Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-5267CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD Appellant BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action - Law Land Use Appeal NOTICE OF APPEAL CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, by and through its attorneys, Salzmann, Hughes & Fishman, files this appeal from a decision of Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board, Cumberland County, under authority of Section 1002-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. l1002-A (herein the "Planning Code"), and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction in this appeal pursuant to §11002-A of the Planning Code, as reenacted, Act of December 21, 1988, RL. 1329, 53 P.S. §l1002-A and §933 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 42 Pa. C.SA. §933. 2. Appellant, Carlisle First Church of God, is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit church with its place of worship located at 705 Glendale Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 (herein "First Church"), and owner of certain real property located at this location (herein "the Property"). 3. Appellee is the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (herein the "Board") which maintains offices at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. The Property is zoned as part of an R-1 Low Density Residential District. 5. At the time that First Church constructed its existing place of worship, churches were a permitted use in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. 6. Due to a subsequent change in the Zoning Ordinance for the Borough of Carlisle, places of worship are currently permitted as a special exception under Borough's Zoning Ordinance. 7. On or about May 8, 2003, First Church filed with the Borough of Carlisle and its Planning and Zoning Codes Manager, Kenneth W. Womack, a Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for the Property for the purpose of adding an addition to its existing building and parking area. 8. On or about May 12, 2003, the Carlisle Planning and Zoning Codes Manager determined that a special exception application was necessary in order for the Borough to approve the submitted Final Land Development Plan for First Church's addition project. 9. First Church appealed the Zoning Manager's decision to the Zoning Hearing Board, the Board reviewed this matter at its public hearing on or about July 9, 2003. 10. The Board by a unanimous decision of three Board members present at the hearing upheld the Zoning Manager's determination that a special exception application was required. An appeal of this decision was filed with this Honorable Court on or about September 19, 2003, and docketed as land use appeal No. 03-4998 Civil Term. 11. Prior to First Church receiving the written decision as required by the Planning Code from the Board's hearing on July 9, 2003 as referenced above, it filed alternatively for a special exception despite it primal3' position that a special exception was not required so that construction on First Church's project may commence as soon as practically possible. 12. The Board reviewed the application for special exception which was filed in the alternative by First Church at it meeting on August 7, 2003. 13. The Board approved the requested special exception, but imposed certain conditions as set forth in its decision executed September 5, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 14. The action of the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board in imposing certain conditions in order for First Church to develop its property in accordance with its Final Land Development Plan was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law in that: a. The conditions imposed by the Board are not reasonable conditions or safeguards which are supported by the record of the heating; and b. The Board, by its conditions, has unilaterally increased the setback requirements of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance to five (5) times the required setback area for this particular Property which equates to spot zoning and an attempt by the Board to prevent First Church from building is proposed addition; and c. The proposed addition by First Church does not negatively affect the neighborhood or its residential character; and 3 d. First Church has complied with all of the requirements of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance to obtain a special exception for its addition (which was submitted in the alternative) with respect to its uses and dimensions; and e. The proposed addition of First Church does provide adequate sight design methods and evergreen screening and setback area to avoid serious negative impacts on adjacent uses; and f. The conditions imposed by the Board are in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C {}2000 (2002) and are excessive, unreasonable and not necessary for the protection of the adjacent landowners and the neighborhood in which the Property is located. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable Court, to the extent a special exception is required in the case at bar, deem that the Carlisle Borough Zoning Hearing Board's conditions numbered 1, 2 and 4 be stricken from the special exception approval as unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law and not supported by the record. Respectfully submitted, HES & FISHMAN 0. Hughes, Esq. -- e Cour~ I.D. No. 58884 95,j~lexander Spring Road .,Gin-lisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ~(717) 249-6333 Attorney for Appellant, Carlisle First Church of God Date: October 6, 2003 4 Zoning Hearing Board Borough of Car!isle ZHB Case No. 025-03 Re: Carlisle First Church of God Applicant Request for special exception at 705 Glendale Street, Chnmh expansion R- 1 Low Density Residential District Date of Decision: August 7, 2003 OPINION AND DECISION OF ZONING HEARING BOARD BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE After proper advertisement, the Board held a public hearing on Thursday, August 7, 2003 in the Carlisle Borough Municipal Building located at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania at 6:30 p.m. The five members of the Zoning Hearing Board were present, they being Chair Ronald L. Simons, and members Jane Rigler, Jeffrey H. Benjamin, Jeffrey G. Bergsten, and Henry W. Treffinger. In addition, present were Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager Kenneth W. Womack and Acting Solicitor Robert G. Frey. Allan McConnell, President of the chumh council, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Also appearing on behalf of the Applicant were James D. Hughes, Esquire of Irwin, McKnight & Hughes, Doug Brehm of Brehm-Lebo Engineering, and John Saylor, an Engineer with Lobar. The Applicant submitted the following exhibits in support of the application: Exhibit 1 Elevation plan for the proposed addition Exhibit 2 Final Land Development Plan ~Bova submitted the following exhibit in support of his request for denial of the application or, in the alternative, the imposing of conditions on the granting of the special exception: Bova Exhibit 1 Conditions for approval Applicant seeks a special exception in connection with the land development plan filed by the Applicant for the expansion of its existing place of worship in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Case No. 026-03, Tam Van Page FINDINGS OF FACT 1. ,~,pplicant is the owner of the property at 705 Glendale Street. 2. The property is located in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. 3. Applicant did not previously receive a special exception fc/r its use because its use was a permitted use at the time of the original construction. By a decision of the Zoning'Hearing Board at the July Heating, ZHB Case No. 021-03, the Zoning Hearing Board ruled that Applicant's proposed expansion of its existing building required special exception approval by the Zoning Hearing Board. 4. Ken Womack stated that the Carlisle Borough Planning Commission recommended approval of Applicant's land development plan subject to several conditions, including conditions related to storm water management. 5. Applicant's current structure contains 11,965 square feet. The proposed addition would create an additional 10,767 square feet structure attached to the existing structure. 6. Mr. McConnell testified that the purpose of the proposed addition is to address the increased need for space in the existing fellowship hall and classrooms and to create a pastor's study and a changing area for the choir. 7. The current fellowship hall is used for junior church and Sunday school on Sundays, Bible school in the Summer, Wednesday night activities, and banquets and luncheons related to church activities. 8. The Applicant had previously submitted plans locating the addition 10 feet from the western property line. The current plans locate the addition between 30 and 35 feet from the western property line. 9. The proposed addition would be 18 feet high at the roof line and 34 feet high at the peak of the roof. 10. The Applicant proposes no other structures and no walkways or drives between the building and the western property line. 11. Applicant's property is bounded on the North, East, and West by single family dwellings and on the South by the Walnut Bottom Road. 12. Mr. McConnell testified that the addition was designed to have all classrooms in one area for security reasons. The classrooms are also located next to the fellowship hall because the hall is used as an integral part of Sunday school. Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Case No. 026-03. Tam Van Page 2 13. Doug Brehxn testified that storm water management has been planned to handle a 100 ye,ar storm. 14. Doug Brehm testified that the land development plan complies with all area and bulk requirements of the Borough. 15. Doug Brehm testified that screening is proposed along a pOrtion of the western property line using staggered 6-foot high arbor vitae. 16. Although the Borough Ordinance would require i 17 parking spaces, Doug Brehm testified that the plan proposes increasing the number of spaces to 188 from the current 167. The parking lot would be extended westward as would an existing light on the western edge of the parking lot. 17. The representatives of the Applicant testified that there was no anticipated increase in traffic due to the addition and that the screening proposed should abate any negative impact on neighboring residences. 18. The representatives of the Applicant testified that locating the addition on the south side would harm the aesthetics of the existing church building and locating the addition on the north side would likely involve construction difficulties due to rocks and lower grade. 19. The representatives of the Applicant testified that a door and an institutional style kitchen vent would be required to be located on the westem wall of the addition, the side closest to the adjoining residential properties. 20. The representatives of the Applicant testified that representatives of the church met with Russell Bova, an adjoining property owner in an attempt to address his concerns about the addition. 21. Robert Chant, 700 Belvedere Street, testified that he was opposed to the proposed addition due to the size of the addition in relation to its proximity to neighboring properties. He testified that the proposed location is too close to adjoining residential properties and would, therefore, damage the residential character of that neighborhood. 22. James Trinnaman, 704 Belvedere Street, testified that he is opposed to the proposed addition because of problems his properly has had with storm water drainage. He testified that water flows from the Applicant's property onto the rear of his property and he would be opposed to the plan unless it addressed these current problems. 23. Russell Bova, 707 Stratford Drive, testified that he was opposed to the plan because of the size and proximity of the addition to his residence. He testified that he appreciated the efforts of the Applicant to discuss with him his concerns but that it was Carlisle Zoning Hearh~g Board Case No. 026-05, Tam Van Page 3 simply not possible to adequately screen a structure of the size and proximity proposed by Applicant. 24. Mr. Bova suggested that the fact that the newly enacted Zoning Ordinance would require a 50 foot setback in this instance indicates that greater setbacks than those proposed by the Applicant are necessary to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. 25. Mr. Bova stated that he would prefer that the special exception request be denied, but if it were approved, he presented a list of conditions, marked Bova Exhibit "A," that he would request be imposed. 26. On cross-examination, Mr. Bova stated that he has trees on his property that provide some screening during warm weather but there is still an area approximately 20-25 feet wide that is unscreened during all seasons. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The property is located in the R- 1 Low Density Residential District. 2. Section 255-17(A) permits places of worship in the R-1 District as a special exception subject to the requirements of Sections 255-177 and 255-178A(32). 3. The purpose for special exception review is "to allow a careful review of uses that have some potential of conflicts with adjacent uses or areas." Section 255- 177.A. 4. Section 255-177.D provides specific standards to consider in granting a special exception and Section 255-177.C(2) authorizes the Zoning Hearing Board to attach reasonable conditions and safeguards to the granting ora special exception to implement the purpose enumerated above. 5. Among the standards to be complied with are the following: Section 255-177.D(5) Neighborhood: will not significantly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. Section 255-177.D(6) Design: will involve adequate sight design methods, including evergreen screening, setbacks, berming and traffic control to avoid serious negative impacts on adjacent uses. 6. The testimony from several residents in the adjoining residential neighborhood indicated that the plans as presented did not adequately protect the neighborhood from significant negative impact. Specifically, the testimony suggested that the size of the proposed addition and its location on Applicant's lot did not make it possible to use landscape screening to shield the neighboring residential properties from Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Caxe No. 026-03, Tam Van Page 4 the nonresidential aspects of the building, including lighting, institutional kitchen fans and heating and, cooling units. 7. Although the Applicant has complied with the Setback requirements contained in the Ordinance and has proposed screening a portion of the building, the setback and screening designs are not adequate to avoid serious negative impacts on adjacent properties and additional conditions are necessary to adequately protect the adjacent properties. 8. The conditions hereafter enumerated are reasonably calculated to promote the purposes of Section 255-177 and to reduce the negative impact on adjoining properties Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Case No. 026-03, Tam t/an Page 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on this 6th day of October, 2003, a copy of this Notice of Appeal was served by first-class, postage prepaid United States mail in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, upon the following: Borough of Carlisle Attn: Kenneth Womack 53 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Solicitor, Carlisle Zoning Headng Board 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Russell Bova 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 iHES & FISHMAN sq. o. 58884 oad (717) 249-6333 Attorney for Appellant, Carlisle First Church of God CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GOD : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. : : No. 03-5267 Civil Term BOROUGH OF CARLISLE : ZONING HEARING BOARD : WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) :SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) TO: BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD pending before you, do command you that the record of the action aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges of our court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within 20 days of the date hereof, together with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth. WITNESS, The Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 6TM day of OCTOBER, 2003. eroth~f'~on/~~ CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellant V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD, Appellee CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAND USE APPEAL No. 2003-5267 TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: Please enter mI appearance on behalf of the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board. Please accept ~e filing of the Record pursuant to the Writ of Certiorari dated October , 2003. I Respectfully submitted, Dated: Stepl~n D. T'iley, Esquire Attorney for Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 2430-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 03-5267 Civil Term CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD VS. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD RECORD INDEX 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Writ of Certiorari Carlisle Firgt Church of God, Notice of Appeal, July 17, 2003 Public Notile, Zoning Hearing Board Meeting, August 7, 2003 Proof of Publication for Public Notice, ZI-IB Meeting, August 7, 2003 Transcript ~f Proceedings, Zoning Hearing Board, August 7, 2003 Applicant'~ Exhibit 1, Elevation Plan for the proposed addition Applicant'~ Exhibit 2, Final Land Development Plan Bova Exhibit 1, Conditions for approval 1 Writ of Certiorari CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GOD : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. : : No. 03-5267 Civil Term BOROUGH OF CARLISLE : ZONING HEARING BOARD : WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTt~ OF PENNSYLVANIA ) : SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) TO: BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD We, being willi CARLISLE FIR1 record of the actie sent to our judges c hereof, together wil to be done accordir ~g for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between r CHURCH OF GOD pending before you, do command you that the aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and four court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within 20 days of the date h this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth. WITNESS, Th~ Honorable George E. Heifer, P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 6TM day of OCtOBER, 2003. Pr°th/°n°tary ~"~-~'- ~7 TRUE COPY FROM RECt In Testimony whereof, I here unto set i ~.;nl ll~ ~ of said Court at CarlisJe )RD CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD Appellant BOROUGH OF CAR ZONING HEARING Appellee ~ISLE BOARD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action - Law Land Use Appeal NOTICE OF APPEAL CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, by and through its attorneys, Salzmann, Hughes & Fishman, files thisi appeal from a decision of Borough of Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board, Cumberland County, !under authority of Section 1002-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act bf July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. l1002-A (herein the "Planning Code"), and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. This Honorabl Code, as reenacted, Judicial Code, as ame: 2. Appellant, Ca: place of worship loc 17013 (herein "First "the Property"). Court has jurisdiction in this appeal pursuant to § 11002-A of the Planning ~ct of December 21, 1988, RL. 1329, 53 P.S. §l1002-A and §933 of the tded, 42 Pa. CS.A. §933. lisle First Church of God, is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit church with its ~ted at 705 Glendale Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ;hurch"), and owner of certain real property located at this location (herein 3. Appellee is the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (herein ,the "Board") which maintains offices at 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. The Property is zoned as part of an K-1 Low Density Residential District. 5. At the time tl3at First Church constructed its existing plaqe of worship, churches were a permitted use in the 1~-1 Lpw Density Residential District. 6. Due to a subSequent change in the Zoning Ordinance for the Borough of Carlisle, places of worship are curren!ly permitted as a special exception under Borough's Zoning Ordinance. 7. On or about May 8, 2003, First Church filed with the Borough of Carlisle and its Planning and Zoning Codes Manager, Kenneth W. Womack, a Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for the Property for tlle purpose of adding an addition to its existing building and parking area. 8. On or about May 12, 2003, the Carlisle Planning and Zoning Codes Manager determined that a special exception application was necessary in order for the Borough to approve the submitted Final Land ~evelopment Plan for First Church's addition project. 9. First Church ~ppealed the Zoning Manager's decision to the Zoning Hearing Board, the Board reviewed this rhatter at its public hearing on or about July 9, 2003. 10. The Board by . the Zoning Manager of this decision was docketed as land use a unanimous decision of three Board members present at the hearing upheld determination that a special exception application was required. An appeal filed with this Honorable Court on or about September 19, 2003, and ippeal No. 03-4998 Civil Term. 11. Prior to First Church receiving the written decision as required by the Planning Code from the Board's heating on July 9, 2003 as referenced above, it filed alternatively for a special exception despite it primary position that a special exception was not required so that construction on First Church's project may commence as soon as practically possible. 12. The Board re~ by First Church at it r 13. The Board ap forth in its decision "A" and incorporated iewed the application for special exception which was filed in the alternative ~eeting on August 7, 2003. ~roved the requested special exception, but imposed certain conditions as set xecuted September 5, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit herein by this reference. 14. The action ~f the Borough of Carlisle Zoning Heating Board in imposing certain conditions in order for First Church to develop its property in accordance with its Final Land Development Plan w~s arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law in that: a. The c~nditions imposed by the Board are not reasonable conditions or safeguards which are supported I~y the record of the hearing; and b. The B the Carlisle Zoning Property which equal building is proposed; c. The neighborhood or its r )ard, by its conditions, has unilaterally increased the setback requirements of Drdinance to five (5) times the required setback area for this particular es to spot zoning and an attempt by the Board to prevent First Church from ddition; and )roposed addition by First Church does not negatively affect the ;sidential character; and d. First Church has complied with all of the requirements of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance to obtain a special exception for its addition (which was submitted in the alternative) with respect to its uses and dimensions; and methods and evergre~ uses; and The proposed addition of First Church does provide adequate sight design :n screening and setback area to avoid serious negative impacts on adjacent f. The cz and Institutionalized not necessary for thel Property is located. ~nditions imposed by the Board are in violation of the Religious Land Use ~ersons Act, 42 U.S.C. {}2000 (2002) and are excessive, unreasonable and protection of the adjacent landowners and the neighborhood in which the WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable Court, to the extent a special exception is rqquired in the case at bar, deem that the Carlisle Borough Zoning Hearing · / Board s conditions n~mbered 1, 2 and 4 be stricken from the special exception approval as y, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law and not supported by unreasonable, arbitrat the record. Date: October 6, 2001 Respectfully submitted, ~a~lf~s- ~. Hughes, Esq. Supr~ne Court I.D. No. 58884 95fiflexander Spring Road., ~rF~sle, Pennsylva~a 1701 ~ ~(717) 249-6333 Attorney for Appellant, Carlisle First Church of God 4 Zoning Hearing Board Borough of Carlisle ZHB Case No. 025-03 Re: Carlisle First Church of God Applicant Request for special exception at 705 Glendale Street, Church expansion R-1 Low Density Residential District Date of Decision: August 7, 2003 OPINI~ After prope: 7, 2003 in the Carli Carlisle, Pennsylva present, they being Benjamin, Jeffrey ( In addition, and Acting Solicito )N AND DECISION OF ZONING HEARING BOARD BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE advertisement, the Board held a public hearing on Thursday, August fie Borough Municipal Building located at 53 West South Street, fia at 6:30 p.m. The five members of the Zoning Hearing Board were 2hair Ronald L. Simons, and members Jane Rigler, Jeffrey H. i. Bergsten, and Henry W. Treffinger. ~resent were Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager Kenneth W. Womack Robert G. Frey. Allan McConnell, President of the church council, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Also apl0earing on behalf of the Applicant were James D. Hughes, Esquire of Irwin, McKnight & [Hughes, Doug Brehm of Brehm-Lebo Engineering, and John Saylor, an Engineer with Lqbar. The Applicaht submitted the following exhibits in support of the application: Exhil0it 1 Elevation plan for the proposed addition Exhibit 2 Final Land Development Plan ~ova the application or, special exception: Bova Applicant se filed by the Applicm Density Residential mbmitted the following exhibit in support of his request for denial of the alternative, the imposing of conditions on the granting of the Exhibit 1 Conditions for approval ~'ks a special exception in connection with the land development plan tt for the expansion of its existing place of worship in the R- 1 Low )istrict. E~hibit "A" Carlisle Zoning Hearing BOard Case No, 026-03, Tam Van Page FINDINGS OF FACT ~.pplicant is the owner of the property at 705 Glendale Street. The property is located in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. 3. Applicant did not previously receive a special exception fer its use because its use was a permitted use at the time of the original construction. By a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board at the July Hearing, ZHB Case No. 021-03, the Zoning Hearing Board ruled that Applicant's proposed expansion of its existing building required special exception ~pproval by the Zoning Hearing Board. 4. Ke recommended apl: conditions, includ 5. Ap ~ Womack stated that the Carlisle Borough Planning Commission rovat of Applicant's land development plan subject to several ng conditions related to storm water management. )licant's current structure contains 11,965 square feet. The proposed addition would cr~ ate an additional 10,767 square feet structure attached to the existing structure. I 6. Mr.I McConnell testified that the purpose of the proposed addition is to address the increased need for space in the existing fellowship hall and classrooms and to create a pastor's study and a changing area for the choir. Sundays, Bible scl luncheons related 8. Thc from the western p feet from the west~ current fellowship hall is used for junior church and Sunday school on ool in the Summer, Wednesday night activities, and banquets and o church activities. Applicant had previously submitted plans locating the addition 10 feet ~'operty line. The current plans locate the addition between 30 and 35 m property line. 1 9. The[proposed addition would be 18 feet high at the roof line and 34 feet high at the peak of~he roof. 10. The between the buildi~ 11. Apg family dwellings al 12. Mr. classrooms in one ~ fellowship hall bec Applicant proposes no other structures and no walkways or drives tg and the western property line. licant's property is bounded on the North, East, and West by single td on the South by the Walnut Bottom Road. McConnell testified that the addition was designed to have all rea for security reasons. The classrooms are also located next to the ~use the hall is used as an integral part of Sunday school. Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board Case ~Vo. 026-03. Tam Van Page 2 13. Doug Brehm testified that storm water management has been planned to handle a I00 ye.ar storm. 14. DOug Brehm testified that the land development plan complies with all area and bulk reqlairements of the Borough. 15. Doug Brehm testified that screening is proposed along a portion of the western property line using staggered 6-foot high arbor vitae. 16. A!~hough the Borough Ordinance would require 117 parking spaces, Doug Brehm testified treat the plan proposes increasing the number of spaces to 188 from the current 167. The parking lot would be extended westward as would an existing light on the western edge If the' parking lot. ' 17. Th increase in traffic negative impact o 18. Th the south side wm addition on the no lower grade. 19. Th~ institutional style addition, the side 20. Th~ church met with R concems about the 21. Roi proposed addition neighboring prope residential properti neighborhood. 22. Jar~ proposed addition He testified that w~ and he would be ot 23. Rus plan because of the he appreciated the. ~ representatives of the Applicant testified that there was no anticipated due to the addition and that the screening proposed should abate any neighboring residences. : representatives of the Applicant testified that locating the addition on Id harm the aesthetics of the existing church building and locating the :th Side would likely involve construction difficulties due to rocks and ,representatives of the Applicant testified that a door and an :itchen vent would be required to be located on the westem wall of the losest to the adjoining residential properties. representatives of the Applicant testified that representatives of the ~ssell Bova, an adjoining property owner in an attempt to address his addition. .crt Chant, 700 Belvedere Street, testified that he was opposed to the tue to the size of the addition in relation to its proximity to ties. He testified that the proposed location is too close to adjoining es and would, therefore, damage the residential character of that es Trinnaman, 704 Belvedere Street, testified that he is opposed to the ~ecause of problems his property has had with storm water drainage. ter flows from the Applicant's property onto the rear of his property ,posed to the plan unless it addressed these current problems. ;ell Bova, 707 Stratford Drive, testified that he was opposed to the size and proximity of the addition to his residence. He testified that ~fforts of the Applicant to discuss with him his concerns but that it was C,:r/isle Zomtlg blearing Board Case No. 026-03. Tam Van Page 3 simply not possible to adequately screen a structure of the size and proximity proposed by Applicant. 24. Mri Bova suggested that the fact that the newly enacted Zoning Ordinance would require a 50 foot setback in this instance indicates that greater setbacks than those proposed by the Applicant are necessary to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. 25. denied, but if it we "A," that he wouk Mri Bova stated that he would prefer that the special exception request be re approved, he presented a list of conditions, marked Bova Exhibit request be imposed. 26. On that provide some 20-25 feet wide th 1. The 2. Sec special exception s 3. The uses that have som 177.A. 4. Secl special exception attach reasonable implement the pur 5. Am~ Section 255 desirable character Section 255 including evergreer negative impacts or 6. The neighborhood indic neighborhood from that the size of the [ possible to use land cross-examination, Mr. Bova stated that he has trees on his property ~creening during warm weather but there is still an area approximately is unscreened during all seasons. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW property is located in the R-1 Low Density Residential District. ion 255-17(A) permits places of worship in the R-1 District as a abject to the requirements of Sections 255-177 and 255-178A(32). purpose for special exception review is "to allow a careful review of : potential of conflicts with adjacent uses or areas." Section 255- ion 255-177.D provides specific standards to consider in granting a ~d Section 255-177.C(2) authorizes the Zoning Hearing Board to )nditions and safeguards to the granting of a special exception to ose enumerated above. ,ng the standards to be complied with are the following: · 177.D(5) Neighborhood: will not significantly negatively affect the ~f an existing residential neighborhood. .177.D(6) Design: will involve adequate sight design methods, screening, setbacks, berming and traffic control to avoid serious adjacent uses. estimony from several residents in the adjoining residential tted that the plans as presented did not adequately protect the significant negative impact. Specifically, the testimony suggested roposed addition and its location on Applicant's lot did not make it ;cape screening to shield the neighboring residential properties from Carlisle Zoning Heartng BOard Case No, 026.03, Tam Van Page 4 the nonresidential aspects of the building, including lighting, institutional kitchen fans and heating and. cooling units. 7. Although the Applicant has complied with the setback requirements contained in the Ordinance and has proposed screening a portion of the building, the setback and screehing designs are not adequate to avoid serious negative impacts on adjacent properties and additional conditions are necessary to adequately protect the adjacent properties. 8. the purposes of S, properties conditions hereafter enumerated are reasonably calculated to promote ',ction 255-177 and to reduce the negative impact on adjoining Carlisle Zoning [tearing t~oard Case No. 026-03, Tam Van Page 5 ORDER OF THE BOARD The Zoning Hearing Board, by a unanimous vote of the five members present, approved the req,4ested special exception with the following conditions: 1. Applicant will provide, plant, and maintain at its expense a row or rows of evergreen trees along the entire length of the western property line in a manner as shown on Applicant's plan '2. Th properties shall be sheds, storage buil conditioning units place in that area. side of the buildin 3. Ou light directed in th 4. Th~ line. Anyone ag Cumberland Cout decisio~ Rona(d L. Simons' Date ~ Jeffrey/4fft[Jf/~i a ~fi Date~ I' ~/q~ Henry '~'c.~Tre f_fi,~g~ Date ; area between the addition to be constructed and the adjoining maintained as green space without paving, walkways, or parking. No dings, shelters, trash receptacles, heat pumps or other heating/air will be placed in that area and no additional. ~onstmction will take No ..regularly used doors or entrances will be placed on the western oor lighting should be properly shielded and diffused so as no to have direction of adjoining properties to the west. addition shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from any property fieved by this decision of the Board has the right to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas w~v'fi-om~e day of this ? Date t{ ff-/O'>..~ ~...-"" Date Carlisle Zoning Hearing ,~oard Case No. 026-03, Tam Van Page 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on this 6t~ day of October, 2003, a copy of this Notice of Appeal was served by first-class, postage prepaid United States mail in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, upon the following: Borough of Carlisle Attn: Kenneth Womack 53 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Solicitor, Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Russell Bova 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 ISHMAN 95 ~xander Spring Road ~C.~lisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6333 Attorney for Appellant, Carlisle First Church of God 5 Carlisle 2 First Church of God, Notice of Appeal July 17, 2003 ZO1NING ~ARING BOARD BOROUGH OF CARLISLE 53 We~t South Street Carlisle PA 17013 NOTICE OF APPEAr, Carlisle First ~ (We) Church of God of 705 Glendale Street~ Carlisle, PA 1701.3 717-249-3451 , . request thax a pUbic h~g be held ~d a ~o~ ~Ho~ ~o~ PHO~) decision be ~ed by ~e Zo~g He~g Bo~d on ~e foflo~g ma~e~ ~ ap~ of a del~in~don by ~e Zomg O~c= isled on ,199 [] A special exception. [] A variance relating to: ~] Area [] Frontage Q Y=d [~ HeiSt [] U'se ~ W~ch pertains to the Carlisle Borough Zoning Ordinance: Article ~zI Scion 255-17 .a~icle xx Se~on 255-178 Article Section. A~cle Section. Pm-agra~ ph A. P~a~m-aph A. (32) P~ragraph Pm-agra~ ph The description ofth~ prope~/~uvolved in ~bi~ appeal ~ ~ follows: Lo~fio~oi~pe~: 705 Glendale Street~ Carlisie~ PA 17013 Zoning Diem: R-I~ Lo~ Density ResidenCia~ P~entUse: Place of worship ~posedUse: Place of worship O~ofProp~: Carlisle First Church of God ~ladonship of a =flc~t ~o pmp~: ~ Ov ~er of~o~ ~ P~ to a [e~e ~em~t Attach the followiug: [~ Statement ofwhy~e Zoniug Hem-~ug Boa~ sho~dd apple r~qu~t ~] Sketch plan - req~d for area aud bu~k v~~_~ ~ ~ J es D. Hughes, Esquire ~ I _ JUL 1 ~ ~ ~ ~. ~h~, ~ ~ent ~or Aoolicant /Da~ H~uimg Aciver~ed ZON~NG HEARING BOARD BOROI j'GT-I OF C, ARI .I~T ,E 53 West South Street Carlisle; PA 17013 ZI-iB Case No. Applicant's Name First Church of God Property Location 705 Glendale Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 I attest that the below represents a complete and accurate list of all known owners of record of property within two hundred (200) feet radius of the lot lines of the property tl ProperW Owners Name REG Incorporated! c/o Earl M. Bamhart of this appeal. hIT'S SIGNATURE DATE Hughes, Esq., Agent for Applicant Belvedere Associates Steven Earl McKinley Russell & Candae* L. Bova Thomas E. & Morfica Frederick , Property Address 800 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 850 Walnut Bottom Road Carlisle, PA 17013 701 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 713 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Brian A. & Cynthih J. 717 Yorkshire Drive Kramer Carlisle, PA 17013 Owners Mailing Address 800 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 850 Walnut Bottom Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Margaret L. McOi ~n Walter H. Heckm~ , Jr. William F. Lightn, :r James T. & Chark tte B. Ayre June B. Tdnnamm Robert J. & Sally, ~. Chant 721 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 725 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 712 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 708 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 704 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 700 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 10210 Epislon Road Richmond, VA 23235 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 1031 Rockledge Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 717 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 721 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 725 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 712 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 708 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 704 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 700 Belvedere Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Continued Page 2 Property Owners Name Philip N. & Elizabeth A. Lockhart Michael V. & Gwendolyn P. Mipnix Charles F. & Mildred T. Brace First Church of Ggd Property Address 804 Stratford Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 808 Stratford Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 900 Stratford Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 705 Glendale Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Owners Mailing Address 804 Stratford Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 3287 St. Andrews Drive Chambersburg, PA 17201 900'Stratford Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 705 Glendale Street Carlisle, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES IRWIN McKNIGHT & HUGHES WEST POMFRET PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 60 WEST POMFRET STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17015-3222 (717) 249-2353 FAX (717) 249-6354 E-MAIL: IMHLA W@$UPERNET. COM July 16, 2003 VIA H/IND DELIVI KENNETH W. WO BOROUGH OF CA 53 WEST SOUTH CARLISLE, PA 17~] ~s~CK, ZONING OFFICER gl, ISLE YREET 13 SPECIAL E] ~CEPTION APPLICATION / CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD Dear Ken: Enclosed herewith please find a completed application for a special exception for the Carlisle First Church 9fGod. I am also enclosing our firm's check in the amount of $150.00 to cover the applicable filing fee as well as extra copies of the land development plan for this project for members of the Zoning Hearing Board. As you are aware, the subject property is located in the R-1 Low Density Residential District which permit~ places of worship as a special exception. The Carlisle First Church of God is proposing to cgnstmct an addition to their existing Church facility which will be utilized by Church members a~ a fellowship hall and Sunday school classrooms. The Church is also planning on expanding the western parking area as indicated on the attached land development plan. The Church is iseeking a special exception based upon the Zoning Hearing Board's most recent decision that special exception approval is needed to dimensionally expand although the use of the facility remains generally the same. Section 255-i'~8 A(32) sets forth permitted uses for places of worship as area and bulk regulati. forth the general stan, plan as proposed con~ within these sections. The proposed the current services a~ traffic, safety or negat Please be advi~ consultants will be avl 7, 2003, to present its well as revised ms in addition to those set forth in Section 255-18. Section 255-177B sets ards for the granting of a special exception and the Church asserts that the flies with all applicable area and bulk regulations and the standards stated mprovements to the existing Church facility are being made to improve facilities of the Church and will not result in measurable changes in vely impact the neighborhood as a whole. ed that representatives of the Church, its engineer and construction ilable to attend the Zoning Hearing Board meeting scheduled for August dan and answer any questions concerning the application. Kenneth W. Womack RE: Carlisle First Church of God July 16, 2003 Page 2 In the event you have any further questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, IRW ~HES ~'D. Hughes JDH:clc cc: Douglas S. BrChm, Brehm Lebo E~gineering/Inc. Carlisle First Church of God \ / John E. Saylor~ Lobar Associates 3 Public Notice, Zoning Hearing Board Meetings August 7, 2003 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY PROVIDED that the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board will meet on Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. in the Borough Hall of the Municipal Building, 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, at which time testimony will also be taken and a complete hearihg held on the following: No. 020-03. A request by Fred and Mary Grace Seltzer for a variance at 515 W. North Street (R-2 Medium Density Residential District). Section 255-251 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance requires an eight (8) ~eet side yard setback for principal single-family detached buildings in the R-2 District. The applicants propose to construct an attached carport which extends seven and one-half (7.5) feet into the required side yard setback. No. 022-03. A request by Tom and Mary Richwine for a variance at 1106 Acre Drive (R-1 Low Density Residential I~istrict). Section 255-18B of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance requires a forty (40) feet building setl~ack. The applicants propose to construct a porch on the front of the home which extends approximately ten (10) feet into the required building setback. No. 023-03. A request by Robert and Mary Lee Gerard for a variance at 260 Belvedere Street (R-1 Low Density Re~;idential District). Section 255-18H of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance requires a ten (10) fe~t side yard setback for accessory structures and uses. The applicants propose to construct ~ two-car garage which extends five (5) feet into the required side yard setback. No. 024-03. A request by Paul Kostick for a variance at 263 E. Pomfret Street (R-4 Town Center Residential). ~Sections 255-36/37/38 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance do not allow warehousing/storage las a use permitted by right, accessory use or special exception use in the R-4 District. The applicant proposes to construct a three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet building on a vac~ant lot for warehousing/storage. No. 025-03. A reque: Glendale Street (R-1 Ordinance permits a I applicant proposes tc feet addition to the pr ;t submitted by Carlisle First Church of God for a special exception at 705 _ow Density Residential District). Section 255-17A of the Carlisle Zoning )lace of worship as a special exception use in the R-1 District. The construct an approximately ten thousand five hundred (10,500_+) square ncipal use. No. 026-03. A reque: Drive (R-4 Town Cen a use permitted by ri.c 255-40A of the same 184 of the same ordir feet of customer servi construct an approxin ;t submitted by Tam and Hoa Van for variances at 144 N. Spring Garden er Residential). Sections 255-36/37/38 do not allow personal services as ht, accessory use or special exception use in the R-4 District. Section ~)rdinance requires a twenty-five (25) feet rear yard setback. Section 255- ance requires one (1) parking space for every one hundred (100) square ~,e area and two spots per dwelling unit. The applicants propose to ~ately two hundred forty-eight (248±) square feet addition which encroaches fifteen (19) feet into the required rear yard setback and to use the addition as a nail salon. No additional ~ff-street parking is proposed with this addition. / No. 027-03. A request submitted by Rubin Lemus for a special exception at 800 W. Pomfret Street (C-4 Neighborl~ood Commercial District). Section 255-74B of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance permits a I ,,arking lot as a principal use in the C-4 District as a special exception. The applicant propos~ .s to construct a 16-space parking lot on this parcel for use as additional parking for an adjacel it restaurant. KENNETH W. WOM/CK Zoning Officer 4 Proof of Ptlblication for Public Notice, ZHB Meeting, August 7, 2003 PROOF OF PUBLICATION State of Pennsylvania, County of Cumberland. Lori Saylor, Classified Advertising Manager of THE SENTINEL, of the County and State afoYesaid, being duly sworn, deposes and says that THE SENTINEL, a newspaper of general circulation In the Bprough of Carlisle, County and State aforesaid, was established December 13th, 1881, since which date THI~ SENTINEL has been regularly issued in said County, and that the printed noti ce or publication attached hereto is exactly the same as was printed and published in the regular editions m d issues of THE SENTINEL or/the following dates, viz Copy of Notice of Publ!cation NOT~CE NoTIcE I~ Hearing Boan:l wll~ meet July 24 & 31, 2003 not interested in aforesaid notice or and that all allegations in the nent as to time, place and character rue. Zoning Officer $ pmpo~d w~"~ me this 31st 2003. Notary Publi~ .=xpires: Transcript of Proceedings, Zoning Hearing Board August 7, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZONING HEARING BOARD CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: DOUGLAS S. BREHM : NO. ON BEHALF OF THE : FIRST CHURCH OF GOD : 025-03 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE: DATE: PLACE: SOLICITOR: ZONING OFFICER: RONALD L. SIMONS, CHAIRMAN JANE RIGLER, MEMBER JEFFREY G. BERNSTEIN, MEMBER HENRY TREFFINGER, MEMBER JEFFREY H. BENJAMIN, MEMBER August 7, 2003 Carlisle Borough Hall 53 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania ROBERT M. FREY, ESQUIRE KENNETH W. WOMACK APPEARANCES: IRWIN, MCKNIGHT & HUGHES BY: JAMES D. HUGHES, ESQUIRE FOR - APPLICANT Jennifer L. Sirois Court Reporter, Notary Public Reporting Services · 717-258-3657 · 717-258-0383fax courtreporters4u@aol, com 1 2 NAME 3 Allen MCConnell 4 Doug Br e~hm 5 Bob Cha~t 6 James T~ lnnaman 7 Russell Bova 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX TO TESTIMONX PAGE 6 23 38 40 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEED IN~S THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Treffinger would like to just be brought up to speed. Could you give us a little trilogy of what has transpired to date, if you would, Mr. Womack? MR. WOMACK: Would you like me to go ahead and present ithis on with it? ~ THE CHAIRMAN: before de get into discussion level p~aying field. MR. WOMACK: I think it will all fit together. Yeah, I think it would be good so that everybody's on the The applicant did present a plan --ii guess it was in April; I don't reme~er the month exactlyi-- in which a special exception was asked for. That plan is substantially -- well, it's different from this plan, in that, the current building on the new plan is setback labout 30 feet from the lot line, whereas the other plan wa~ about 10 feet. After that was withdrawn, the applicant subsequently filed this new plan with the approximately 30-feet setback. We made a determination at that time that a speciall exception was required because it was expanding a special /xception use substantially. The applicant challenged that determination. It was last month they were before the board. The board upheld the zoning officer's determination, so we're here tonight with a new special 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 exception application on the plan that was presented to the borough for approval. And that's the status of where we are. Wilth respect to this plan, again, it's for approximately 10,500-square-foot addition to the principal use as a! place of worship, First Church of God, 705 Glendalei. It's zoned R-I, low-density residential in a place of worship, is a special exception use. ' I think, just for clarification, the plan went before t~e planning commission and was recommended for approval!subject to four or five conditions. Some of those have bee6 taken care of. One that is significant tonight, one of t~e conditions was, at the time the applicant filed the plan~ it asked for a waiver for the storm water requirements. I The borough engineered the planning commission's suggestion that that waiver may not be appropriate and that we need ~ complete storm water analysis. The applicant has subseque storm wa requirem been sat you now conditiol I'm not ~tly provided a storm water analysis that meets the zer ordinance requirements and actually exceeds the ~nts for the 100-year flood, so that condition has [sfied. It does alter -- the plan you have in front of ~hows those modifications, and those will be made a of the plan for approval for the council. I hope onfusing the issue here. The plan that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 planning commission voted on is a little bit different, in that, the storm water system is different from what you're going to'see tonight. You need to understand that. THE CHAIRMAN: for tonight? ! MR. WOMACK: special ~xception use THE CHAIRMAN: of R-i? Okay. Well, what are they here A special exception to expand a for this 10,500-Square-foot addition. Even though it's a permitted use MR. WOMACK: It's not a permitted use. It's a special ~xception use. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm with you. Excuse me. MR. WOMACK: And the concern was, without rehashin~ last month, that it was such a substantial change that it night not meet all of the ordinance requirements for a special exception, particularly general requirements that it ,ight have an adversing effect on the neighborhood. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Womack. Mr. Hughes -- MS. RIGLER: May I have one more preliminary -- THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Go right ahead. MS. RIGLER: Is it fair to say, Mr. Womack, that, in your opinion, we're operating under what I will call the old ordinance and its setback requirements rather than the new ordinance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WOMACK: That's correct. MS. RIGLER: And that's because -- MR. WOMACK: The plan was filed prior to June the 12t~, the adoption of the new ordinance. MS. RIGLER: Thank you. Hughes. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Womack. Mr. Hughes, did you want to-- MR. HUGHES: Good evening. My name is Jim I'm an attorney with Irwin, McKnight and Hughes here in Carlisle, and I represent the Carlisle First Church of God. Tonight we have up here Allen McConnell from the church a~d Doug Brehm, who is the church's engineer, who's going to.be giving some testimony to hopefully explain to you exactly what we're doing. I know that you do have some idea bastd upon these last couple of months, but go ahead ant start with Mr. McConnell. Maybe if Mr. Frey wants to swear both of them in, we'll proceed. MR. FREY: Certainly. witnesset, follows:! ~?.L~ MCCO~lq~LL and DOUG BREHM, called as a being duly sworn, were examined and testified as BY MR. HIJGHES: E~AMINATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Mr. McConnell, for the record, please give your name and your position in the church. A.! I'm Allen McConnell, and I'm the president of the council of the church. Q. And maybe you could describe generally for the board t~e type of project and addition that the church is attempting to undertake. A. As plans and, I guess, through the meetings that we're g¢ing through, we are looking at putting an addition on to our existing building for the purpose basically that we've outgrown the existing room that we have in our fellowship hall with the use of the classrooms of Sunday School nd so forth, so we're looking to put an addition on that has a fellowship role as well as classrooms to meet the growing need that we have. Q. And maybe turning to some additional focus on some of the uses that this addition may have, what types of activities will the church be using the addition for? A. Currently the fellowship hall that we have, we use it f School o during W in that we reco¢ funeral: )r junior church, vacation bible school, Sunday )enings. We have several activities as far as ~dnesday night is the Pioneer Club. The youth meet )articular area. We have fellowship banquets when lize new members. We have funeral, when there's in there and people have luncheons. We also have, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like, reunions that they want to use members Of the church. team, to have meet. WE and the And that have the2 Q. of, thos~ facility A. Q. of those a shorta~Ie A. Q. all of worship A. Q. your cur side, yo people may have special anniversary occasions or the facility that are We also have, we have a quiz team, bible quiz and on occasion, we will be asked by the conference ,ur church as a host of the quiz team or the quiz have special dinners, like the over 60's dinners ~other daughter banquet and the father son banquet. s pretty much, it's pretty adequate room that we · e, and we've just outgrown it. Just to clarify, the uses that you're speaking are the things that you currently do in your now? Yes, sir. And those uses would now be transferred, or some uses, over to the new fellowship hall because of of room. Is that accurate? Yes, sir. Absolutely. And as far as the uses that you've gone over, lese things, I would assume, are accessory to the lctivity that you conduct at the church? Yes, they are. Obviously you have a lot of room in the front of :ent facility and also in the back, but on the west do have some neighboring homeowners on that side. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And originally when you had looked at designing the building, where did you have the addition located? A. We had located, or were attempting to locate the building!over within the setback that we're looking at, the 10-foot ~etback, at that time initially. Q. And you now, based upon the plan that the zoning hearing board has in front of them, have moved the building back to within, instead of 10 feet, 30 to 35 feet? A. Correct, 30 to 35. Q. Can you give us the approximate height of the addition as far as either at the peak, starting with the peak of the roof that can be seen? A. Sure. It's going to be 34 feet at the peak. The eaves in the wall where the wall comes up will be 18, and that!s on the drawings, I believe. Q. Right. You can refer to what we have marked as Applicant's Exhibit Number 1, which is the side view. It has the ~iew, I guess, from the north side as well as from the west!side. And maybe if you could explain for the board, l¢oking at the west side, which faces some of the neighbor. the insi, have in exactly what's going to go along there as far as of the building and the uses you're going to ~here. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Okay. On the two story, a two story, and that would be the that building, or in that section, it looks as though it's fellowship hall. Within there are, there's a kitchen, there's a stage area and there's a utility room that is used off stage for folks if they will be dressing in costumes and so forth to come on stage. Also where that putting ~n a, I think it's for the handicap. are in the church, stage is, we are going to be roughly about $22-thousand lift We could have some handicap folks that and so we will have that to access the stage fo~ those who may be involved in the program. The one-stor~ section that is out front that will be towards Walnut B~ttom Road, that facilities. Q. towards be any o~her out buildings would be !between the space line? A. No, there's that will be in between. that will between A. is classrooms as well as bathroom Looking on the west side going in terms of ~he neighboring property owners, are there going to or any other structures that of the addition and the property no other structures or buildings Will there be any other pathways or roadways go through that area, again, on the west side he edge of the addition and the property line? No, sir. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And, Mr. McConnell, one final question for you. The primary use of the fellowship hall being for worship activities, how many days during the week is the church primarily used? A. Our primary use is on Sundays and Wednesday evening specific Mr. Breh~ for this BY MS. RI Q. ervices. We have what's called family night. MR. HUGHES: I don't know if the board has any questions for Mr. McConnell before I move on to looking 1 testimon~ correctly, that part of the building where there ! really a~e just two windows and a door -- do you see where THE CHAIRMAN: Does the board have any questions applicant? Yes, Jane? GLER: Looking at your Exhibit Nuraber 1, Mr. McConnell, the west side elevation, if I understand your I am? A. Q. windows? A. Q. A. Q. Yes, ma'am. Is that where the -- why aren't there more Is that the back of the stage? Yes, correct. That's the back of the stage? Yes. And who will be the audience for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~5 ~6 17 ~8 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 As you mentioned, there were other neighbors that were here that had some questions. A lot of those questions were land development questions that we were also addressing for council, trying to answer those questions said, Mr. Breh~ will also go over some BY MR. TREFFINGER: Q.i But your purpose here tonight is you're asking for a special exception? but we're, you know, as we've gone along. As I of those changes. worship as That's correct. In an R-1 district? references -- and we'll Mr. Brehm -- section 178 832, a place 0f worship may have as a special exception, Mr. McCohnell, of course, withdrew some of this. Mr. Breh~'s going the more whether question~ Right. MR. HUGHES: Section 255 17 permits a special exception. MR. TREFFIN~ER: As a special exception? MR. HUGHES: Correct. And then go through this probably with a place of to go through the regulations, some of specific things when the ordinance was addressed, t could be permitted as a special exception. MR. TREFFINGER: Well, one of my initial on the initial presentation was, did you ever in terms of various uses that which 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a special exception for the original building? MR. HUGHES: Well, of course, we had a number -- I don't want to go into the six hours of discussion we had the last two months -- but we've had a lot of discussion about that, and at this current time, based upon the board's decision from last month, they determined that we needed a special exception. And, therefore, we applied for a special exception, which is why we're here tonight. ! MR. TREFFINGER: Well, I understand that, but, I mean, on, of the discussions previously was did the First Church o God ever have a special exception for the original building. MR. HUGHES: No, it did not. MR. TREFFINGER: It did not? MR. HUGHES: It did not. It was a permitted use at that ime. After the last meeting -- I think you can talk to Ir. Womack as to -- MR. TREFFINGER: I was not here, and I have to apologiz~ if I missed something. MR. HUGHES: That's fine. In fact, that was a question that Ms. Rigler had questioned about. At that time, we weren't real sure what the history of the zoning ordinance is, and maybe Mr. Womack can speak directly to that. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. TREFFINGER: Okay. Well, he probably will along the way down. I apologize for jumping forward, but, I mean, I think in order to render a decision, you really need to ~oad all six chambers to make sure you -- BY MR. quest±on But from locate i building A. Q. Maybe th~ question: and why A. the rock~ of the r( Q. A. Q. you have MR. HUGHES: No question about it. MR. TREFFINGER: So anyway, I appreciate your -- THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Benjamin? B~NJAMIN: This is going to sound like an engineering and I will ask it again when Mr. a church operation point of view, Brehm testifies. why did you not as Mr. Treffinger asked on the south side of the You're asking then on the front side? Well, let me just be clear. On the rocky side. ~t is the north side. Well, let me ask two ~: Why did you not locate it on the south side, [id you not locate it on the north side? From our understanding, with the outcroppings of in the back -- there are substantial outcroppings .ck in the back of the church, existing church. Would you -- It's the north side. Okay. And if it weren't for the rock outcrops, would chosen to put it there? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I don't know that -- we had looked at that for entrance ways and accesses, and I think we chose the west side as best access to be able to add onto the existing buildingI. When I talked to the folks that had built the originalibuilding, that was one of the reasons why they set the bull to expan addition buildinc than it back. Q. question~ A. part of just to Mr. Sail about sot and why alternat here, tha what cou] ling in that particular area with a proposed site on the west side. And as far as I understand the access to that and the way it would tie into the existing it is a lot easier to put it on the west side s to tie rooflines and the other utilities in the lat's my understanding. I'm not an engineer. And that answers both the north and the south ~? Yes. MR. HUGHES: I think in addition to that, as ~he testimony of the other hearing was the, not ~sthetics of it, but also the flow. We could have ,r from Lobar come and testify again if you'd like ~e of those issues as to the flow of the building e was, you know, where it was. But I think after looking at all the yes, which after the first meeting that we had t's exactly what we wanted to do, was to look at d we do to address the concerns of the neighbors 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as well as make the conclusion was, if we didn't put it on the west we weren!t going to be able to build it. BY MR. BENJkMIN: Q.' Let me ask a follow-up question. activiti. interrel. A. now curr~ to the f, existing classrooi Q. translat2 part? A. Q. structur. A. Q. A. sanctuar. Q. building A. it practical for the church to build. And side, The classroom ~s and the stage facilities, whatever, how do they ~te? Why do they have to be next to each other? The classrooms are moving. We have classrooms ~ntly in fellowship both tied to the sanctuary and ~llowship hall. And in between those two, the fellowship hall and the sanctuary, there are is in there. Can I stop you for a second because I need some on? A sanctuary -- the sanctuary would be which The sanctuary is on the east. Where the words are written, existing church Yes. And fellowship hall would be -- That would be between, that is between the and the new proposed. Ail right. So this leg, if you will, the Correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Qo felt for classroo in one r so that church o the area students activiti Q. piece of A. The west end of the building. Yes. Okay. Go ahead with the explanation. The building, first of all, the classrooms we several reasons, security purposes, to have the ns all together so the kids, they're kept together Dom or one building, I should say, one structure, they're not all over separated throughout the different Sunday School rooms. The building then for the fellowship hall for makes it easier access for the kids, the youth, from the classrooms to be able to have their ~s in the fellowship hall. The fellowship hall, again, is the existing the building? Well, that's what we're going to be movingQ-~./ that's To the why__ we're building To the new structure. -- two-story part of Yes, sir. what hapl A. classroor it. the structure? All right. ~ens to Well, is, but they're sort And then the old fellowship hall, that? the old fellowship hall right now is of open-air classrooms, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 there's a lot of activity that goes on when you're trying to go from a classroom to the other or moving about. We have th9 draw curtains in there. But we are going, the plan is!to have the existing kitchen that's in there, we have that as craft room for storage and things nature. move -- right nc fellows~ space nc classro¢ sanctuaI the new have act pastor room th the off~ hallway to try pastor office because of that We have the other classrooms. We're able to we have two classrooms that are in the sanctuary w that we're short. We're able to use the ip hall, the old fellowship hall, as classroom w for those folks to come out and have some kind of m of their own instead of having it in the y. The existing classroom between the sanctuary and addition that are in there, we need to -- we don't ually a church study or someplace even for the o be able to counsel with folks. We use the one t's near the sanctuary as a church office to count ring, and then we have bathrooms along that So we're very short on space, and so we're going nd convert some of those existing classrooms into a tudy and into an office and convert the existing nto a room for the choir even to change into gown they do it in the hallway -- well, I wouldn't say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the hallway, but in the back of the sanctuary where there's a place where they're able to throw on their gowns while t~ey're zipping around. Q-i Okay. I mean, obviously the question that was left the I'm try] west sic with a fellows side and old fell pastor, still as through will met and eve~ essence, lot effo the bee~ church to do in membershl first time was the effect on the neighborhood, and ng to understand the decision to put it all on the e instead of some other decisions. I'll leave you hetorical question, and do with it what you will. I'm not sure why you didn't put the new ip hall over the existing rocky area on the north the new classroom over the south side and use the 9wship hall as you're proposing using with the out -- you answered that question, I think, and I'm king. MR. HUGHES: As we talked, as Mr. Brehm goes ~ome of the things on the outside, again, and we 5ion this again and when we close about the changes ~thing that we looked at doing to accommodate, in one neighbor. And we've spent a lot of time, a lot of money, a ~t, a lot of peoples' part to try to come up with solution in order to accommodate the flow of the id accommodate the things that they basically need order to expand just for their existing .p, not to mention any growth in the membership in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the future. As far as specific items, again, if you would prefer, Iwe could have Mr. Sailor from Lobar come up, and I think ailot of those things have been mentioned in an indirecti way by Mr. McConnell with respect to all the flow issues, esthetic issues and structure issues. but let' BY MR. H Q. name, co A. Q. plan whi. which we could jul changes opposed A. all, is earlier. western respecti dealt wi' THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's necessary, hear Mr. Brehm's testimony. EXAMINATION GHES: Mr. Brehm, if you'll go ahead and give your ~pany. Doug Brehm, Brehm-Lebo Engineering in Carlisle. Mr. Brehm, you have revised the land development ~h we have marked as Applicant's Exhibit Number 2, ve given to all the board members. Maybe if you ~t go through there and highlight some of the ~hat have been made with respect to this plan as ~o what we initially started with. Okay. The most significant change, first of he shape and location of the building as we stated We did move the building further away from the oundary. It now sits at 30 and 35 feet ely along that side. The second issue that we h was the storm water management. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It became a comment during the land development process at the planning commission level, and it was an issue here at zoning hearing too. So we went ahead and, as Ken said~ did the 100-year storm design. We're proposing two infiltration beds instead of the previous, I think, four or away fro] least all again, a~ practice~ They are anticipat storm war that watE bed at th just repe at that a thing tha with colo vegetatio return to shrubs we added, oul ~ive smaller ones. We moved those beds further the western boundary line and consolidated at the roof drainage into two beds. We stuck with the infiltration system because, we've said, it's part of the best management method for dealing with storm water management. sized for a 100-year storm, and we would e that they'll function fine. The parking lot er didn't change. We were planning to sheet flow r across the parking lot south to an infiltration end of the row in the parking stalls down there. And that's all outlined on the plan, and I would t this, that Ken said earlier that my guys looked nd recommended approval of the design. The third we've changed or we've added, we've provided you copies that depict more of the existing and screening around the property. We did the site and survey in more detail what trees and ~e there. They're shown in brown, and then we department provided screening particularly along 1 the edge 2 3 the upps 4 staggere 5 It sits 6 does, me the low~ tabulat~ permitte( 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 addition percent; building small dif but none! prepare layout. It's 10 a zoning there's c additiona borough I think de~ that's of the property. And there's this specification, enlargement, in right-hand corner of the plan. It's basically a design, very typical specification for screening. eal high. I believe the plan before, and it still ~ts all the area involved requirements. Down in left-hand corner of the plan, there's a zoning n that spells out building coverage that's ~. I'll read through those quickly. Maximum building coverage, 30 percent; with the we're at 10.3; maximum impervious coverage is 65 with these additions, we are at 40.9 percent; )eak was mentioned earlier as 34 feet. I have a ~erence in that on my plan of 33 feet, 10 inches, neless we're below the 35-feet maximum. So we meet all the requirements as far as the site don't have a building setback violation here. ~et, and we're at 30 feet. Parking was another area involved here, sort of )ec issue, and as we've pointed out before, ~rently 167 spaces. We're proposing a few spaces that brings us to 188; and based on the 117 is required, so we exceed that as well. the most significant changes to the plan. I want to point out that we have a, back to the 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 move to be directed to the parking lot. Q. And also just as far as -- · i mentioned the front and rear setbacks. issues With those? I don't know if you Do we have any provided Q. safety h~ A. Q. neighborh plans th] this addJ A. neighborh, vacant pi~ church is the neighk the neighk No. Based on the information the church has we're not anticipating any increase in traffic. How about any additional concerns about public zards, those types of things? No, sir. And how about as far as the effect on the ood? You've been involved in doing many of these Dughout the borough, and in your opinion, does :ion have an adverse effect on the neighborhood? I think taking that question literally, meaning )od, the real effect, what occurs is we have a ~ce of property and you want to put a church. The there. I think an addition to an existing use of orhood doesn't really create an adverse effect to orhood. and we're well A. No. The front yard is 40 feet, in exces~ of that. And rear yard is 25, and we're fine there asl well. Q'i Mr. Brehm, in your opinion, do we have any traffic loncerns as far as the proposed use is concerned that youtre aware of? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ~. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And, lastly, in your opinion, does the design, especially with regard to the screening that you've added, does it icreate, or should I say avoid any other serious negativ~ impacts on adjacent properties given the fact that you havei put a row of trees, especially bordering those properti A. screenin we propo along wi there sh~ question~ right to BY MR. TR Q. the neigh giving th A. Q. this rede was there es that are currently facing the west side? The screening should abate, I mean, the is to abate any visual impact, and the screening ~d there on the right shown on the plan in green ih the existing foliage and trees and so forth )uld be adequate. MR. HUGHES: I don't have any additional at this time, but we'll certainly reserve the make any additional comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Mr. Treffinger? EXAMINATION EFFINGER: Mr. Brehm, your opinion that it doesn't impact )orhood is a professional opinion. You're not it as a resident of this neighborhood, are you? That's correct. That's correct? Okay. In your execution of ign, the addition still being on the west side, any attempt by you or anybody within the church 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 to work with the neighbors that came forth in the first meeting and expressed their concerns and work with their neighbors A. present St with par Q. A. Q. A. based on Q. moving t~ that, of is there left on A. a few th all, to p the front church. the front Think of so we are to satisfy their concerns? My understanding is there were names. I wasn't those meetings, but I was told that they met ~icularly Mr. Bova on one or two occasions. So you really don't know? No. I only know what I've been told. Okay. So, I mean, everything -- And what I was told, to finish, what we did was what they had discussed. Apparently there was some discussion about e addition to the south side as was discussed, and course, appears to be mixed. In your discussions, reason why it wasn't put on the south side and e west side? We didn't design the building, but I can answer ~gs about that from a site perspective. First of at the building on the south side, it would cover of that existing church. It's a beautiful mean, it would be like building an addition on of your house instead of the side or the rear. t that way. They do have parking in the front, going to rework Some of the parking. I understand too, within the building, the foot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 traffic and their particular uses flow naturally with this design from east to west through this area they use now for gatherings or classrooms. On the north side of the building! we do have rock, which was discussed at the last meeting, land it was suggested that that shouldn't be a hinderan~e for the construction of the church in that area; but we a2so heard testimony or concerns, from folks that blasting the rock was also something they didn't want either. So if you do put the building back there, you're blast rock, and the grades are higher in the back ilding. This addition, my understanding is the ~orks is that these (inaudible), so you're going o~t a good bit of material in the back, most of If you took the same footprint movement to the we would have concerns about parking. The way it's set up now, people can utilize the ~rking lot and walk right to this. If we put it k, there really is no parking in the back, and would be drainage. So those are some site we would be concerned about. Okay. You are, I mean, Brehm-Lebo Engineering, [se civil planning, structural, but what is your Lon? Civil engineering. going to of the bu way this to take it's rock back, the] existing in the ba. then ther. situation: Q. you adver concentra~ A. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 Q. You're a civil engineer? And since the beginning of this year, how many projects have you been involve~ in approximately? A.! This year? Q.! This year, approximately. ao encounts A. Q. rock? A. Probably 80. And of those 80, how many that you did not rock in Pennsylvania approximately? Probably 20 or 30 percent of them. So about 70 or 80 percent of them were involving Yes. rock? ~ A. Q. situatior that the testify order to to put th that they side of tk So it's not unusual for somebody to build, even anywhere in Pennsylvania and not encounter Right. So the fact that rock is on this site is a that is there, it's Pennsylvania, and I believe )revious testimony -- and I'm not trying to )r somebody -- but my recollection is that in ~e cost savings for the church, that they wanted ~ir money in true sticks and bricks and something can see and not remove rock. So that's why the building ended up on the west existing facility rather than on the north or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the south because they really didn't want to dig in and spend a lot of money for a rock excavation, and as far as blastinG goes, it's a matter of opinion. I mean, there are many different ways for removing rock other than blasting. MR. HUGHES: I think it's clear, and I just want to make factor. factor. don't, y it's obviousl~ think Mr. things ir dialogue maybe we' help us w the one w members. certainly trying to sure it's clear for the board, that this was a And that's what he testified to that it was a There's no question that if you have it and you )u go somewhere else that doesn't have it, then ~g to be more preferable. MR. TREFFINGER: I understand. MR. HUGHES: I think there were a lot of, other factors that the church considered, which I Brehm did a good job going through some of those addition. MR. TREFFINGER: So you don't know what the ;as between the church and the neighborhood, so 11 get that from somebody else. Maybe you can £th that, Mr. Hughes. MR. HUGHES: lo met with Mr. And Mr. Bova, go through some of his address them. Yeah, Bova I'm sure will come up, and we can concerns and how we're I certainly can because I am along with the council MR. TREFFINGER: Okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question? THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Jane, BY MS. R~GLER: Q.' Yeah, EXAMINATION do you have a Brehm, iI my math is correct, essentially this proposed addition~will virtually double the A./ Close to it. complies required comply? A. there's Q. A. this new existing here and south, th. A. door. Th~ might -- Q. Okay. And you said that size. Is that right? this proposed addition with the setback requirements, but if it were to comply with the new zoning ordinance, would it My understanding is it would not. 50-foot setback. 50 rather than That Okay. I think 10 under the old? is my understanding. And I guess I've heard that access to ~ddition will be through what I'll call the [ellowship hall. Will there be, and maybe they're just don't see them, doors on the north, the east or the west to get in and out? I think on the elevations, I know there's a ~re's one door on the west side. Again, you Excuse me. Where are you? On the north I've got a couple of questions. Mr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elevation. A. out of the kitchen which is required by code. Oo door tha addition church a~ take a 1, door alotg -- Q- I Oh, A. addition Q. back, if elevatio~ the kitc~ a vent, the wall A. that for Q. is. Fro~ I see one door on the west elevation. There's one there, which I think that's a door Okay. And on the north or front elevation, there's a would enter, I believe, the east wall of the If you were moving towards the front of the if you were going in the front door right now and ft and look towards the addition, there would be a on the left. Near that 66.83-foot dimension that's on the on that wall, on the site plan. Oh, okay. There's a door there. Okay. Going I can direct your attention, I'll call it the west and the door that you said is required because en is there, is there going to be what I will call or instance, from a kitchen fan on that side of I don't know that. you. Okay. Maybe, Mr. McConnell, MR. MCCONNELL: My understanding is, what I understand, it's required. Somebody else can answer can you answer that? yes, there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of meals you were what wa~ in this maybe, know, co, MS. RIGLER: A vent is required? And what sort are going -- so somebody in the neighborhood, if preparing a big banquet, could presumably smell cooking? MR. MCCONNELL: MS. RIGLER: ~ew addition? MR. MCCONNELL: I would probably assume so, yes. How frequently will cooking go on I would say maybe, I think .ke, four times a year is basically what we, you )k. MS. RIGLER: Okay. Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. B]:NJAMIN: Q. We've talked about moving tt~e rock. I heard you existing term is the rock. We've talked about say you wanted to keep the floor level or consistent or whatever engineering or that so that you wouldn't have a rise or a drop to the perspectJ building rock beca two; and that add/ A. because a dition or any addition, and from an engineering ye, instead of moving rock, could you put the on the rock if you remove just the peak pieces of use you're really only talking about a foot or then you could have a rise of a foot or two into tion? I always kind of hate to answer this question have to say anything's possible. It's just 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 constitutes the parking lot. Are there, in fact, any elevations there? THE CHAIRMAN: There are elevations there. MR. TRINNAMAN: I think during the first meeting, it was suggested that there was a 20-feet area of grass between the end of my property and the beginning of the parking lot of the church area, an~ if that were simply to be gr and rese to me ii ~ded down at an angle of a foot or foot and a half ~ded, that that would probably solve the problem. THE CHAIRMAN: You think that would? It seems ce you would get water that way then. MR. TRINNAMAN: Well, we're going -- THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not an engineer, but it seems if you'r~ going to grade that down, it seems you're going to just ~sk for more water. I don't know if that -- you're ~ower than the church right now. You're actually already lower, 4~5, and the church is 498. I MR. TRINNAMAN: Those two converging lines they I ' form almost a triangle on the back yards of the Trinnamans and Mr. ~air. I'm sorry Mr. Hair is not here. He's a very old gentleman, and it's difficult for him to get around at night, put he is the most affected person on this. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that make sense in anyway, Mr. Brehn? MR. BREHM: No. The elevations don't bear it 44 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 out. If I can do that. might come from. you want me to come up and show you the contours, I don't know where their water problem The parking lot, between the parking lot and the property line, there is a grass area and then a row of trees. It does slope towards those properties from the edge of the parking lot, but the parking lot does not slope towards the neighbors. If you can envision this, if you look at that row of Parking along the east that says macadam parking, the parking lot was constructed, it appears to me to be graded so that the water be channeled right down the line where the cars would pull in front and go towards Walnut Bottom Road. That's what the, again, if you could read a contour, that's where the kink in the contours are, and that indicates that's the lowest spot. The parking lot is actually further away from those neighbors slightly. MR. TRINNAMAN: Road? MR. BREHM: So it actually all goes to Royer It's toward Walnut Bottom Road right e with drainage up this way, up Willow Street he YMCA up Northern Washington, and I don't know what the deal is here, but (inaudible) used to run experien, through for sure down into that corner, and there's a pipe down there along WalnUt Bdttom, and that's the lowest part. We've had some 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up this area. and people.get water in down -- the It goes all the way out to Hillside Drive, their basements the whole way MS. RIGLER: (inaUdible)? MR. BREHM: below th degree o parking based on things that's but the what the sufficie is inade area, an suggeste reconfi¢ This isn't a long way from where Well, this is a low road, if you envision it. MS. RIGLER: MR. BREHM: spot. They live Oh, yeah. But I can say with a pretty high certainty that the water does not go off this ot and head directly to the properties. It's just elevations. I don't know the history of when gdt built, but plans prove from that time that ngt the case. THE CHAIRMAN: It's not what you want to hear, MR. TINNAMAN: Well, sir, I still, regardless of [r declared elevations are, when we get a ~t amount of rain, the runoff toward Walnut Bottom uate to take care of the rainfall on that entire I thought it was a simple matter when it was on the first meeting, that simply a ration of that 20-foot-wide piece of grass THE CHAIRMAN: Thinking that would solve MR. TINN~/~AN: it? It would probably still encourage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 first time I testified in the earlier previous meeting, I said you couldn't find nicer neighbors than the church for backyard neighbors. We don't have to pick up beer bottles, and they don't have 2:00 in the morning parties. They're wonderfu~l neighbors, and we enjoy them there. And I am most reluctant to cause them any trouble Dr difficulty, but, as I say, the engineer in charge oif the original addition to the parking area was incorrec~ in my estimation as to the relative elevations of what would be required to have water flow toward Walnut Bottom Rbad especially when we get heavy rains. addresse~ your concerns and what you've said, addresse~t your concerns to the Church? As trying to understand whether the church has you have not The first time I addressed it to the church was in our last meeting here in the original hearing on this matter. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. Mr. Treffinger? BY MR. T~EFFINGER: Q.i Mr. Tinnaman, you weren't consulted since the first me,ting by anybody from the church? A.I I was not. Q. Okay. Not that they really had to, but I believe ;ou did register those same concerns at the initial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meeting. I've got to ask you the proverbial question. Based on what you see here and with the special exception before uls and the proposed addition, are you for, against or do yoiu have no opinion? A. Unless those plans are changed to account for excessive rains, everything as far as I'm concerned flows in the eiastward direction toward the houses on Belvedere Street, iand unless those plans are amended to take into considerlation the fact that we're doubling the land, the land thait's going under construction, I would have to be against ithe existing plan. MR. TREFFINGER: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Hughes, do you have any questions? MR. HUGHES: No. i THE CHAIRMAN: We don't want to shortchange you there, Mw. Hughes. Are there any other -- yes, sir? Come forward. sworn, at 709 RUSSZI~ BO~'A, called as a witness, being duly w~s examined and testified as follows: DIRECT ~STI~40~ MR. BOVA: My name is Russell Bova, and I reside ~rkshire Drive. Let me say, first of all, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appreciate the patience of the board having gone this three times. I also do appreciate the efforts the church has made at this point to talk with me. After the last meeting when the discussion of whether or not this should be covered by or whether the church should have to apply for a special exception, I approached Mr. Hughes in the hall to see if maybe we could talk and see what we can work out, and he o~liged and gave me a call a couple days later and we did meet. And what I will tell you tonight is essentially what I tQld him as well as, I think, Mr. McConnell was at that meeting, and there was one other member of the church. And basically what I told them were two things, partly contradictory, but I'm going to nurser o~e, clearly from my own ne±ghborithat's repeat them nonetheless; selfish perspective as one affected -- of course there are other neighbors that are potentially affected, although, none as directlyias I am -- from my prospective, clearly having the church b~ positioned 30 or 33 feet approximately from my propertylline is better than the church being positioned from 10 other pr from my said ths 2o 12 feet from the property line, as was in the )posal. So, you know, if asked if this is an improvement )oint of view, the answer is obviously yes. Having though, I also told Mr. Hughes and the members of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the church council that I was still not happy with having a building of that size even 30 or 33 feet away. If I might come to the board here, this is the view of the church that I would be looking at. It's the higher portion of this church building that essentially extends almost from one end of my property line to ~he other. Actually on this end, there's a little bit of s~ace here where the property line would -- at the back of this addition, but essentially from my yard of my home, this is what I'd be looking at. And although it is the caselthat, again, 33 feet is better than 12 feet from my perspective, 33 feet is still not a very large distance when youi're talking about a building of that size. If you might imagine, I'm only estimating here, the building from where the council sits to a length of about 33i feet, it would be somewhere in the second or third row of those chairs. I'm just guessing. You can make the calculation yourself. And if you will, imagine looking at a structure situated there across the entire line or this room thak is 18 feet to the eaves, I believe. I'm guessing the ceilings may be about 15 feet high, the thin how you worse of and 34 feet ~s that I said at ~creen a building it to the top of the roofline. And one of that meeting was, I'm not sure of that size and that close. The actually would be the part that would be hard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to screen, and that's the roof. Even the building, itself, you know, is probably better to look at than the roofline, which would be luring up behind my property. So this is what I told Mr. Hughes, and all I can add is I understand it's my bad fortune to be dealing with this jus~ short of the, or just after, I guess, the borough ordinanc~ had been changed. But it does seem to me significant that borough council has now amended the ordinancD to be 50 feet in cases like this, so that down the roadl, or if this proposal had been to you a little bit later, this would require a very substantial variance in order roi be approved. And I take that to read that the borough council does belileve that a building of this size, dimensions in this resiidential neighborhood, placed where it is, is probablyi not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood that we're describing here. And so to that extent, lit perhaps might be considered as part of your delibera!tions over the granting of the special exception. Having s!aid that, however, I take the risk, as I did, you know, rule on despite things a meeting with Mr. Hughes. I have no idea how the council zoning board will this, and so if this building were to be built my wish that it didn't, I would prefer that certain done to minimize the impact. Now, many of those 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are things that Mr. Hughes has already addressed, and, again, I appreciate the fact that they have taken my complaints seriously. And, in fact, to make it easier, I took the liberty of writing them down. I can give you a copy if you choose. There are six or seven points. Would that be lappropriate to do at this time? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. BOVA: They are more or less essentially what I hiad suggested at that meeting. Many of the things that arei on here are things that the church either today or in our decisions indicated they could probably accommodate, althoughi, there may be some things on here that they might want to !think about or perhaps not want to accommodate. But let ~e give a copy to Mr. Hughes. THE CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr. record, Would you make ~ MS. RIGLER: Frey, for the this the Appellate Exhibit AA? Let's call it Bova Exhibit -- THE CHAIRMAN: Bova Exhibit 1 and 2? MR. BOVA: Now, I don't know whether it's necessary or timely to go through those individually. THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. BOVA: If you prefer, I can do that. to Mr. H THE CHAIRMAN: MR. BOVA: But, ]ghes about That's why we're here. again, as I said, I emphasized bringing these forward, not necessarily 1 2 3 53 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 implied, and this was my preferred course of action. But I cannot, the decision is the board; it's not mine and it's not the ~hurch, it's the board's decision. And so all I say is that if the board decides that it's going to grant the special exception, these are things that perhaps ought to be ta the new Mr. Hugh!~s made, pretty mach what into account. The first thing, new screening, I didn't look at 91an very closely, but based on the comments that it sounds as if they are going to do is indicated there, although, you have to look at ~he plans again just to see. A lot of the language there isi taken right from the borough code, so, for example,l the business about providing a reasonably complete visual s~reening is taken right out of the code, the section ~hat's sited there. i The only thing there that probably wasn't mentione¢ by Mr. Hughes is my preference that screening be put in a? soon as possible at the outset of construction. When I h~d mentioned this to him, he indicated there could be a problem of getting construction equipment in there if that was done early. But if you think back to the original proposal, they were proposing to construct this only 10 feet fro be able the property line. Presumably they were going to do that without having equipment on my property. This gives them 20-plus feet in which to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this, sooner it's in, screening that and, again, my only reason for haste here is the the sooner we get down the road a visual is of some significance. The second thing also mentioned in the meeting, some concerns were alleviated because of the changes they've made to the drainagei they're going to put to accumulate water, but I was somewhat concerned that in digging.these ditches, and even in Sxcavation, some of those trees that are existing on the property line probably have fairly extensive roots. And I was concerned about root damage that might, in effect, impact the most significant screening that's a~ready there in place, and so I was looking for some wayi to address that. Again, borough code doesn't make referencD to the need to take all due caution to not harm existingi trees and other plant life, and I assume that in the construction process, they will do that. But sometimes, despite one's best efforts, things don't happen that way, and I'm somewhat concerned about the loss of those maple trees or there's a couple of spruce trees, even an oak tree a little bit further back; and the Boss of any one of those would significantly undermin~ the existing screening. The next three things, again, w~re at least partly addressed by Mr. Hughes. I was concerne that, again, despite my wishes and contrary this buildin¢ went up, that nothing further be put into that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what I call the green space between my property line and the sort of parallel line that runs 30, 33 feet mostly at the buil~ding, itself. And so there are things indicated; no paving, sheds, things of that sort. And in terms of the size of buildingi, itself, I was concerned about a couple of things that wer!e raised by members of the board; cooking vents, not onl~ the smell, but esthetically, you know, peering right thirough my back yard. The one that's in the building now is a! pretty typical commercial restaurant-type thing. I was concerned about that visual obtrusion. They also indicated they had to put emergency doors on! that side, which may very well be required by code, bu~ there are probably ways to do that with more in keeping ~ith a residential neighborhood. An ugly commercial-style set of metal doors probably would not be the thin~ you want to look at when you walk out your back door. L~ghting, the comment there is simply, you know, based on! the codes, properly shielded and diffused so we don't ha~e lights from the side of the building shining into, yo~ know, an upstairs bedroom or even the yard, itself. And then finally, a couple short concerns related ko construction. They'll be out there for six months more, and I was concerned about privacy and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indirect loss of the use of my yard during that process. The orange safety fences that are typically put around construction sites don't provide you much in the way of visual shielding of the construction process, so I had mentioned, and they said it should be possible for somethin~ of that sort to be done. So that's about all I can say. Someone maybe has somei questions about this, but simply to reiterate, you know, th~ two things I'm saying there is somewhat contradictory because my preference is the building not going upi. And I said this clearly to Mr. Hughes and to others i~ the church board, but I don't have control over that decksion. And so if the building were to go up, whatever!could be done to minimize the impact would be obviouslF desirable. a letter applicat the June were ope THE CHAIRMAN: MS. RIGLER: THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions of Mr. Bova? May I ask a question of Mr. Frey? Yes, you may. MS. RIGLER: Mr. Frey, you know, Mr. Hughes has dated July 16 in which he talks about a completed [on for a special exception, which is subsequent to 8 adoption by borough council. MR. FREY: Okay. MS. RIGLER: Mr. Womack gave his opinion that we zating under the old ordinance. Is that your 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opinion as well? MR. FREY: The -- and I wasn't here for the first special exception hearing. That was -- MS. RIGLER: But they withdrew the application for a special exception at May, but!it was withdrawn. knowledge, MR. HUGHES: MS. RIGLER: our June meeting. They filed To the very best of my that's how it was framed; it was withdrawn. That was true, however -- Wait. I just want to hear Mr. Mr. Hughes. -- and we have a new application Frey's opinion. Thank you, MR. FREY: If that is ~ated -- MS. RIGLER: A letter that is dated July 16th. MR. FREY: And a filing of July 17th. Were there any agreements at the time of withdraw to be allowed to resubmit? of thosei, then certainly it comes under the ordinance June 12tn. discussi of the a MS. RIGLER: I don't know that we agreed to any the zoning hearing board did. I mean, again -- MR. FREY: If it's a new application as of July, that's dated MS. RIGLER: Right. MR. FREY: I'm not exactly sure what all the Dns were or conditions were at the time of withdraw )plication, if there were any agreements with that, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I don't know if Mr. Womack knows, but I wasn't there. MS. RIGLER: I don't want to cut Mr. Hughes off, but I just wanted to hear his view of it, and then if you want to add, Jim. MR. HUGHES: I'll let Mr. Womack, and then I'll respond., MR. date tha understa the ordJ submittc ordinan¢ WOMACK: A new plan was filed prior to the t the new ordinance -- and the applicant is, my nding is that the land use law is rescindered under nance in effect at the time. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So the plan that was d to the planning commission was prior to the e in action? MR. WOMACK: MS. RIGLER: before Ns tonight. MR. WOMACK: revision. setback. Correct. But that's not the plan we have Well, yes, it is. You've got a It's essentially the same plan with a 30-foot That plan was filed prior to the June ordinance. MS. RIGLER: Maybe I don't understand what a plan lsJ but I guess, I think this is substantially different than that which was filed before this plan. MR. WOMACK: From the 10-feet setback? MS. RIGLER: Yeah, because the first one we saw had a l(-foot -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WOMACK: Well, yeah, and I will agree that plan's gone, but a subsequent plan was filed. MS. RIGLER: MR. WOMACK: the plan, that Right. Filed, an application made, which is substantially the plan you see in front of you here. MS. RIGLER: MR. WOMACK: MS. RIGLER: But that was filed in July. No, it was filed in June. No, because this one has a 30-foot setback, and at our June meeting, the one had a 10-foot setback. MR. HUGHES: The June meeting was not about this plan. The plan that we were here last time had to do with whether or not we need the special exception. We already filed the land development plan, the one sitting in front of you, the only revisions being made to accommodate Mr. Bova, that plan was filed prior to the zoning ordinance going into effect. And as a condition the planning commission put in their recommended approval was that we get a special exception, so it is, in essence -- MS. RIGLER: The same plan? MR. HUGHES: It's the same plan. MS. RIGLER: That's your assertion. Mr. Frey, is that -- MR. FREY: Well, I'm going back to what 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Womack said when he introduced this that this is the plan that was approved by the planning commission except for some storm water changes, and that's shown on here as being made July 30th. But the plan was otherwise what was submitted and gone before the planning commission, was file~ in June prior to the ordinance change. MR. WOMACK: That's correct. MR. FREY: The plan you saw before was one filed probably back in April or May, I guess. MR. HUGHES: It wasn't a plan. It was an application for a special up. THE CHAIRMAN: you were going to do. and that exception. That's how this came You were trying to determine what exception. We then filed a land development plan, which, again, was before the zoning ordinance changed. We go to the plan~ing commission. They then say, we recoramend approval~ but as one of the recommended conditions, they say you need a special exception. We then said, well, we don't know that we agree with thal, and our only recourse was to come back before board to get a determination. We did that. this Therefor~, to satisfy that condition that the planning commissil~n put on us to get our land development plan MR. HUGHES: Right. We withdrew the special 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 approved, we had to get a special exception. It's all the same plan, and certainly there's a plethora of case law with respect to land development plans and subdivision plans filed prior to zoning ordinances being passed. And all of that indicates that clearly once you have your land development filed, whatever the zoning ordinance is in effect at that time, that's what you go by, even if iyou need, you know, subsequent, you have to meet subsequent conditions; would it be a special exception, would it be a conditioned use, which is, quite frankly, you know -- again, we could have easily filed a special exception at that time, but it's better to file a land development plan because that clearly preserves that right to go inio that zoning ordinance. So, you know, it's our position, we clearly -- and we had this discussion with staff too -- we filed the land development plan to ensure that there wasn't going to be any issues if, in fact, subsequently they came back with a determination that we exception. MS. RIGLER: Yeah, comment, and I think you know, doesn't {ork for the zoning hearing board. MR. HUGHES: Absolutely. MS. RIGLER: That's why we have needed a special I just want to make the Mr. Hughes, that Mr. Womack our own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ -7,~ 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 solicitor, so his opinion and that of the zoning hearing board's solicitor might not necessarily be the same. MR. WOMACK: It's a statement of fact that the plan was filed, the current plan was filed, actually filed on May 8th. MR. HUGHES: And I don't now if Mr. Frey, now that he Iknows a little more of the history, may be able to revise What he just told you. MS. RIGLER: I can easily believe he may. MR. FREY: Right. If we're talking about a May 8th fililng rather than just a special exception filing, if these plians, knowing that these plans were filed May 8th, that ceritainly comes under the prior ordinance, not the ordinanc~ adopted in June. MS. RIGLER: Okay. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bova!? Mr. Treffinger, do you have a question? BY MR. TREFFINGER: Q. Yeah. I'm going to ask you the same I mean, Based on what you see here before us -- what we have to vote on and deliberate, is as the applicat the cons Based on question. and that's Lon is submitted for a special exception and for 2ruction of the 10,500-square-foot-plus building. what we have here -- and really your comments, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mean, we understand them, but they're kind of out there -- where do you stand on it as it's submitted before us? A. Well, maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been, but I thought -- had no Opinion. A.i I'm against it. Q. You're against it? perspective for us, I mean, Well, you didn't say you were for, against it or Okay. That puts it in your situation as submitted here. A. Sure. Q. Now, let me go one step further and say that what bearings do you see -- what is your opinion based on what yoU submitted here? Is there an additional, is there a cavea~ or an addendum to that opinion based on these comment~? A.! My position here is I prefer this building not be buil~ that close to my property, but I don't have the right tO make that decision. That's your decision obviously, and my understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong -4. my understanding is the board, if they should go down thalt road and approve the special exception, has the authority to attach to that, grant a special exception certain Iconditions. And this list before you is simply a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 few suggestions from me of the kinds of conditions that you might consider should you go down that road. Q. Okay. So understanding what you said or repeating what you said or reiterating what you said, you're against it as proposed? A. Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hughes, do you have any questions of Mr. Bova? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, I do have a couple quick questions. BY MR. HUGHES: Q. Mr. Bova, in looking at the plan we have here, the drawing, would it be fair for me to say that your property is located right here, correct? A.; Yes. Q.; And you have several large trees on your property that already significantly shield you from any view? A.i Yes. And most of the shielding comes at the, either On the property, but you'd have to build fairly substantial -- Q.I But that view that you have does not extend the whole lelngth of the property, in the iiddle? A Well, yes and no. in fact, it's basically here I mean, it's clearly, you 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the view is uninterrupted if you're looking through that's a fairly substantial know, the middle. And by the middle, space that we're talking about here. Q. How many feet would you estimate? A. I would guess maybe 25 feet. Through this opening? A~ Through the opening there. And then, of course, you can still see through here, particularly in the wintertime because these trees are -- there are two maples, one on each end, and there's an oak tree. So you get a little bit more screening during this time of year; a lot less screening obviously during other times of the year. There are a couple of spruce trees here, but they're smaller,~ and they don't provide the kind of screening because!they're narrow at the top. fact that the wall here was going to be A .i Right. Q. And you did hear the testimony in terms of the about 18 feet high? And you mentioned that would be 30 to 35 feet from the property line, and your house is feet fr~m, the property line? A.i I don't know exactly. I don't indicate maybe. Q. still how many d on there or not. know if it's I would guess maybe 60 feet 60 feet from your property line back to your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 house? A. Q. was discussed, another 30 to that? A. true. different questionis, went ove!r. Right. And then actually to the peak of the roof, which would be at 34 feet. It would still be 40 feet up to the peak. You would agree with Yes. If you're in the house, that's certainly you're in the yard, obviously it's a little story. MR. HUGHES: All right. I have no other direct other than to address the conditions that he THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MS. RIGLER: Could I ask Mr. McConnell a couple of questions before we -- THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead. MS. RIGLER: Is that all right? to ask M~. McConnell about these conditions, going tel address those rather than him? MR. HUGHES: conditions, correct. MS. RIGLER: Mr. McCo going to here -- And I was going but you're I'm going to go over all the Okay. Let me ask you this, ~nell: If we said you could build this -- and I'm kind of do this kind of quJ. ck and dirty 2hat you could build this building, and I'm going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to describe what you've proposed as 154 feet by 62 feet, you know, parts of it is 76, but to make it easy, I'm going, to describe it as 154 -- THE CHAIRMAN: 10 thousand square foot. MS. RIGLER: Well, okay. If we said you could build this building, but it couldn't be any larger than 154 by 50, 0ould you folks still build the building? That would b~ about 77 hundred square feet. MR. MCCONNELL: I don't know that we would be able toimake that work as far as the space that's needed for the!growth that we've had. That's our whole concern is trying ~o get enough square footage to handle the classroQms and the fellowship hall. If we go -- we shrunk the building as it was trying to accommodate Mr. Bova, and we've l~oked at the square footage, the ability to move the interio~ around trying to make it work with the space that we have.i If we had to shrink it anymore, I don't know that we iwould build it because to build a building that's not going to handle what we need would be almost like a waste o4 money, a waste of funding if we can't build what we need Ito take care of our growth. 50 by 17 my thoug MS. RIGLER: Well, what if we said it could be 5? I mean, I haven't done the math precisely, but ht would be, you know, go 25 feet south. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plans, footage.i MR. I mean, MCCONNELL: to see MS. RIGLER: MR. BENJAMIN: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. BENJAMIN: Is that right? MR. MCCONNELL: MR. HUGHES: May I THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and you ~say square footage. church? i You don't know any We could take a look at the if we could accommodate it, sure. Okay. Thank. Can I tack one onto that? Go ahead. Your main issue is square Yes. Right. ask a follow-up question? sir. MR. HUGHES: We talked about a lot of issues, What about the flow of the idea as you sit here right now as to wNat can be done other than the fact that you spent a lot of t!ime with your engineers and your designers to come up with isomething that you think is going to work. Is that correct? MR. MCCONNELL: Correct. MR. HUGHES: And even if you shrunk it 10 feet, that very well may throw it off so that you could not do this pro~ect. Is that correct? i MR. MCCONNELL: Correct MR. HUGHES: And so any supposition that you may have sitting here without necessarily going back to the engineer~, which we have been doing over three to four 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 months, you really couldn't speak to the fact as to how things could be changed around if such a restriction is put on the church? MR. MCCONNELL: That's correct. MR. HUGHES: I just want to make sure it's clear that whi~e, you know, again, even if you go down 2 feet, iti doesn't seem significant, I didn't want to while misconstrue what his initial answer for his question was. THE CHAIRMAN: That's a very good question. I think the answer to your question is to buy Mr. Bova's house, a~d then you solve your problem. MR. BOVA: I jokingly said that to him. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's your answer. MR. BOVA: But not seriously. concerns? problem,i THE CHAIRMAN: I think that solves everybody's What I'm hearing, I think that solves the mean, that's the issue here. You're building a 10-thousand-square-foot building in the guy's backyard, literall screen i , challenge why you're doing it, I don't care how big you make it or how you it's a big, big building. And we're not here but obviously it's an to adverse cheaper ~ffect on his property. I think it would be buy his home than build on the rocks. MR. TREFFINGER: But you have to go one more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 step to that, Ron. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. TREFFINGER: You've addressed square footage, but you got to address volume and the volume of this building in perspective. And they have not, for whateve~ reason, have not shown the scale of the existing structure against the new proposed structure, but just lookinglat the beginning of the elevation, it takes off from th% new addition going east to the right. You can see that the existing roofline is substan%ially below. It's probably 15 or 17 propose~ high roof. So the volume of this buildin~ made th~ buildin! existin~ and so cubic f( it is o! feet below the -- and I believe it was Mr. Chant. Mr. Chant had issue that the size, the magnitude of this is so overwhelming in comparison to what's there and also to the existing residential structure, n addition to square footage, you have to look at .otage and volume. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we all have to recognize 5 acres, which is a substantial -- MR. TREFFINGER: It's a large tract. THE CHAIRMAN: To have the blessing to be able to buil~ -- you are fortunate you have that much ground. I think it's just the way that you -- obviously you're going to buil¢ it to your best, as this gentleman said, the way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it flows through your whole be an easier road to travel. rocks, buy the man's house. MR. HUGHES: Well, I church. I thought that would Instead of building on the think you just touched on Is that the point you were pointing out? MR. TREFFINGER: I mean, that was Mr. Chant's and, I mean, I was just -- THE CHAIRMAN: I think the 5 acres of ground is ough to handle your operation by all means. I goodness' sake, you're only going to be -- your total square footage is 20 thousand square Nat's half of an acre, and you got 5 acres. So you than enough dirt there, and Mr. Brehm testified testimony, large en mean, fo buildin¢ feet. have mo an important point, that is, they are blessed to have that extra acreage. If you look around at all the other churche~ we have in the borough, they are slammed right up against all of these residences. THE CHAIRMAN: You have an envious-sized piece of grourd, but I think the look that you're delivering is what has challenged our board. I guess if you would researck a little more. It's a very imposing delivery that you're ~ringing to the table. You're on 5 acres of ground, and you're going to make it look so overwhelming from the impact ~f your design. Maybe your design could be a little less impacting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you can handle the storm water. It's just the design that you're delivering here is massive at first glance, and you have a neighbor here that obviously will have an adverse effect on his property forever with or without shrubbery. MR. HUGHES: Well, I'll certainly address some of those in my closing statements. : MS. RIGLER: Jim, I think one of your folks is trying ~o get your attention. MR. SAILOR: Yes, whenever it's appropriate, I'd couple things regarding the building like to iclarify a size. MR. HUGHES: Well, come on up. This is Jon Sailor ~rom Lobar. THE CHAIRMAN: We're done with Mr. Bova for the moment. MR. HUGHES: Well, actually for Mr. Bova, I would juist like to bring him back up and go over the conditions. that, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: You're more than welcome to do i JON S~%ILOR, called as a witness, being duly sworn, w~s examined and testified as follows: DIRECT TESTIMONX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SAILOR: Jon Sailor, engineer with Lobar Associates, the federal contractor for the design and construction of the building. Just to clarify a little bitI just so we don't have any inaccuracies or misimpressions, but this building, which is built off to the west side, is actuall far east you see size an¢ end. made to complement the sanctuary, which is on the side. So it is taller than the middle part, whic~ drawn adjacent, but it's approximately the same mass as the sanctuary, which is on the other far THE CHAIRMAN: Well, same size, but what about the roo~line? I think that's what was -- ! MR. SAILOR: I would say it's approximately the same height because I know the sanctuary has an 18-foot ! eave height also, which we're matching with this addition here. ~nother clarification is, yes, we are building on the westI side. Of course, we shrunk it, I mean, squeezed it, you iknow, to be away from Mr. Bova's property. We are actually, because it got squeezed in the west di[ection, it did go a little bit to the front of the building, which I know you had concerns with and asked us about st time, you know, could we build it that way. And I had said at that time, it wasn't the preference to do it that wa~ you know, from an esthetic point of view and from a flow .oor plan point of view, but they did compromise 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and my opinion, maybe it's could have been before, some, which was a concern before. north o9 came up with a pretty good solution. I don't think, in not quite as esthetically good as it MS. RIGLER: south? MR. SAILOR: clarify la couple things. THE CHAIRMAN: but they did bring it out front When you say front, do you mean That's the south. I just wanted to forgetting the fact this ha~ time, m~ to be a the hou: Just one question, Mr. Sailor. If, that this was a church and there was, been subdivided and, I think, at one point in ~be Mr. Chant or someone mentioned that there was cul-de-sac there and there were houses there and es were residential in nature and they were up against ithe property line in accordance with the setbacks of the o~dinance and there was a house built there, would not the ~iew of a house sitting there impede Mr. Bova's view mor~ than the building, the addition that we're putting depends could be smaller, ~n? MR. SAILOR: Well, the same or more. I mean, Dn the size of the house. Of course, the house or the house could be very large. it by the Doard? Mr. Hughes, MR. HUGHES: go ahead if you have a question. Any other questions of Mr. Sailor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HUGHES: If it's a typical two-story -- THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think it would be back 35 feet though, Mr. Hughes. I think that property, if you're referring to a house, that house would have a rear yard probably greater than 35 feet. MR. HUGHES: Well, it wouldn't be 100 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I know; but it would be more th~n 35 feet. MR. HUGHES: But even if it was 35 feet, which is where! we are now, and you have a two-story house -- ~ THE CHAIRMAN: But I don't think there's any two-storiy house in all of Carlisle that's 10 thousand square f~et, so -- MR. HUGHES: Well -- THE CHAIRMAN: At least mine isn't. MR. HUGHES: No, mine isn't either. There are several.! But the point I'm making, if you understanding what I'ml asking you, Mr. Sailor, is if there was a house sitting ~ere and that was not necessarily the rear yard, but it w~s the side yard, which we had discussions about this before -- I MR. SAILOR: An 18-foot eave height would be ! very typical for a two-story house if you consider 8- or 9-foot c~ilings or whatever. Actually I know of one house, I know slme people who were designing a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 24-thousand-square-foot house. Not that that's normal, but houses can be lots of different sizes. MR. HUGHES: I have nothing further. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. TREFFINGER: Can Mr. Hughes? i MR. i MR. I ask Mr. Sailor something, HUGHES: Sure. TREFFINGER: Everything that you said is in I mean, you're additio~ to what's shown on this drawing? not amending any of these drawings? MR. SAILOR: Oh, no, just clarifying. clarify -i Mr. MR. TREFFINGER: Okay. ~ THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hughies, you can grill Mr. Bova. Simons. buy his your prc that he say I th That's all I needed to Mr. Sailor. Now, MR. HUGHES: Grill may be a strong word, Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: house. MR. THE CHAIRMAN: blem. MR. gave you, ought Mr. I think the easiest thing is to I still think that solves the problem. TREFFINGER: Mr. Hughes, I know a realtor. That seems to be the answer to HUGHES: What I'd like to do is, the exhibit just talk generally about that. I will Bova did a good job in summarizing the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things that he did talk about, and I'll point out just a couple of the things and the concerns that we gave him as well as some of the changes we made to try to address some of those concerns. On the screening, I think we had initially, and I think on the plan it shows 6 foot in height. I'm not sure if 6-foot or 7-foot or how trees come as to whether that was a big concern for Mr. Bova. We certainly would, you know, want to get what was sufficient there. The planning was a bit of an issue because if we did have!equipment over there and we plant all these trees, number one, they probably wouldn't make it; number two is, number 61on his chart talks about the privacy, and we did agree toiput a substantially high privacy fence across his property!line to shield that. So while the trees certainly would have done the same thing, we did agree during construction to do that for him. THE CHAIRMAN: Wait. You're going a little too fast nowl You're saying you're agreeing to a privacy fence during construction? MR. HUGHES: Correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Part of number two? MR. HUGHES: Which is nuraber 6 on your -- he has that as luring the construction, but I'm just saying to you that we ad agreed to do that. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. HUGHES: Number 2 on the liability for the damage to the existing screen, we did move, as Mr. Bova pointed out, the seepage pits to potentially getting over near those roots that he was concerned about. Now, I'm not root, wh certainl obviousl As to wh special I think concern about th and the would be certainl, to go on where thc we put s( neighbort an expert on trees and whether or not if we hit a ~t's that going to do to the tree. We could find that out, and if we cause damage, then we're going to try to rectify it. But we did address that by trying to move those. ~ther liability is an appropriate condition for a ~xception, I may have some concerns about that, but ~e're certainly sensitive to what Mr. Bova's ~as. The green space, you heard testimony earlier fact that we weren't putting any roadways there heds and the storage areas. The only thing that we might have a problem with the heating and air conditioning units, but if the heating and air, in the design, they have that side, then certainly they're going to be screening is that we're going to put there. If reening there, he's not going to see those things. THE CHAIRMAN: He sure will hear them though. MR. HUGHES: Well, I mean, in any residential ood, if you have a neighbor next to you, you're 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a wrap-up unless there's any other -- MR. BOVA: May I have just one other comment in response to him? THE CHAIRMAN: You sure may. Give it your best shot. MR. BOVA: Should I go now? THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Go right ahead. special talk abo~ And so I not it w~ give con( those cot that I'm MR. BOVA: I just want to reiterate very briefly what I s~id before. I understood having been through the sessionsi now a couple of times. I feel like a, this is the place toigo on the first Thursday of every month. In any case, ha~ing been to these, I realize that you don't operate in a two-stage process. ~ In other words, you don't make a decision on a ~xception and then bring everybody up here to then it conditions, at least that's my understanding. asked myself whether or not, you know, whether or .s wise for me to give you conditions because if I itions, that implies perhaps that I'm happy if ditions are met, and I just want to make it clear construct account display not happy. I'm simply less unhappy than if the building was ed without those things. So I had to take into he way you structure your discussions and to verything out on the table for you as I did for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Hughes when I began the discussion in his office a couple of weeks ago. The first two things, in fact, at that point, I didn't eve~n characterize it as conditions. I characterized it as concerns, and the first two concerns were the impact of this huge building on my life and then on my family; the inability, no matter what their i~tentions were, to accurately screen a building of the bul~ and the size of this; and indirectly, you know, should Ne ever decide to move down the road, what this might d~ to prospective buyers who want to buy the house. There are many parts of Carlisle where you do have la~ge buildings, including churches next door that are perfectl!y fond neighbors, but the neighborhood where we are, yoN typically don't find that. And when you -- there are real! estate agents on the panel and I think in the audiencel. You know, it being in character with the neighborhood is important as well, so what might work in one neighborhood might not work in another. And in our neighborhood, if I were looking for a house an~ there were a building of this size and dimension located ~ehind that property, I think I'd be much less willing to buy it, or if I were going to buy it, probably be willing to pay less for it than the same house a block down that doesn't have that structure behind it. So I just ! wanted tp reiterate my position on the building, itself, 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 6 7 related to the conditions that I MR. those concerns to you gave you. Mr. Bova, when you expressed what were their reaction back TREFFINGER: to Mr. Hughes, as you perceive them? MR. BOVA: Well, to be perfectly honest, build. could do thing th size of find som~ little b~ more. concerns. plan, an¢ was poss~ around, But the kind of building that they feel they need to So I think if there were a world of things they they probably would try and do them. The only ~y could do would be to further shrink down the ~hat building a little bit or stretch it out or other way to accommodate it. They've done a of that. My preference would be a little bit they took, Mr. Hughes took notes about my Some of those concerns are reflected in this new I have to be honest in saying that as far as it ble without changing the building this time hey tried to accoramodate some of those things. roblem, I think, is the building, itself. And if screen the Mr. HugHes and the members of the church have been quite decent iln the way they've dealt with me on this issue. think th~ fundamental problem here is, when it comes right down to ~t, no matter how well-intentioned they are, there's Rot a lot they can do to adequately compensate and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 you're tied to this building, there's only so much you can do. Again, 6 foot, 8 foot, it's very hard to screen a building, I think, of that size that close. MR. TREFFINGER: Okay. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bova. MR. WOMACK: I'd like to make one quick comment before M~. Hughes. wanted t~ clarify. consider wetl-desJ municipal that the so I just It involves the storm water, and I just The municipality -- and Mr. Trinnaman left, I know, and I don't mean to assert that he doesn't get wate~ down the street or that Mr. Hair doesn't get water inihis basement -- but the only thing that the municipal.ity can regulate when a new land development plan comes in is that we mitigate the effects of the new construcl~ion. And I will tell you that this plan uses what are ,d the best management practices today and is gned to handle a hundred-year storm. The ity can never require as a condition to a plan area out here be graded and some change be made, wanted to point that out. THE CHAIRMAN: timely r~aark. i Mr. Hughes, would welcome it. MR. HUGHES: Thank you very much for that if you'd like to give a wrap-up, we At the time that we had applied for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the special exception, I was struck by something that Mr. Womack actually gave to me. The board didn't give it to me, but Mr. Womack did. the Zoning Hearing Board. was interested to see what And it is a Citizen's Guide to And as I read it, as I certainly it said, there was a clause on here, and I'm going to read it to you. i It says, a special exception use is not an exceptio~ to the requirements of the zoning ordinance, rather ir is a use envisioned by the ordinance that is permitte~ when the expressed standards and criteria established in the ordinance are met. ~ And as I looked at this whole situation and went down through the zoning ordinance, specifically starting in 255 17, ~hich says that a place of worship is permitted by special 9xception and then references section 178 A32, which go~s through a nurmber of uses that a church or a special 9xception, a place of worship as a special exceptio~ may have. i And you heard the testimony from Mr McConnell ' about allI the various uses, and all of those uses were incidenta!l and attached to the worship that they have at that church. None of those things would be considered outside e~ents, necessarily that they were using it for some othe purpose other than the way they already currently use the church. The church has been there since 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1973, and we've maintained all along that the use hasn't changed. What has changed is the fact that we were dimensionally adding on. And I think at that point, you then have to turn back to the ordinance and say, okay, havel you met iall the criteria as a special exception in order to add on? ! And in 255 18, it goes through all the area bulk regulations that we have to comply by, and that's what we've do¼e. we've alto, certainl~ are concerns that we're going to have to address at that point. The storm water, as Mr. Womack indicated, We've met the letter of the ordinance, and of course, had the land development plan. Some of the issues that the residents brought up we have 9ddressed. We have given the calculations. The engineer!has said this is the best possible thing that you can do. iAnd in any development, as I'm sure you know, you cannot i~crease the predevelopment water flow, and that we have notidone. comments Mr. Brehr experien there, b% parking ] the ordi~ Mr. Trinnaman I can't address, I guess, his because I'm not really sure -- again, I know was very emphatic, and I think he's got a lot of e in this. I'm not saying the water's not going t Mr. Brehm was clear that it wasn't from the ot. As you look through the other requirements of ance, the impervious area coverage, the building 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 area coverage, we meet those requirements. And in looking at that, then we go back to the section iwhich, of course, we had been discussing at length, which wais 255 177, and those are the general criteria that this boaird can look at when you're talking about a special exception. And we talked about it, I guess, there because, again, w~ have some new members, but not enough to increase traf/ic flow. It's still going to be the same. the Safety hazards, we're not going to be putting in any envl we're only putting people again, t]ere really isn't come back down to section ~onmental hazardous components in the addition; in the fellowship hall. So, an issue there. The two issues 5 and 6. The building will not signific%ntly negatively affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood. Well, been the~e. The church had been there since they're ~till acting as a church. While they may increase the size to allow for the expansion of their current members, that is not affectin% the use. And as long as we comply with all of the ordiJances in terms of a special exception, in terms of ! size, ar~a of coverage and so forth -- we have one property owner in certainl} we can dc the church has 1973, and this situation that's on the west side, and , as he's indicated, we've tried to do everything to alleviate his concerns and do the best we can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 knowing that we've looked at all these various alternatives as to where to put this building. The first time we came in, we had it where legallylwe could put it, right on the 10-foot line. But, again, knowing his concerns, we've reengineered it, going back to ithe drawing board and said, what else can we do? And so ~ lot of time and effort from Mr. Sailor, members of the building committee and Mr. Brehm and myself have been spent ti and Mr. the bott Mr. Bova reduce t ying to figure out other ways to deal with this. And I think that you heard Mr. McConnell testify Brehm that what we're putting forth before you is om line as to what we felt we could live with given 's concerns given what we need to do because if we ~at size, then we are spending an awful lot of money tolnot do what needs to be done And does that make a lot of sense, and will the church built it? You've heard Mr. McConnell say no. We probably, if we we%t back to the drawing board another time, could something else be done? We don't know that, but right now, as I've %aid, we've spent a lot of time and effort trying to get t~is plan before you in a situation where while, you know, I ~ertainly respect Mr. Bova's opinion and he has been ver~ good in terms of very cordial; he's been very direct ar concerns d he's been very forthright telling us what his are we've tried to be exactly the same way back to 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 him, to help, but in many of these situations, you can't necessariily do everything that both parties want to do, so you try ~to compromise. And that's what we're trying to do, and we're before y~u here tonight. And I guess in a short closing, ! in lookiDg at these two, the neighborhood -- obviously Mr. Bova is one neighbor as opposed to the neighborhood at large an 6 talks site des evergree serious tried to right al~ setback the buil~ a lot of especial] but we wculd ask that, again, you look at the criteria of the spec~ use and special that if we were in his shoes, what would we do to try the fact that the church has been there. Number Dout design, and it says, design with adequate [gn methods, which we've tried to do, including screens, setbacks, traffic control to avoid ]egative influences on adjacent uses. And while we couldn't get them all, we certainly get the serious negative ones, the primary ones )ng Mr. Bova's property line. Even though the las only 10 feet, we turned around, reengineered ling and moved it back to 33 feet. So this evening, again, and I know you've gotten information and we do appreciate your time, y over the three meetings over different issues, al exception and rule that it has not changed in permitted, the addition is permitted as a ception. Thank you. 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 ~. ?~.~.~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you., Mr. Hughes. close the testimony. (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.) We'll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by!me on the within proceedings, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same. any repr~ direct c~ reporter The foregoing certification does not apply to )duction of the same by any means unless under the )ntrol and/or supervision of the certifying Applicant's Exhibit 1 Elew ~tion Plan for the proposed addition 4 BARLO CIRCLE, P.O. BOX 432 DII.I, SBURG, PENNSTI, VANIA 17019 PII: ?17-43~-~1~9 FAX: 717-432-71 www. lobara~soc, com CARLISLE FIRST CHURCt, OF GOD Proposed Addition 705 GLENDALE STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA )VAL- 100~ DATE AUGUST 1, 2003 JES / ONr NO. DRAWING )VAL- 100~ ,L-IOOX OAT[ AUGUST 1, 200~ SCALE AS NOTED 4 BARLO CIRCLE, P.O. BOX 432 DI~.,SBURG, PENNSTI,~'ANIA 17019 ww-e'.lobaraaaoe, eom CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD Proposed Addition 705 GLENDALE STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA JOB 1'40. DRAWING JES / ONF 0~[4 CHK. BY JES II ~d gg: 80: 1~ gO/L/9 ' d1£'0 7 Applicant's Exhibit 2 Final Land Development Plan OVERSIZED DOCUMENT Bova Exhibit 1 Conditions for approval Code 25~-171, D-~ ~d D-~ ~ tr~s will be mflle,~., ia ~ nmnber, and placement to the In'ol~r~ line b ~m the rear yard of ~09 Yodcshlm l:}r ami tim Clnute~ of Ood al a eonsequence of m =avation or oth~ ~nnsctton-rdated dmns~e. Liability will Include financial core.sss ~.i0n for Iou of ,em~in~ ixo~ded by marine treet ae~mi~lJ~ ple~n~ and i. ~ ~ m ~e ~g C~ ~ ~5-1~). (pep i o 2) (~ 2 oF2) CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : : BOROUGH OF CARLISLE : ZONING HEARINGBOARD, : LAND USE APPEAL : Appellee : No. 2003-5267 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certif3~ that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the Record (except for the transcript which will be appended when available) in the above referenced matter upon the Appellant, by sending ~he same by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Russell Bova 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 James D. Hughes, Esquire SALZMANN, HUGHES & FISHMAN, PC Attorney for Appellant First Church of God 95 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: ~,c~o 3,~ 5 S-te~en I~. Tiley, Esquire Assistant Cumb. Co. Solicitor 5 S. Hanover Stree. t Carlisle, PA 170D (717) 243-5838 Attorney I.D.#32318 CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD Appellant V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD Appellee : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Civil Action - Law : : Land Use Appeal : No. 03-4998 Civil Term CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD Appellant V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Civil Action - Law : : Land Use Appeal : : No. 03-5267 Civil Term ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this q ~. day o£ ~ _, 2004, upon consideration o£ the attached Motion to Consolidate, Case Nos. 2003-4998 and 2003-5267 are hereby consolidated~: Nc~. . Argument on Ma~ch 24, 2004 shall be for the consolidated case. BY THE COURT, CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2003-5267 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19TM day of APRIL, 2004, the attached zoning ordinance adopted by the Board of Carlisle on ]une 12, 2003, is made part of the record in the above captioned matter. Edward E. Guido, ~1. ~Fames D. Hughes, Esquire or the Appellant v~'tephen D. Tiley, Esquire ~l~enneth Womack 53 West South Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 ~l~ussell Bova 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, Pa. 17013 :sld CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD V. RUSSELL BOVA and CANDACE BOVA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL : LAND USE APPEAL : CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD V. RUSSELL BOVA and CANDACE BOVA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA / NO. 2003-5267 CIVIL IN__gE: LAND USE_APP_EAL_ BEFORE HESS GUIDO_, JJ_. _ORDER OF COURT. AND NOW, this ~ _ day of APRIL, 200,$, the action of the Zoning Hearing Board in requiring Appellant to file a special exception application in connection with the expansion of its facilities is AFFIRMED and the appeal filed at No. 2003-4998 (Civil) is DENIED. It is further ordered and directed that the matter filed at No. 2003-5267 is remanded to the Zoning Heating Board to take additional evi[dence relating to the following three issues: 1 .) Can the proposed expansion be built in compliance with the conditions 2.) imposed by the ZHB? What is the basis for a 50' set back verses a 30' set back? Is the "pending ordinance doctrine" applicable? James D. Hughes, Esquire Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire :sld ]Edward E. Guido, J. CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD V. RUSSELL BOVA and CANDACE BOVA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL LAND USE APPEAl; CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BOROUGH OF CARLISLE : NO. 2003-5267 CIVIL ZONING HEARING BOARD : V. : RUSSELL BOVA and CANDACE : BOVA IN RE: LAND USE APPEAL BEFORE HESS, GUDO, JJ. OPINION AND ORDER OF COLqRT Currently before us are the consolidated appeals of the Carlisle First Church of God (hereinafter "Appellant") from two separate decisions of the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board (hereinafter "ZHB"). The first appeal (No. 2003-4998) challenges the decision of the ZHB which required Appellant to file a special exception application in order to expand its current facility. The subsequent appeal (No. 2003-5267) asks us to NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL vacate the conditions imposed by the ZHB in connection with its grant of Appellant's special exception application. Both appeals were consolidated by order of the Honorable Kevin A. Hess dated March 9, 2004. The parties have briefed and argued their respective positions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant is a place of worship located on a five acm parcel in the Borough of Carlisle. The neighborhood in which it is located is an R-1 Low Density Residential District. At the time the church was constructed in 1973, a place of worship was a use permitted by right in the Borough's R-1 Low Density Residential District. Sometime thereafter the Borough changed its zoning ordinance. Under the amended ordinance, a place of worship is no longer a use permitted by right. It is now only permitted as a special exception use. On May 8, 2003, Appellant filed a Preliminary Final/Land Development Plan in connection with the proposed expansion of its facilities.~ Appellant applied to the zoning officer for approval of its plan as well as a building permit to construct the proposed addition. Since no special exception had ever been issued, ~md since the officer felt that certain aspects of Appellants' plan could warrant the imposition of conditions, he determined that an application for special exception would have to be filed with the ZHB. Appellant asked the ZHB to review the zoning officer's determination regarding its need to file a special exception application. The ZHB held a public hearing on the matter on July 9, 2003. After the heating, it upheld the zoning officer's determination. Consequently, Appellant filed the timely appeal docketed in this Court at No. 4998 of Appellant plans to increase the size of its existing building from 11,965 square feet to 22,732 square feet. 2 NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL 2003. The only issue to be addressed on that appeal is whether Appellant was required to file an application for a special exception use. On July 17, 2003, Appellant filed an application for special exception as the ZHB had determined it should. A public hearing was held before the ZHB on August 7, 2003. Several residential neighbors appeared to request that the ZHB impose certain conditions in connection with the grant of the special exception use. At'ter the hearing, the ZHB granted Appellant's special exception use subject to various conditions. Appellant has challenged the imposition of those conditions in the timely appeal filed at No. 5267 of 2003. Standard of Review. In reviewing a denial of a special exception we are "limited to determining whether the Supervisors abused their discretion of an error of law has been committed." Marshall Township Board of Supervisors v. Marshall Township Zoning Hearing Board, 717 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. Commwlth 1998) citing VisionQuest National Ltd, v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, 524 Pa. 107, 569 A.2d 915 (1990).2 The board abuses its discretion when it makes findings not supported by substantial evidence, which is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550, 462 A.2d 637 (1983). "(A) court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board; and assuming 2 Some of the cases cited in this opinion involve a conditional use rather than a special exception. However, we note that "a conditional use is nothing more than a special exception which falls within the jurisdiction of the municipal legislative body." Bailey v. Upper Southampton Twp., 690 A.2d 1324, 1326 (Pa. Commwlth 1997) See also Sheetz v. Phoenixville Borough Council, 804 A.2d 113 (Pa. Commwlth. 2002): "The law regarding conditional uses and special exceptions is virtually identical." 804 A.2d at 115 (F.N.5). 3 NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL the record demonstrates substantial evidence, the Court is bound by the board's findings which result from resolutions of credibility and the verifying of evidence rather than a capricious disregard for the evidence." Zoning Hearing Board of Sodsbury Township v. Board of Supervisors of Sodsbury Township, 804 A.2d 1274,, 1278 (Pa. Commonwealth 2002). DISCUSSION There are two issues for us to decide. The first is whether the ZHB made an error of law in holding that Appellant is required to file an application for a special exception in order to expand its building. The second is whether the ZHB abused its discretion or made an error of law in imposing the conditions in connection with its grant of the special exception. Was Appellant Required to File a Special Exception Application? Appellant's use of its premises as a place of worship was a use permitted by right under the ordinance in effect at the time its original facility was constructed. Subsequent amendments to the ordinance changed the use from one that is permitted by right to one that is permitted by special exception. Whether Appellant needs to file an application for a special exception under these facts appears to be a question of first impression. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we hold that it does. The Commonwealth Court's decision in Pennridge Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Volovnik, 154 Pa. Commwlth 609, 624 A.2d 674 (1993) provides guidance. In that case an airport which had been constructed in 1966 became a non-conforming use following the passage of a zoning ordinance in 1970. The zuning ordinance was later 4 NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL amended in 1987 such that a portion of the airport fell into a zone where it was classified as a conditional use. Thereafter, the landowners proposed to build hangers on the portion that had been rezoned to permit airports as a conditional use. The supervisors "denied Pennridge's plan on the ground that it failed to file a conditional use application as required by the 1987 zoning ordinance." 624 A.2d at 675. The trial court reversed the action of the supervisors, holding that "the property at issue in the plan remained a non- conforming use regardless of the fact that it was rezoned in 1.987 to permit airports as a conditional use." 624 A.2d at 675· The Commonwealth Co'art reversed the trial court. Generally, a use is nonconforming when, among other things, it does not comply with present zoning regulations. ·.. Here, while Pennridge's airport did not comply with the Township's 1970 zoning ordinance, the portion of Pennridge's airport at issue in the plan is now' in compliance with the present zoning provisions of the Township. In our view, it would be illogical to conclude that Permridge retains a nonconforming use to operate an airport, when Pennridge is permitted to operate an airport on its land under the Township's 1987 zoning ordinance. Hence, we conclude that Pennridge's nonconforming use was converted by the Township's 1987 zoning ordinance into a permitted use .... Therefi)re, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that Pennridge retained a nonconforming use to operate an a:irport on the land at issue· Pennridge, 624 A.2d at 676 (emphasis added, citations and tbotnotes omitted.) As a result the landowner was required to file a conditional use application. The only distinction between Pennridge and the case: at bar is that Appellant's pre-amendment use was permitted by right rather than non-conforming. We view that as a distinction without a difference. Furthermore, as the ZHB noted: NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL Section 255-177.A. clearly states that the puq~ose of the special exception process is "to allow a careful review of uses that have some potential of conflicts with adjacent uses or areas."... Because of changes in the Zoning Ordinance over time, the Appellant's use, which is now permitted as a special exception, has never been reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Board. Therefore, any change in the Appellant's use of the property, whether that 'be to a different use or an expansion of the use through an expansion of the existing building requires special exception review by the Zoning Hearing Board pursuant to Section 255 - 177. To allow the Appellant to expand its building without the requirement for special exception approval, as suggested by the Appellant, is inconsistent with the Borough Ordinance for the reason that it would treat Appellant's use of the property as a use permitted by right rather than a use permitted by special exception. The Borough Ordinance clearly delineates those uses, which are permitted by tight, and those uses, which are permitted subject to special exception approval by the Zoning Heating Board. To ignore the difference in treatment would circumvent the safeguards established in the special exception process.3 We agree with the reasoning of the ZHB and hold that it did not make an error of law when it determined that Appellant was required to submit a special exception application in connection with its request to expand its existing facilities.4 Did the ZHB err in the imposition of conditions? There are insufficient facts in the record for us to determine whether the ZHB abused its discretion or committed an error of law in the imposition of conditions. We question whether the imposition of the 50' set back amounted to a de facto denial of the 3 See ZHB decision dated July 9, 2003, p. 2. 4 If possible an ordinance must be construed to give effect to all of its provisions. Appeal of Neshaming Auto Villa, Ltd., 25 Pa. Commw. 129, 358 A.2d 433 (1976); 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1921(a). Construing the statute to require special exception approval for an expansion of the church building is the only possible construction in accord with this principle of law. To hold otherwise wonld require us to completely ignore not only § 255-177(A) but also § 255-177(D) of the ordinance which dictates the standards each special exception use must meet in order to safeguard the character of the zoning district. NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL proposed expansion. Appellant's council president testified that the project could not move forward if it had to be scaled back. The record is unclear as to whether the proposed addition can be built if Appellant is required to comply with the 50' set back requirement as opposed to the 30' to 35' set backs proposed by it. Further, we would like clarification of the facts found by the ZHB that led to the imposition of the 50' set back requirement. Finally, it appears that the ZHB may have committed an error of law. The briefs filed on behalf of the intervener and ZHB argue that the provisions of the zoning ordinance adopted on June 12, 2003, should have been applied under the "pending ordinance doctrine".5 See Department of General Services v. Board of Supervisors of Cumberland Township, 795 A.2d 440 (Pa. Commwlth. 2002). In its reply brief, Appellant argues that the doctrine does not apply.6 All parties refer to facts that are not in the record. In order for us to properly address the above issues, it is necessary to remand this matter so that the record may be supplemented. Consequently, we will enter the following order. s While the new ordinance requires a 50' set back, it appears that the ZHB applied the prior ordinance which would have required a setback of only 10 feet. 6 Appellant also argues that the issue was waived since the ZHB's decisJion to apply the prior ordinance was not appealed. However, we agree with intervenor that he had no reason to appeal since the ZHB granted his request to impose a 50' set back. 7 NO. 2003~4998 CIVIL 2003-5267 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ,~ 0''~ day of APRIL, 2004, the action of the Zoning Hearing Board in requiring Appellant to file a special exception application in connection with the expansion of its facilities is AFFIRMED and the appeal filed at No. 2003-4998 (Civil) is DENIED. It is further ordered and directed that the matter filed at No. 2003-5267 is remanded to the Zoning Heating Board to take additional evidence relating to the following three issues: 1 .) Can the proposed expansion be built in compliance with the conditions 2.) 3.) imposed by the ZHB? What is the basis for a 50' set back verses a 30' set back? Is the "pending ordinance doctrine" applicable? By the Court, James D. Hughes, Esquire Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire :sld /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD V. RUSSELL BOVA and CANDACE BOVA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA .. : NO. 2003-4998 CIVIL : : : ,, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : CARLISLE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ZONING HEARING BOARD V, RUSSELL BOVA and CANDACE BOVA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2003-5267 CIVIL -/ : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, .1., .luly ~, ,2004 By order dated April 30, 2004 we affirmed the action of the Carlisle Zoning Hearing Board which required Carlisle First Church of God to file a special exception application in connection with the proposed expansion of its facilities. The church has filed the instant appeal. The reasons for our order of April 30, 2004 are set forth in the opinion filed fully concurren~l:ly t,~¢~~ DATE Edward E. Guido, .1. -]ames D. Hughes, Esquire For the Appellant Stephen D. ~ley, Esquire Kenneth Womack 53 West South Street Carlisle, Pa, 17013 Russell Bova 709 Yorkshire Drive Carlisle, Pa. 17013 :sld