering some money from the property, we've we've gained the funds to put a new mobile home on the property. Um it's just that this one's actually smaller than the last one, but it's been over a year since um we demoed the other mobile home. So, we're looking at setback issues. Okay.

Um we're just trying to put a mobile home back on a mobile home lot. So the setback is the same or larger than it was in all directions. Uh it it's larger in all directions. It still doesn't meet the the ordinance setbacks. Understood. I just smaller. Yeah. We've definitely encountered this in the past and and that's where I was trying to Yeah. Overall, you're not encroaching on setbacks any more than you were previously? No. No. It's a smaller mobile home than was there before. So the the issue is the one year. Correct. After one year, it's been gone for how long? Probably five to or two to five years at least. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Uh I understand. Pretty straightforward. Um what you're asking for there. Um so with that, I'm going to piggyback off of that. I'm assuming you're also presenting on the next Yes. So on appeal number 25-29 for Diane L. Baldwin already looking at a 2410 roll of home drive seeking to expand an existing non-conforming mobile home by more than 25%. So this is a little different but similar situation. Um do you want me to go through my name and everything again or is that okay? No, we've got that.

Okay. Um this this mobile home uh issue is we're trying to make two lots. one um we had an existing lot at 2412 roll home that had a was vacant for years that's probably been vacant for seven to 10 years and that had an electrical issue on it so we never just didn't fix it and put a new mobile home on it yet. Um the other one the other one next door to it 2410 roll home was uh deemed it was condemned and demolished. Um we're trying to basically combine the two lots and put a double wide mobile home lot on it or double wide mobile home on it. Um this will give more space around it except for the back setback. Um it should be within almost within parameters pretty close to what the setbacks would need for the sides and not quite the front. Um but I would be putting be putting two uh single wide mobile homes on it that would probably be bigger than this one. So overall, it's a smaller footprint than the two mobile homes.

Okay. Um we're trying to get that whole line into double wides instead of single wides so there's more room around everything. Okay. We've done it in the past a few doors down. Okay. Understood. Anything? I don't think we have anything else right now. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this? Okay.

Final appeal for this evening is appeal 25-30 Nicholas Montagna for property located at 3713 Lancaster Road seeking a sideyard setback variance and a lot size variance to create a new lot in the R1 single family residential district. Nicholas Montagna, 3950 Sierra Drive. Okay. Tell us a little bit about what we're trying to do here.

Well, I I own the property at 3713 Lancaster and there's I want to break off the separate lot there that was back to original. So, at one point that lot line was removed. I don't even know if it was removed to be honest. It's still on all the maps. Matt, do you have any insight on that? The dash line usually indicates that it's a historic line. Okay. At least from our records, it appears that it was combined uh into one lot. The county shows it as one lot as well.

Okay. And that new lot would be 60 by 98. And no, the new lot will be 80 by one by two. The the variance request is for the the lot with the house on it. Um the lot being 80 by Yes. Yes. Yes. You're right. So that would right because the other 180 by 258 is certainly complies. So the issue is the 60 by 98.

Correct. Correct. Mistake. Yes. Yeah. No problem. So the proposed lot is 5800. What is the requirement? 7200 60 by 120. 60 by 120. Okay. And then the other thing is the sideyard variance. Um what is proposed and what isn't? Are you proposing a zero? Yes.

I was thinking if I had to add a little bit to that. I I don't think I can add too much to it. You're saying make that other lot a little call a peculiar shape.

So, so, so cut down the the front. So I mean when we talk about you know a variance you know seven down to five or seven down to you know something but going right to zero um you run into some building code requirements. Not that's the purview of this area here but I mean to put a home right on now you're talking combustible and everything else that creates a lot of issues. Have you looked into any of that? I have not. you deal with that down in Kelso Beach and areas like that where when it's less than five feet between structures, you have to be, you know, combust. There's going to be more than five feet between the structures.

So, I guess my question would be if that other if we only need 7,200 square feet. Let's do some math on this. So if we're 60 feet trying to figure out is so 7200's the requirement and we're proposing 58.882 82 short of 1318. I'm just wondering why. I mean, you'd be at least split in the middle if you if the other lot was a 75 foot and then had a little dog leg in it. you know, you'd at least, you know, be split in the middle between the shortage and and you'd have a five foot setback. It seems like it'd be a little closer to the what we're seeing.

I know what you're saying. But the only Yeah. And 75 foot of furniture, I mean, you can still not have a problem fitting anything on the property next door. You still got 50 foot of house. Well, if I do put on it, the house length is 55 is what I'd like to throw up there. I'm I'm sorry. I I misspoke. Uh 75, you'd be 60 foot house. Yeah, because you have 15 foot setback side setback combined or what is it? Seven foot seven and seven. So 14. Correct.

Okay. So if it was only 75 foot wide, you'd have 61 foot of house to play with and you put a 55 foot house. understand that be honest that that's kind of where I come from is you know a zero yard zero foot I won't speak for every for Charles but I mean a zero foot is something that's pretty tough to swallow but if you had I mean does the township have a problem if it was 75 foot wide at the front and then it joged five foot at the back of the next yard property that went back that shape

generally no the uh that would be under the purview of the supervisors as part of the subdivision land development ordinance But as long as it meets depth to width ratio, um uh irregular shaped lot wouldn't necessarily be Yeah. Does that meet the depth to width ratio? Yes, it's 3 to one. Um that would be should be 75. Yeah. Oh, yeah. That would be that's almost one for the the the house with the lot. the lot would be uh 3.44.

Yeah. So it would be slightly over. Uh the board of supervisors may grant a a modification for the but either way it wouldn't comply even 80 foot. It doesn't comply. You need a modification. Correct. You'd be over it. So it wouldn't change much. Be open to a situation like that. Given adding five to the other one, making it 65. That still leaves you a 75 foot lot. That we at least have a fiveyard set back. I just making that just a postage stamp or you're talking the five foot going all the way back. No, not all the way back because we we wouldn't want that because you'd have five foot of property that has no use. Yeah, that's what I mean. No, I'm talking about

Yeah, I know what you're saying. So, you'd have, you know, the the north lot 3713 be 75 foot in the front and 80 foot in the back. So you'd have a little five foot jog at it, but then you at least get to a little closer. Makes a little bit more palatable. You know what I mean? It gets you over 6,000 square feet, 60 400 square feet, something like that, and gets you to a uh you know, the other lot is still very much buildable, right? What you're looking to do. So that new parcel would be 65 by 98.

65 by 98. Yes. And then the other one would be 75 at the front. And then you have a jog at the 98 mark over five feet. Still requires a variance which we can vote on. You know what I mean? But that's a to me that to me is a palatable variance.

Can't go a little more. No. If that's what we got to do, then that's what we got to do. Well, I mean it's under discussion and we'll vote on it and establish number. I just wanted to talk about it. You I don't want to have a situation where it's rigid and hey, it's only this, then we have to vote yes or no. I'd rather have a little open dialogue on it, right? Yeah. No. Yeah, that's okay. If that's what we got to do to make it work, then Okay. I think I'm okay with it. Okay. All right. You have any other questions, Charles? No, I don't.

So, so just to confirm, I guess we're looking at that application. We're amending that application instead of I guess seven foot request for sideyard. We're only seeking two foot. Is that Are you okay with that? Yeah. You're talking the two foot on the It'd be It' be It would be five. I mean, it would be the I guess the proposed parcel, the new parcel would be 65 by 98.

I don't have the map in front of me. I didn't bring it with So two foot away from the seven foot requirement is what we're saying. Two foot the variance is two foot which would leave you with a five foot setback, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then the other variance then is the size requirement. You know we have to amend the amend that to the square footage based on right. Okay. Matt, does he have to to reapply for this? No. No, it can be amended. Yep. At the hearing.

Yeah. As long as you're okay with that, then that's how we'll or the board will proceed in terms of it. Well, yeah. I want to make, you know, make everything happy. Make everybody happy. Yeah. We're looking at trying to, you know, minimum, you know, dev from, you know, the required setbacks. And so if you're telling us like, hey, you can make it work [snorts] and that you can't make any, you know, additional, you know, footage, like to go the full seven feet. If you're saying, hey, I can't do that. The most I can do is the five feet, then that's what we would take or that's

Yeah, I don't think Yeah, I don't think I'd want to go any more than that. Yeah. Okay. Be honest. Yep. that still allows you to fit a home next. You're not making the unusable next door or things like that. And I think it's a is a good situation. So, okay. Thanks. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this?

Good evening. My name is Dalton Folden at 3705 Lancaster. Okay.

And uh listening to you guys talk and adjust this property, uh I kind of object to it because my house is right there. My house is only three feet from the property line. And if you shrink that lot down and he puts a house in there, you know, where is this going to go? I have no idea what kind of house or what he's going to do. So, I'm asking you to deny this right now because I just don't think it's going to work. Deny it all together. Yes. Yeah. You you sat here and you've adjusted it for him. So, uh I don't understand how that works, but I you're when he if he goes to put a house in, he's got to move a new house over closer to me. You would have a 7 foot setback. requirement on that side. Okay. Unless he applied for a variance, which you know that would be a different situation, but by township rules, you'd be seven feet away. Like you stated you're only 3 ft away. You would have to be seven feet away.

Well, my house is three feet. Mhm. Must have been different rules at that time. I don't know.

Yeah. Hard hard to say on that. I don't know. But uh the what I'm afraid of is, you know, he's a contractor and he's going to he's already got this other house there that he just fixed up and uh it's right on the property line. And you have to forgive me because I'm have to think here a little bit while I'm going. So Oh, sure thing. He's a contractor. He rents the other house out and if he puts in another house, he's going to rent that out. And then that's given us a change in the neighborhood. I mean, I one family house, fine. I always figured there'd be another house built there closer to me, which wouldn't be a problem. But I also figured that the other one would be torn out because it was in very bad shape. He he has fixed it up, but that's so so if we were to force him to subdivide the lot differently so that it did meet the sideyard setback and did meet the lot size. What that would do, and the reason why I proposed something different, is that would actually leave less space in the lot behind you, which in turn would probably have that house close to the 7 foot line. So that's why I thought might be a win-win even for your situation. You know what I'm saying? So if it's a 75 foot wide lot that remains at 3713 and he centers a house on there, maybe it's further than 7 feet off the line, the smaller the narrower that lot gets, which would still meet requirements. Now all of a sudden that pushes the home right up to the minimum set back toward yours. So I I think it could be a

detriment toward you if that lock gets narrower. Well, that's what I'm afraid of because it you know the reduces the value of my house. Right. And I want to be very careful. I'm not trying to Yeah. You know, he's got he paid good money for the place and he's got to get his money back somehow. I can't blame him. But uh I just want to be careful with what's going on. I want make you guys aware of I guess I'm I would like you to turn it down. Maybe rethink this for a while.

If we turn it down, he would be in his rights to develop it in strict accordance, which makes the lot next to you narrower. I just want to make sure you understand what what could happen if we were to turn it down. You could make that apply for that lot to be maybe 70 feet wide, which makes the lot next to you a little narrower and then be able to build a home without any variance required at all. Now you have a narrower lot next to you rather than being as wide as possible. So I don't know what your feelings are on that. I mean, it's not like he's asking for a variance to be able to build a home there. He can build a home there if this is subdivided, but to do it in strict accordance, he'd be narrowing up that lot next door to you. Well, I I just I want you to the board to give us some thought about what's going to go on because this this is a new thing to me.

Uh and I'll tell you why. Years ago, I had the opportunity to buy that lot. And when I came down to the to the board, they said absolutely not because you that's 80 foot. Then if if you split that off, the other house doesn't have 80 foot and it wouldn't be any good. So I never I didn't buy the place. Okay. And I don't understand, you know, all these variances now to put a put two houses in there is what's I guess is what I'm kind of against

I can't speak to what would have happened before. We're only judging it off of what the current zoning ordinance is. And I just that's why I wanted to be sure from your behalf if we were to deny this. Not saying what Mr. Montag is going to do. But there's a good chance that he could try to widen that southern lot which makes the lot next to you narrower. So now all of a sudden the home is tighter on the lot next to you. So I don't I don't want to infer what way you would feel about that. But I I trying to find, you know, happy mediums and win-wins that work for everyone. And that's where I felt this hedges. But well, this is what what you kind of proposed to him was to make it 75 foot at the front, right? 75 foot frontage. Is that it?

75 footage. Okay. Um I don't know. I'd probably have to talk to him about what because I don't know what he's going to do. I don't know what his plans are, you know, and I I if you adjust it to 75 ft, it wouldn't be anything I could do anyway. So, I'd like, you know, have time to talk to him about what what he might do. The variance would be for the lot size, not what he's going to put on it. I mean, we we wouldn't have what he would put on it would have to meet the zoning code, which is uh R1. Yes.

So single family residential home is what would fit within that? Correct. Okay. So I mean that's what he would have the opportunity to do would be to build a new residential home. Okay. Well, I guess that's all I have then. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else like to speak on this? Anyone else like to speak on this? No. Okay, we're going to take a recess and we'll be

Okay, let the record show we reconvened at approximately 6:43. Um, on appeal number 25-27, Michael Filer, do I have a motion? I move to approve. Make a motion. I make a motion to approve. Uh, I will second that. All in favor? I I. All opposed? So moved. on appeal number 25-28, George T. Baldwin. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. I second that motion. All in favor? I. All opposed. So moved. Appeal number 25-29, Diane Baldwin. Do I have a motion? I move to approve. Make a motion. Make a motion to approve. Uh, I will second that. Uh, all in favor? I.

I. All opposed? So moved. On appeal number 25-30, Nicholas Montagna, I will make a motion to approve the amended application with the lot becoming a 65- foot wide lot, which is a twoft sideyard setback variance. Uh the lot size become therefore becoming 6,372 ft, which is an 827 square foot size variance. This all being subject to a subdivision approval by the township. Do I have a second? I second. All in favor? I. So moved. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

I second. All in favor? I. So moved.