Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-200 Civil FRED 1. GETTYS, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-0200 CIVIL NORTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Appellee IN RE: LAND USE APPEAL BEFORE HESS AND GUIDO, 1.1. OPINION AND ORDER In a decision, dated November 4, 2004, the North Middleton Township Board of Supervisors denied Fred 1. Gettys's Conditional Use Application for a Village Overlay Development. In the application, Mr. Gettys sought to develop 39.8 acres ofland, proposing to construct 163 dwelling units. The name of the proposed development is "The Villages at Northridge." The proposed development is located in a Suburban Residential Zone (R-l) which permits a Village Overlay Development as a conditional use. Construction within the development would consist of sixty single-family dwellings, fifty-four duplexes, twenty-four quadraplexes and twenty-five townhouses (five rows of five each). The layout of open space areas basically preserves existing woods and hollows with the building occurring primarily on areas previously farmed. No commercial buildings or uses are contemplated. Village Overlay Zones are described in the North Middleton Township Zoning Ordinance at great length and in considerable detail. In the section entitled "Purpose and Intent," it is noted that the design standards in a Village Overlay Zone "seek to achieve a village-type setting that is NO. 05-200 CIVIL characteristic of much of Cumberland County's built environment and heritage. All of the design standards of this zone are vital if the village atmosphere is to be achieved." Zoning Ordinance Section 204-18(A)(I). In the same section of the Ordinance, there is a list of the specific development objectives sought to be achieved in the Zone. They include a diversity of housing types, convenient vehicular access to the neighborhood "but increased reliance upon pedestrian movements within its bounds," and the integration of "local businesses and trades to enhance residents' convenience and offer limited employment opportunities." Another express objective is that the Zone "feature civic uses and open spaces as community focal points." The Ordinance also contains a list of "locally oriented" businesses which would be permitted in the Zone to include barbershops, antique stores, bakeries and professional offices. Id at (E). Subsection (G) of Section 204-18 requires a mixture of uses which conform with ratios to the total acreage. A minimum of fifteen percent is to be reserved for public, civic and open space. A minimum of thirty-five percent is to be comprised of single family detached dwellings. Other dwellings must make up a minimum of thirty-five percent. Local commercial uses may not exceed fifteen percent. Mr. Gettys's development would consist of thirty-five percent single family dwellings, twenty percent duplexes, ten percent townhouses, nineteen percent quadraplexes and sixteen percent open space. It is largely because the development comports with the percentage requirements of the Ordinance that the appellant believes he is entitled to approval. We disagree. The standard of review in an appeal from a denial of a conditional use application is whether the Board of Supervisors abused its discretion or committed an error of law. A finding that the Board abused its discretion may be reached only if the findings of the Board are not 2 NO. 05-200 CIVIL supported by substantial evidence. Levin v. Board of Supervisors of Benner Twp., 669 A.2d 1063 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995). Here, the Board made findings which were amply supported by the evidence. As noted, the Ordinance requires a minimum percentage of land to be used for public, civic or open space. The Board found that, to the extent that there was open space, it consisted of steep slopes and drainage areas clearly not suitable or usable for any public or civic gathering. The decision to use this less desirable land for "open space" was, said the Board, designed to maximize the remaining land for development of housing. We agree with the Board that the major purpose of the Village Overlay Zone is to foster a village setting. As the Board observed, this setting "represents a blend of certain features such that the end result promotes community identification and a sense of belonging." Decision, page 16. The Villages at Northridge have no community focal points, no usable public land and not so much as a coffee shop to bring two or more people together. Section 204-134 of the North Middleton Township Zoning Code sets out general criteria for all conditional uses. Not only must the proposed use be consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance, but the proposed use must not detract from the use and enjoyment of adjoining or nearby properties nor effect a change in the character of the property's neighborhood. In this case, the proposed development is located adjacent to an existing residential development called Northridge. The existing Northridge development includes primarily single family homes and some townhouse units. The Board noted that Mr. Gettys's proposal included numerous duplexes and quadraplexes. The Board concluded that this kind of 3 NO. 05-200 CIVIL development, including the inclusion of quadraplexes, would effect a substantial change in the character of the existing neighborhood. We cannot disagree with this conclusion. In the end, the Board concluded that the applicant had not met the criteria of the Village Overlay Zone and that, instead, the proposed plan was simply an attempt to increase the density of housing so as to exceed the number of dwelling units normally permissible in an Suburban Residential Zone (R-l ). We are satisfied that the Board of Supervisors did not abuse their discretion in reaching this conclusion and agree that the proposed development is a "village" in name only. ORDER AND NOW, this day of August, 2005, the land use appeal of Fred A. Gettys from the decision of the North Middleton Township Board of Supervisors dated November 4, 2004, is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. Robert C. Saidis, Esquire F or the Appellant James D. Bogar, Esquire For the Appellee :rlm 4 FRED 1. GETTYS, Appellant vs. NORTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Appellee AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-0200 CIVIL IN RE: LAND USE APPEAL BEFORE HESS AND GUIDO, 1.1. ORDER day of August, 2005, the land use appeal of Fred A. Gettys from the decision of the North Middleton Township Board of Supervisors dated November 4, 2004, is DENIED. Robert C. Saidis, Esquire F or the Appellant James D. Bogar, Esquire For the Appellee :rlm BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1.