Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

Everyone's signed in for the meeting in the back entrance of the room. If you've not, please do so because it must be on the record. I'm Bob Tanner. Their board members tonight are Scott Calhoun and Charles F. like to introduce the following members. We have Matthew Puzz, zoning and development officer. Jeremy or Julie Mio, assistant zoning and development officer. Jeremy Toman, board solicitor. Tamara Doxy, court reporter. After the presentation by the appel appellant, the board will hear from those in question 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. We have up to 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. I 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.

I do. I do. Thank you. All right. We only have one appeal uh for tonight. It's appeal number 25-31. Megan K. PE for property located at 4845 Westlake Road seeking a use variance to convert a place of worship assembly to a professional service in the R1 single family residential district. Please come on up. Who's ever going to present and state your name and address for the record? This this is just what I'm going to say tonight. Okay.

Okay. Hi, I'm David Hower. Uh, I own 4845 Westlake Road. Uh, I've familiar with the zoning hearing people and I appreciate what you guys do. I've been here maybe 10 times throughout my construction career. So, a bit of housekeeping right now. the the uh power of attorney. My wife who is ill owns the building and I have the power of attorney to speak for her and do whatever business she needs to do. And I'd like to correct a mistake on uh one of the submissions I submitted to you guys.

Okay? And that is the building is not 6,800 square ft. The building is 5600 square ft. It measures 80 foot by 70 foot. Okay. Uh [sighs] I'm here because of the application of the variance, but I'd like to make a rhetorical question and that is rather than go through all this, why don't we just change the zoning to what it should be? That's a rhetorical question. Well, we're going to ask Matt to chime in and explain what the situation is.

Uh, yes. The reason why we're here is that during the 20122 update that this area was reszoned to R1 single family residential. Um, at the, you know, prior to that, it was a commercial use. the um prior zoning, the C2 district permitted both uh commercial um uses as well as places of worship assembly. When it was reszoned, the other commercial uses became non-conforming. However, the R1 district permits churches, places of worship, so that use still remains conforming. So any change to a conforming from a conforming use to a non-conforming use would require a variance. So basically the space that is a church now needs a variance to become the professional service.

And to answer your rhetorical question as far as changing the zoning type, that's not something that this board can do. That's a supervisor action to change the zoning. I I expected that answer. Okay. Just so we're all clear, I'm going to start off by saying or by talking about what I talked about at the end of my submission. Okay?

And that is a zoning anomaly. A property that was legally established before zoning rules changed but no longer conforms. Something different, abnormal, peculiar, not easily classified, deviation from the common rule, type or arrangement of form. I'm I'm just throwing that out there. So, uh, this this variance is officially from Megan Peek, but she asked me to speak because I know more about the building than anybody here, and I'm going to call on her later to tell you what she wants to do. Uh, so this is to the Mil Creek Township Planning Board. Julie Matthew, thank you for your help. 4845 West Lake Road. I've I've submitted pictures and you have uh site plans. You have

pretty much everything you need to know. Uh I'd like to refer you though to exhibit F in my page five of my thing, which is the timeline of events that occurred throughout the history of this building. And you know, you can just tell the the building was built. It was B business. It it it was sold and then I remodeled the place for the for Compass Corporation in 1981. It was B business. 1987, I bought the building. It was B business. 2018, the church or 2008, we we put a a roof on the building and got a building permit and it was B business. In 2018, uh, the church came to me and wanted to rent from me. I looked at the zoning in 2018, be business. It was, it was legal. As a side note, we always served as what I call we served as an incubator for businesses. That is to say, they started out small, they grew or they failed. we didn't hold them to big uh rents or or long leases. And that was that's been the theme of the building ever since I've owned it. So anyway, April 22nd comes along and uh you guys changed the zoning. Uh you guys meaning Mil Creek Township,

Mil Creek, not this board. Now, I I realize that it was a comprehensive resoning and I know the all the rules. I've looked it all up, but I didn't know anything about it. When I found out about it, when I found out when I went to sell my building October 18th of this year,

I got a low ball figure, which we'll describe later, and said, "Your zoning is, you know, unacceptable. Your zoning is crazy. It's split. Half the building's this, half the building's that. In layman's terms, that's what was said. In in in reality, you know what it is. It's one's conforming, one's non-conforming. And so anyway, so I've I've given you a page describing the property and all that stuff. And of course, my variance is I want to request I want to convert the church to professional offices. I have two approaches to this. The first approach is a use variance and and we're submitting this variance application for the property 4845 West Lake Road, currently zoned R1. The request seeks permission to allow professional office use in an existing building original originally constructed under B business Business. And of course, I just gave you that timeline. The building has existed for over I say 35 years but it really has existed 51 years. It was built in 1974 and from that from the beginning it was B business. All of a sudden uh I rent the building to a church small church. Then they grew and now that right at this point I mean they and as of 22 they own they occupied about 48% of my building. The reasonzoning uh R1 now changes the use of the building and now pro prohibits office uses because the zoning was changed. I nobody told me but the zoning was changed.

This is a rental building. It it has tenants coming and going. But whenever there was a tenant, of course, with any questionable thing, I always checked. What's the zoning? Are we legal? Now, I need a variance. The need to survive, modernize, and function normally. There's no substantial detriment to the neighborhood properties. There's no increase in the noise. As a matter of fact, if you went by on Sunday morning, you'd see the car parking lot had about 31 cars. I counted them. A lot more noise, a lot more traffic. We believe there is consistency with public interest. We believe there is minimal relief. We're not we're not asking for anything other than a paper change. Basically, uh we are we're not creating anything nonconformity compared to past compared to the past. We're just asking to to get where we've been for 51 years. We believe this use is safe and compatible. So, I we believe that without this variance, we're going to suffer I'm going to suffer a a pretty big hardship. If I don't get this variance, my buyer is going to walk away. It's in her contract. We didn't create this hardship. We believe the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. We don't believe that it's going to permanently or substantially impair the appropriate use or the development of the adjacent property. This variance will not be detrimental to

public welfare and this is the minimum that we should do or could do or can do. Hardship use has been in place for 51 years as offices. property has several landbased circumstances that are not shared by ordinary R1 residential lots enable reasonable use. These are all things that I gleaned from you your ordinance and from the municipality planning code of the state of Pennsylvania. The building's only reasonable use is office space, professional or retail. It can't reasonably accommodate modern residents with setbacks and the like. The entire this entire meeting is about something that the township created, not me, not my buyer. The neighborhood will continue to remain as it was. In fact, our proposal is less intense. Just to be clear, Megan will describe to you that she will ask the church to leave and she will want to remodel and use that space as offices. This is the minimum action that can be taken and this is unique. This hardship is unique to this property. This this this this is beyond I think what you guys have heard. I I don't know that I'm I'm I'm I'm making a an assumption. Excuse me for that. So, unique physical characteristics, you know, the building is longstanding, pre-existing. You know, it's it's it's it's it

significantly differs from R1 residential. The lot's fully developed with a non-residential building. Its physical configurate prevents property from functioning as a typical single family residential use. These conditions are inherent to the property and not common to the neighborhood. Inability to reasonably use the property under R1 zoning due due to the nature and structure. Strict conformity with R1 would deprive the property of any reasonable use. The building can't be practically converted into single family dwelling with extensive without extensive demolition and reconstruction. And it's just it just doesn't make sense. I think every I think everybody has to agree with that here. The hardship was not created by me or anyone. The hardship was not self-created. It it it was created through the Z zoning change. We're not changing the essential character of the neighborhood. I just want to I just want to restore 48% of the building to offices so that Megan can buy the building and move forward with a beautiful plan that'll enhance probably enhance the neighborhood, improve things, create jobs, all those good things. This is minimum variance necessary. The request is limited only what we're what we need. We're not asking for anything else. I've looked up MPC910-2A5 and I believe that our criteria satisfies that.

So because it does, I respectfully ask you to request that you grant the variance that we're asking for. Let's look at exhibit H. Uh this is this has to do with me and me only and that is if this variance is not granted, the entire makeup and value and marketability of the building will will change drastically. I have already experienced and I have Jake here who will describe that if you'd like two people who saw the zoning situation and said here's a lowball offer and here is a I'll cancel my offer because the building's not worth anything to me. So that that that's this that's the spiel that you were expecting from me uh when I submitted you that stuff uh back when we had the deadline of what November 7th. November 7th was the deadline. Yeah. But I have another approach that's come up since and that is expansion. I took this right off of your non-conforming use ordinance 145-01 C enlargement. Zoning officer may permit enlargement da da da da da, right? You you're reading it. You know what it says. You've gone by it before. and large murder expansion of the non-conforming use shall be limited to an area not to exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the structure. We don't meet that or 25% of the portion of the total lot area

that was used by the non-conforming use as of the date the use became nonconforming. I'm pausing because I want you to make sure you read that sentence a couple times because it took me a week to understand it. What this means to me is is that I have this lot, this this entire lot, and it's got 22,770 square ft, less grass areas, parking, sidewalks included, 21,495 square ft. I have 52% of the building that is legal non-conforming. So 52% of 21,000 9495 is 11,000 if used by personal services you know all the legal things in the legal non-conforming use. So the place of worship leaves. Now the legal non-conforming use can expand into the 2700 square ft left vacant. 1100 11,177* 25% equals 2794 square ft. I've got a map here that shows the lot. You can you can look at my figures on the side if you can read them. that shows the square footage of the lot. And the conclusion here is is that I need this uh I'm not I'm not saying that it's a it's a monetary profitdriven thing. I'm talking about survival.

I appreciate your kind attention to this matter. I'm going to ask Megan She wants to talk about what she's going to do with the building, which I'm I'm sure you guys might be interested in. Yep. And thank you for your time. Thank you.

Good evening everybody. Um I'm going to apologize in advance. I'm not a public speaker. So, um I do real estate. Uh so I am here tonight. Sorry. If you could state your name and address for the record. Megan Peek and my home address is 1620 Wintergreen Lane, Fairview, PA, but my business address is um the address that was on the application.

Um so I'm here tonight because I'm under contract for a purchase of a building uh for commercial use. Um I own a real estate title company and I'm looking to expand my business. I currently rent an office in Mil Creek, um the Joe Herbert building on 12th Street. I've been there for almost three years now and um I'm out growing it, which is good. Um but I'm looking for space to like lay my lay my hat be more permanent. Um and I started that process the beginning of this year, I think. Um, and I have looked at various properties. Um, and I looked at this property and I feel like it would be a good um, business opportunity for the future. However, the current use of the property is not um, viable for me to run and establish my business. Um, I obviously it depends on what happens tonight and what happens for the future whether or not I can continue with my contract um for the property, but um I'm asking for a permanent use of the building. I know reszoning is is not something that is going to be put on the board, which is fine. I'm not asking for that. But um my fear is by purchasing the property, it being split in half is going to cause more issues. I'm going to be in the same spot that Dave is in now trying to sell the property because half of the property is zoned differently than the other half. Um

so it's all it's all zoned the same way. It's zoned R1, but the building is separated. So the uses by by uses. So it it the zoning is not split. Correct. But it is the zoning all are one. Correct. But the use is so if you were to go in as a business use that's then the building at that point is all 100% occupied, Matthew. Right. The rest of the uses are all existing non-conforming uses. Correct.

Correct. And this if this were to go through and her space was to go in as a business then that would be granted a variance as a non-conforming use. It would grant the well the use would be there under a variance not like a non-conforming. They're similar but there's like a little because it's under a variance. So it would be it would be for professional service. The variance request correct be for professional service. So any professional service could go in your space and then the other spaces that are there because they're non-conforming if a similar use was to go in.

Yes. Correct. Yes. As long as it's similar or less intensive of a use. Similar lesser intense. So professional space as well. It's professional um and personal and then office space. It says legal non-conforming use. So that half of the building is personal services, professional services, office space, legal non-conforming use, grandfathered in. You're referring to the use certificate.

I am. Yes, I'm sorry. The use certificate. So that side of the building is aka grandfathered in from from what I'm being told because Matt Smith's very helpful. So rather than grant asking for a variance for your particular use, that's why you're asking for it to professional services because that way it if you outgrew that and moved to another building, you could rent your space to another professional service without issue. Correct. Correct. Correct.

Right. So my concern is, you know, getting a new tenant in and it's very wide the personal professional and office space um the uses that can be used for those ones. But I he said if there was anything more intensive or if it didn't actually fit. I'm not sure if like that would cause an issue in the future if they you know if we determined that they were personal services but zoning determined that they weren't personal services because there's only you know a few of them listed in the actual application. So, I I guess from me it just would make sense to just make the building as a whole, the non-conforming to be able to be what the building is. I mean, it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, it's a duck.

If it's Tell me I'm wrong, but that everything would have had to been that way prior to the zoning change to be non-conforming than stay non-conforming. Is that correct? Correct. Well, by establishing a by granting a variance, we're essentially doing the same thing. Correct. Yes. But the variance is, you know, narrowly tailored to just professional service.

Right. In and just the definition for professional service, it includes offices of professionals offering and providing legal, engineering, accounting, architectural, interior, exterior design, sales and service, insurance, financial, real estate, appraisal, land surveying, landscape, architectural, and like services, which is what I would fall under. It's a pretty broad definition, right? But then I the personal ser person personal services is like the beauty shops and therapist office and stuff and they're already there, right? So it would almost be like if you just took the permitted occupancy as it is for the whole building and then it would just be entirely run the way that it's intended to,

right? But that's not I mean we can grant variances for the use requested for professional services. So if, correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, but if if for instance you wanted a personal service to go in that space that's now going to have the variance for professional services, that would we would have to I mean that would be another either variance or an expansion of a non-conforming use.

Correct. Correct. Would it be within our ability, not going to speak the rest of the board, but if there were a variance granted that was for personal services, professional services, office space, legal, well, I'm sorry, personal, professional or office space and make that more broad. My only concern with that would be that the application was specifically for professional services and it was not advertised as such. But in this case, I would have to defer to attorney toman for his opinion on it.

Yeah, I I think with respect to the application before us limited to the um professional Um, I mean it doesn't necessarily foreclose, I guess, in the future for requesting, you know, change. Um, I thought that I put in my application. Okay. Oh, you do have or similar as deemed appropriate,

right? Not Yeah. Is occupied and used as a place of worship can be designated as non-conforming use or similar or similar as deemed appropriate by the township. Um,

yeah, I guess I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily be a if I mean based on that verbiage uh when it was published, what was it published as? Was it just uh change of use from place of worship assembly to a professional service? Um the reason why I have it as professional service is under the application of the zoning hearing board says uh relief requested and reasoning. My request for the variance is to be able to occupy and operate as a residential title agency settlement company. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

So is I mean are you proposing a use different from the resident title agency settlement company? No, that's my use and I I plan to stay, you know, for a long period of time, but if at some point in time I decide that I'm going to retire um and I, you know, want to rent it out to someone else, then I have this issue 20 years from now.

So, and it's held up the whole process of being able to even purchase the building because I don't know if I can even operate in in the building. And I guess it's just weird that half of a half of a building has a different use than the other half. So I guess at this point because of the reasonzoning that happened and the things that happened in the middle of the time before I bought the property, I'm here before you like can we just fix it so we don't have to do it again. I guess was kind of

but I guess like I mean to I guess to that point it's like okay well we're now we're going into hypotheticals like you know if this were to occur in the future and some future tenant operating in some space that we don't necessarily know. I mean, we can't we can't basically just say like this has no zoning. Well, well, it's zoned R1, but then the I'm just asking for like the permanent variance use of that property.

The the variance will be permanent if granted for professional services, including all of that that broad definition include and even say and like services at the end. Um now you know because even if we were to say okay let's amend the application to include you know all those other uses that were contemplated in the use personal services and office space

office space and personal services like based on what you're saying that doesn't sound like that's sufficient for what you want because you want to be able to lease it to whomever in the future. I just would prefer to not have to go through the process of doing this again if somebody else didn't conform to that use. Now, professional services is very broad. Obviously, my intent for the building that half of the building that's currently occupied by the um church is it to be renovated as more, you know, office space, broken up a little bit. I need conference rooms and stuff um which require permits which you know I have to be able to have the legal use of it. Um and so then the question is where does the line get drawn because I want to do the facade of the building. Well the facade's the whole building but technically the variance is only for that half of the building that I'm occupying it. And I just I guess and in my mind I mean my application does say non-conforming use which is more broad than professional services. Um I mean it was built as a commercial space and it's located next to other commercial spaces and Mil Creek's own documents emphasize that you guys want to create conditions for businesses to thrive and preserve its tax base. I would be paying taxes. I'm looking to get employees. I'm looking to pay taxes for like I'm looking to broaden Mil Creek's revenue with and I'm a title agent so I do title you know transfer taxes like I'm looking to give back into the district. I'm just saying can we just make the building what it is? It doesn't matter what is zoned on the outside as long as I can use the building. Like what if I want to that space is probably like 2500 feet. What if I want to cut it up? What if I want to turn it into something else? You know this non-conforming. I don't know why we wouldn't just be able to do that and how I would determine what space is

able to like what space does the variance cover you know what office space does it cover which office goes where like I I mean it's just it doesn't it doesn't make sense that for purposes of the variance so if the variance were to be granted let's just say for professional service as what's on the application for that title settlement company use that be specific to the space that was formerly occupied by the church. Correct. I I don't know. Is the church the church is still there. So, it's still there, but there is a portion that I don't think the church is currently using a small room that I want to turn into my copy room. So, I don't know like what is what is that?

Does that is that covered in the variance? I mean, I don't think the building split. I mean, I'm assuming that was probably part of the lease premises or the space that they had the legal right to occupy, right? Which did not include this office space. It's a Yeah. Sorry. That's okay. State your name and address.

So, my name is Brian Peek. I am her husband, 1621 Green Lane, Fairview, PA. So I guess to summarize what we're looking at is simplifying the whole process of the building for the future because if we ever go to sell the building then we're going to have the same problem Mr. Hower is having with buyers being worried about the zoning in which parts of the building. So I'm perfectly the professional part is would be an acceptable acceptable variance for us to operate in but to simplify the whole of the building for the future I would say it should be all zoned the same way or the variance should be granted the same across the board which is why we included the verbiage whatever the board deemed appropriate. So the the couple I mean and it's just

vernacular but when you're talking about being zoned the same way that would be outside you know so as this board means a varian right we can grant a variance as far as zoning is a supervisor sort of thing and they would have to reszone and that would be asking them to reszone something they already reszone to residential we're not asking why I can't answer that was something that was done outside of our purview for is that a feasible for this building would be to have it reszoned? Is there steps that we should take to try to pursue that route? Matthew, you can answer that.

Yes, if you would like to reszone it, um you'd have to approach the um you'd have to submit an application for uh reszoning. However, in this case, there's no surrounding commercial properties abuing it. So you'd be what essentially is called there's one next door but it's all zoned R1. Yeah, it is. Well, right. So everybody would have to come together, right? Correct. You would be creating what's basically what's called spot zoning, which is I don't necessarily think it's illegal, but it's highly frowned upon by the courts.

With that being said, the the board of supervisors may entertain it or like you said, they if you have a neighbor. What is the benefit of being an R1 versus a commercial at like is there is what's the difference other than the use of the property? What else does is there a tax ad advantage or any type like what anything else [clears throat] from a zoning standpoint? Um zoning regulates the land use and placement of the structures.

Okay. Um, I cannot speak necessarily regarding assessment, but I do believe generally commercial industrial properties tend to be taxed at a higher higher rate. But again, I can't verify that. I just I just wondered if like because I don't care the zoned R1 as long as I can do what I need to do in the building. You know what I mean?

Correct. That's what I kind of came up here to clarify for her and to you guys was if the variance was the same through the whole building, it would make everything a lot less confusing for all parties involved, including future purchasers, uh, us as we entertained future clients. Like we like to we liked his idea of being an incubator for businesses. So like there's a lot of small individual offices in this place. We would like to continue the same uh path that he's been on with building with some expansion. We have a general contractor quotes already for redoing the parking lot. This was my question for you, Mr. Butts, was see all this blue that is the MU2 corridor mixed use.

Um, it kind of just stops right there before it gets to us. And that's the only reason that I was bringing to your attention if you thought it was feasible to continue the mixed use. The 2018 proposed map had it as a mixed use. I mean, I know you probably know, but the the proposed map at the beginning of the comprehension plan had it as mixeduse property. Like the the two actually the two parcels next to each other. And I really don't care what you want to call it for zoning purposes. I just be I just want to be able to to do what the building is meant for. I mean, the only way to turn that building into a residential building would be to tear it down and start over. That's the only way. I mean, it's not a resial building.

To be perfectly clear, yeah, makes perfect sense. I mean why why was it changed to residential? We don't know that and it wasn't definitely ask of our opinion. What we can agree upon is that the space surrounding the church area is has a non-conforming you know as non-conforming as personal services, professional services and office space. And this application states for professional services. So the difference would be that the portion of the church of which there's a key plan somewhere that shows the area the church is in right that that section would be for would not be allowed to have personal services or office space only professional services.

Correct. The way everything is on here that we have in front of us. So Matt, the the appellent here, their remedy truly is for them if they purchase this property is to file for a reasonzoning of the property. If she's concerned about reselling the property and it's a valid concern, then her her only remedy would be to come back to the township and ask for the property to be reszoned. I don't if you're looking to have a much broader She's concerned about resale at some point.

Yes. But if you want a much broader use base, R1, and this is generally everywhere, R1's probably the most restrictive because it's for, you know, single family residents that you're trying to protect from, you know, commercial encroachment. In this case, you you're correct that if you want a the much broader use table, you'd have to have the use, excuse me, not the use, but the zoning um sorry, the property reszoned. And I will say this is one of those

I was just going to say um this is one of those uh situations a very unusual situation where a property zone commercial goes to residential and it's not all non-conforming. It's just a it's an anomaly just because the prior zoning ordinance allowed the place of worship in the C2. The R1 also allows it.

Yeah. So, is there Jeremy a legal way? And I know you say because it's a bunch of whatifs. I mean, we can't like I guess you mean in terms of granting a variance across the board. I mean, well, it wouldn't be across the board. It would be for this space because it it the variance for this space would then be the same allow the same consistency as the uses that surround it in the building. So then basically the building would be all the same. It would be gone about in two different methods, right? 52% non-conforming, 48% variance.

Mhm. And I mean the only difference would be is like the variance granted that's going to be permanent like the non-conforming use if that use goes away for a year or longer then that non-conforming use goes away. What does that mean? If that use goes away for a year if you turned an office space into a church for instance this is what like exactly what happened exactly what happened. Okay. If that space would have never gone to a church this would have never happened. You didn't know that. I mean there's no way to know that when the zoning changes. You know what I mean? Well, at the time actually when the church went in, I think it was a per Yeah. I mean, it it still is a permitted use, but it's like a similar argument

like if you were to put in, for instance, like now a church, and the church were were to go in the space of another office, I guess, and it would stay that way for a year. Since a church is a permitted use, that non-conforming use, like it couldn't be converted back to an office.

You follow? Now, that's not that's not to say that you couldn't come in and request the same relief. Like the the the benefit of a variance is is that the board they can make a determination tonight to say okay, you know, if if if it is just limited to the professional services, they could grant the variance to allow for the title company to go in there. To your point, you know, that's a use that's not necessarily consistent with the other uses, right? So then when I take that one off can when I take that to do construction and I take that one office space then what happens if you take if you take over that office space I I think that

I would still be a part of that non-conforming grandfathered in

in terms of if her use because I got to go back to that use certificate if she were to expand her use as professional service into those other areas performing that would If it's expanding into another professional service, I wouldn't see an issue with that. But when you're expanding the into say like the personal service and then you're kind of like expanding a variance without authorization from the zoning hearing board. I and I I guess just to be clear and I think this is kind of what the question that they're asking too is is okay well so this building there's different uses in it now that are non-conforming uses now those non-conforming uses if the use changes from uh you know personal service to professional service you're saying that that's that would be an issue because change in use and it wouldn't be it would no longer be the legal non-conforming use.

I'm thinking I apologize because the use certificate doesn't say doesn't Yeah. It's like it's list each space. It just says all three for everything because correct. Yeah. And I think that's where maybe there's some confusion too. Yeah. Like how did the building get split in half for use purposes I guess and where is that half and who determined that? Because the church well there's a plan there's a plan that exists somewhere that shows the church space within that building. Okay. And when that happened that church turned that footage into the permitted

and so there's a space that was basically like a mechanical room and overflow storage area between and I think it's part of the other side. it's not part of the church and we were going to incorporate that for storage and filing cabinets and stuff in her office. So, we didn't want to violate any variance that was granted as professional use if we were overstepping our percentages. Does that make sense? Was why I guess we're looking for clarification there. Yeah. May I interject now that I think about it?

There would be nothing that would prohibit a non-conforming change of use from a professional service to a personal service. I think and it looks like the board would agree that those two uses are similar enough that wouldn't require zoning hearing board authorization that the zoning officer under the ordinance could grant that change of use. So I wouldn't see an issue with I don't want to call it like an undeclared space, but I'm going to call it that. an undeclared space that's part of the non-conformity moving over to the part with the variance because it's still it would be going from say like I said personal to professional or professional professional or even office to professional services.

Okay. So we've established that the 52% we're going to call it of the building that outside of the church can be used for any of those uses. My question for the 48% that remains from the church is the reason why we wouldn't be able to grant a variance to allow that as personal, professional, and office space because of the way it was advertised or because it's too broad. I don't I mean I think that in terms of the advertisement I guess the advertisement it opens up the door for I guess the fact that citizens weren't made aware of these potential uses. Um,

prior to making a determination tonight, is there a way to correct that before a variance is granted to have the end result be the end request? I mean, we could I guess we could push it out to the next meeting and or could the variance depending on their timing of closings and I I realize that's all a real thing. could a variance be granted and a second application be submitted that would add the two other uses and then a subsequent

I guess the question becomes like that you know when you have like all of these uses thrown into a variance request I mean it's all speculation like I mean we understand like your instant need in in terms of the professional services because that's what you plan to do there and that makes sense right well I mean but I fall under personal services, too. So, I fall under C C1, I think it was C1, C2, MU1, and MU2. I qualify under all of those zoning purposes. So, I mean, I do have a broad because of what I do

qualify like her proposed use. I mean, is it strictly professional services or would it qualify as I guess those other uses like personal services, office space? Personal services are more like your mutitionians now you know things to do with the person tattoo parlors etc. Right. Like health and beautifification. Correct. Correct. Um is there like a is there a definition of office space? I mean

I do not believe that office space is a delineated use. It's broken into like professional services, personal service, business services. So, I understand the argument about the the notice, right, by law, right? But then the argument could be like, what is really the huge difference from the request of professional services, personal I mean, they're all kind of all the same. It's also why we language whatever the board deemed appropriate because we were really unsure of what we were after as far as the fact that

for the non-conforming you'd see them as similar. I know the variance would state it a certain way but I can't see a reason why it would never be approved in the future to flip between the two. I mean that's I mean

like in terms of I guess you know it is office space like an office space isn't necessarily a defined term like how did you reach that I guess when you did the use certificate and put in office space what was the rale just because it was morearent like office use did you Do you want to answer or did you Yeah, that's what the applicant wrote on the application. Okay. So that's why it was included. Okay. specifically stated professional service personal service in that section

and that's the permitted occupancy would be I guess just any generic office space based on the use certificate that was their office space. But this was signed, I guess, by the zoning and development officer that has office space, right? I'm looking at use certificate number of 3377. It was included as part of the application.

I apologize. I don't I don't know if it helps I don't know if can he stand up here. [laughter] He's got more vests in. Would Would it help you to see a picture of what space the church presently rents? Oh, yeah. He does have an outline of the building. Would that help you? We got the gist of everything. We're just trying to figure out the legality of everything.

They're just trying to figure out what lawyers do. [laughter]

How can How can we avoid legalities? Warm in here. Because the variance, the variance were to be granted as stated, you could certainly expand your 48% that you're in into the whole entire building. No issues. It's if the rest of the building were to expand into your space. And that would only be if it was

or if I cut up that space. Of course, you cut up your space and only used half and wanted to sell rent part to a non-professional service to a personal service. Then I would be then I would be in violation of the code. Well, in order to do that, you you know, any sort of buildout, you'd have to get a zoning permit, which would then trigger that's not allowed, and you'd have to get a variance for that. But I mean, just as stated with the non-conforming, a variance from personal to professional or vice versa is looked at as somewhat akin, but it still doesn't it still would require it.

Would it be possible to put some sort of condition that the use can only be changed to a professional service or personal service? I don't I don't know if that's a possibility that what now uh to put a condition on the approval of the variance that the use not be changed anything that doesn't meet the definition of a professional service or personal service. Are you saying you don't want to far? I guess I'm not follow I mean if we were to grant a variance that was to be for professional service

and you know, and in theory I guess u personal service then I mean doesn't that okay I I didn't know that that was the No, I'm just I'm just trying I guess I'm just throwing out options. Right. Right. What about I mean like the office space like is that a defined term? Is that office is not a defined term in our ordinance? It's Yeah, it's it's office like a complex is actually the only definition Correct. Right. That's the only Yeah. But office by itself is not it would be since it's not defined and on the use certificate, we would use the um the lexical connotation of the word.

I mean if if you could make the whole building professional and personal services that would just solve all the problems. I mean really if the if the variance if there would be a variance for that building to have am I correct the entire building changed to personal and professional services but the problem with that is the application of the variance is that what I'm understanding it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't advertised um you know I mean we have in the past I guess allowed amendments to applications um you know this is you know changing a use which is you know that's already used that way though. Half the buildings already used that way. So, right, right. No, I get that difference.

The problem is is that a variance is permanent. Like those other uses, you know, obviously the township when they went through and they did the resoning, they identified that area as being predominantly residential more so than I guess obviously in the past when it was previously zoned business. So in theory, you know, the thought behind all that is is if that if a non-conforming use stops for a period of a year or more, you know, absent some type of I guess fire or whatever. Um

I'm [clears throat] sorry. For nonconformities, um the ordinance that's referred to as abandonment. So it's a willful abandonment of that use for no more or for more than a one year. one year or more period. That's what I was asking. So, like there's a beauty shop in there and the the girl left. Vacant does not mean abandoned. Right. Okay. So, as long as you say you come in and you're like hypothetical, you come in, you're like, "All right, well, we're going to expand the church into this area now." So, after one year, you lose that nonconformity. Okay, that's basically what abandonment. So, there's no way we're going to get the building all one.

Well, I mean, the only way that you can get the building all is through a change in zoning. Like in terms of the variance, I mean right now I guess with respect to the non-conforming uses, they wouldn't necessarily qualify for a variance because it's a permitted use, right? Um, so I mean we got to I guess I mean I guess the building then if if it has to be professional I mean I'm going to change it all into professional space. I mean I guess it's going to be professional space. I don't even really see a lot of the personal use. I was just trying to simplify it for our future. You know what I mean? And I guess I wish I would have done a little bit more research with the verbiage on the application. Yeah. I didn't know

to try to include the personal just to make it simpler for us. What What personal services are in there now? So there's the salon. Well, the salon she but there's still the massage therapist. There was a massage therapist, right? Is she a professional massage therapist? I don't know what it would be of personal service I think if it deals with the volume. And then there's that laser that laser removal I think tenant right the laser removal tenant you have that she does some type of laser removal right so that I mean that's personal and then you have the are they psychologist or the social worker

the social worker so she'd be professional and personal actually I think she falls under ro so given the layout I know you had the layout given the layout is there even a situation where it makes sense where personal service would fit within this space.

Not for my purposes, but when I if I ever want to go and sell the building and maybe chop it up a little more because I plan to occupy a lot of space because I want to grow. That's my intent. But in 30 years, if I hang up my hat, you know, and I'm like, well, I could have more office spaces because I do like So, I'm an entrepreneur myself obviously. Um, starting my own title company three years ago. Um, four years ago if you count the other one. So I started two title companies. This is now my second. And um, I like the entrepreneurship of having this the incubator. I never heard of that before. And I wrote the newspaper article. And keeping that space and that idea for smaller businesses to be able to come in and start is something that I would like to be able to offer the community too. So that was, you know, I wanted to kind of keep that theme. Well, if I don't occupy all that space, I could have more office space to let more entrepreneurs come in in the future. So that's obviously a future problem, but again, you know, another another $800 problem to come back and

talk about, you know, the only thing I guess like the mixed use includes professional [snorts] services. So as long as we are okay with going over the 50% of the variance, we're still going to be in compliance. Like say if we took say if we occupy 40 48% with comprehensive closing services, we take that common room and then maybe we take another office, we're still in compliance. Yes, that's what you said before. Yeah, that's what he said. Correct. Yes. As long as

But then it leads me to my next question. What happens when I want to repave the uh parking spaces because it, you know, it needs to be repaved or the sign needs to be replaced? like how does that work for where my boundary lines are because it's not zoned that way? Is that where my problem comes in for zoning? So, regarding a um parking lot repavement, uh provided you're even if you were to expand it, um provide you don't exceed the maximum parking space requirement for all the uses there, there'd be no reason to. It's not expanding. It's just

but then the uses what are the parking spaces required for per personal professional like do those change? Personal services one for every 250 square feet four for a thousand or um professional is one for every 200 or five for every thousand. So then what do I do change with parking spaces? If it's just milling in top you don't have space. Just milling and top. Yeah. Milling the top. That would be a rearrangement of parking lot and hole and moving parking space. you're milling it and topping it, right? I just didn't know that that affect it. And like, you know, I want changing in kind in the same spot would not require any change in parking or anything like that. And I want, you know, I want to do the the outside of the building. And obviously there's

the outside of the building is the outside of the building. The the signage, that's where you would fit into the you couldn't change more than the the existing size. You'd be locked into. Yeah. Well, because there's also the sign permits. Yes, there's sign permits. Uh, in this case, there's nothing that prohibits you from replacing one face of one sign face on, and I'm talking about the the pylon or the freestanding sign near the road. You can pull out one sign and put another one in without a permit. As long as you're not doing anything structural, um, if you put if I if I occupy the space, if I buy the building, I would be changing the sign, right? She does want to put another sign in, but that's a totally different meaning.

Correct. what this does for my perspective to be able to do that in the future. So yes, that's uh honestly I would say that we could discuss that at another right but but the zoning in the variance are not going to affect like that's separate because it's R1 so they signed is now considered uh a non-conforming sign in the R1 district. Um, however, there are provisions in the ordinance for non-conforming uses in the R1 district for signage. In this case, I would recommend leaving I shouldn't say necessarily leaving the sign as is, but not moving it, keeping it there. You can update.

Yeah, that that's what I mean. Just I mean, there's nothing wrong. We don't start over. Correct. You're not expand it beyond what's there. Yeah, there should be no issue with that. Oh no, he's pulling out the lava. I don't know if there's other people. Yeah, I'm saying after that point.

Um, yeah, I mean you can do it on the discuss anything. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your time, gentlemen. Sure. Is there anyone else in the audience like to speak on this? Nope. Township.

Good evening. Matthew Waldinger, uh, 3608 West 26th Street, director of planning and development for Mil Creek. Just wanted to say, um, that the township does not have an issue with the granting of this variance. Um, we do understand, as you guys now are aware, that's an anomaly that it happened the way it did being a a permitted use in both the business and then in residential and kind of leaving that hole there. So, we don't have any issues with the granting of a variance. Thank you. Okay, we're going to take a brief recess and I'll be right back.

Okay. Let the record be shown that we reconvened at approximately 7:15 on appeal number 25-31. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to uh grant the variance to convert a place of worship assembly to professional services in the R1 single family residential district. I will second. All in favor? I. All opposed. So moved. Uh, do I have a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion. I'll second. All in favor? I I So moved. Sorry.