SHALER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD June 14, 2018

Transcription

1 SHALER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD June 14, 2018 The Regular Meeting of the Shaler Township Zoning Hearing Board was held on June14, 2018, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Young called the meeting to order. Ms. Re called the roll as follows: ROLL CALL: PRESENT: James W. Young, Jr., Esq., Charles J. Porter, Jr., Esq., and William C. Woods ZONING HEARING BOARD COUNSEL: Timothy J. Bish, Esq. BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL/ZONING OFFICER: Robert Vita RECORDING SECRETARY: Noreen A. Re APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 2018 Motion to approve made by Mr. Porter and seconded by Mr. Woods. Mr. Young stated before the meeting an executive session was held to discuss issues pertaining to Case No. 1. The executive session was necessary, proper and in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. NEW BUSINESS: CASE ONE: G.C., B-5 Posted - Carl Hoffield is revising his request for a variance received on April 12, 2018, to construct a 40 x 24 garage addition, instead of the 20 x 24 addition originally requested for 1448 Babcock Boulevard. Lot & Block 165-F-50.

2 Mr. Carl Hoffield was present and duly sworn. Charles Hoebler, Esq., was also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hoffield stated the plan was exactly the same, but he wrote down the wrong number. He wrote 20 instead of 40. The plans are exactly the same as presented in April. The only correction is the number correction. Mr. Hoebler presented a set of professional drawings. Parking is not affected. Mr. Hoffield received positive feedback from Sister Rita Yeasted. Mr. Vita had a letter dated June 11, 2018, from Sister Yeasted indicating she was pleased with how Mr. Hoffield is keeping the street and the alley free of automobiles. No public comments for or against Motion made by Mr. Porter as follows: MR. PORTER: "Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that his request be granted. It appears that what he is seeking is essentially the same thing that he asked for and explained in the last meeting, other than his mistake as to the dimensions. It appears that the dimensional request here doesn't extend any closer to the street or property than what already exists. The configuration of the property is such that it's difficult to really use it in any other fashion, absent some modification. Again, I believe the last time we granted it subject to his agreement to keep the alley free from cars so that people who live there will have the ability to enter and exit freely. And with that caveat, I would make a motion that his request be granted. MR. YOUNG: "Do I hear a second on that motion? MR. WOODS: "I'll second the motion. OLD BUSINESS: CASE ONE: R-1, D-12 Posted - Scioto Properties, owner of 444 McElheny Road, requesting a substantive validity challenge to the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 909.1(a)(1), Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, because Applicant asserts that the failure of the Shaler Township Zoning Ordinance 2

3 to permit the proposed use in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts violates the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 701) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C ) as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Lot & Block 433-R-120. Mr. Vita stated both parties have requested to be tabled from the Planning Commission meeting this Monday. The matter will be continued until either July or August. Therefore, the Planning Commission meeting Monday will be canceled due to lack of an agenda. Mr. Young reminded everyone that at the last meeting the applicant had rested. All parties interested in speaking at the meeting were duly sworn. Mr. Ventura commented as follows on behalf of the township: MR. VENTURA: "Obviously, there are lots of residents here and also last month who have expressed some concerns regarding health, safety and welfare. The township shares some of those concerns, and we would just ask that they be addressed in some manner in the Board's decision. That's really all we have to offer tonight. Thank you very much." Robert J. Wratcher, Esq., was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Robert Neely commented that both Scioto and ReMed were for-profit companies, and he felt the proposed facility was a commercial property. Before beginning his presentation, Mr. Murray expressed a desire to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mr. Young stated the Board would be requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law once everything is done. Mr. Murray called Scott Tracy, Ph.D., as his witness. Dr. Tracy is a professor of counseling at Kutztown University and has experience with people suffering from head injuries. He outlined his familiarity with residential care facilities such 3

4 as the one proposed. He stated the facility would fall into the description he gave of an inpatient nonhospital-based treatment program because of the high number of clients that will be present. He outlined the staffing in such a facility and addressed safety concerns for the residents. Dr. Tracy outlined what he felt was a suitable location for such a facility. Mr. Murray continued with his own testimony. He stated the property in Fox Chapel was not an R-1 equivalent, and Fox Chapel does not actually have areas similar to the R-3/4/5 areas available in Shaler. He compared the Fox Chapel property with the proposed Shaler property and noted differences. The Fox Chapel property has 8.6 acres of property surrounding it rather than houses. Mr. Murray stated the Hampton Township property is considered commercial on the Zillow website. He compared the Shaler site to the ReMed sites in Fox Chapel and Hampton. He presented photographs detailing the surroundings of the Shaler property. He discussed the traffic situation on the road in detail. To Mr. Murray s understanding, there was a no-impact homebased business that was rejected several years ago with regard to a babysitting facility or babysitting/day care facility. At the Planning Commission they had stated the Shaler facility was 16 miles from the Fox Chapel facility. According to Google Maps, the Shaler facility is 6.9 miles from Fox Chapel. The Hampton facility is 7.9 miles away. He had photographs of the lawn, which is not being maintained. Mr. Murray also stated the building does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. Upon inquiry by Mr. Porter, Mr. Murray stated he did not find a home that was 7000 square feet in Shaler. He stated the average cost for patient care is approximately $3,100 per month. He presented a property that was for sale in an R-4 area, which would have fit ReMed s requirements. Upon inquiry by Mr. Woods if he knew the traffic count or accident count on McElheny Road, Mr. Murray said he did not. Mr. Marco Bonati stated he looked through all of the listings in Allegheny County and could not find an eight-bedroom home with an 4

5 eight-car parking lot. He also commented if the facility would fail, it would be inviting potential halfway houses, potential drug rehab facilities and other types of facilities that may or may not be quite as community friendly. Ms. Tracy Klanica, 6601 Verona Road, Verona, PA 15147, stated she lived at 444 McElheny Road for 40 years and stated the house should remain a family residence. Ms. Ann Gleeson, 1825 Park Circle, Glenshaw, PA 15116, commented that it was positive to see neighbors communicating with each other about this issue. She hoped the area would remain residential. Mr. Max Mavrovic, 1920 Woodside Road, Glenshaw, PA 15116, addressed the character of the building. He stated the Board needs to maintain the vision of the residential neighborhood. He discussed a petition against the proposal that was circulated and had approximately 50 signatures. He suggested a traffic safety study. Mr. James Harvey, 1497 Elm Avenue, Glenshaw, PA 15116, stated concern about the institutional nature of the facility and the parking. He stated if this is the kind of facility recommended by the medical people for the patients going through rehab, that needs to be considered. He also suggested scaling down the project. Ms. Jeanne Marshall, 1804 Shaler Drive, Glenshaw, PA 15116, inquired as to what evidence was requested by Mr. Wratcher to be removed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Young stated it was the proposed findings from a hearing regarding the Fox Chapel facility. She addressed safety concerns on McElheny Road. She stated it is not a good environment for pedestrians. Ms. Julie Cook, 1917 South Clearview Road, Glenshaw, PA 15116, addressed the size of the building and traffic concerns. She also questioned construction vehicles parking on Clearview during construction. Mr. Stewart Perry, 1922 Woodside Road, Glenshaw, PA 15116, commented that Scioto has multiple facilities in many states 5

6 they have done. When they have sued under the Fair Housing Act, they have won. He wanted to know when they were going to stop. Ms. Jennifer Miller, 521 McElheny Road, Glenshaw, PA 15116, also expressed concerns about the traffic and her desire to have the neighborhood remain residential. She also questioned when residents would know the outcome of the request. Mr. Richard Panas, 406 McElheny Road, Glenshaw, PA 15116, questioned whether the proposal is for a business or a residence. He also questioned the number of patients. He also addressed traffic concerns. Ms. Rose Wurzer, 1924 South Clearview Road, Glenshaw, PA 15116, stated the property at 709 Fairview Road in Fox Chapel is listed as commercial on the Allegheny County website. She discussed safety concerns on McElheny Road. She read from the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Properties can only be rezoned if they are adjacent to the same zoning designation." Mr. John Bursick, 513 Glenhaven Drive, Glenshaw, PA 15116, addressed safety concerns. He also stated the area should remain residential. He also stated he was not permitted to park a commercial vehicle at his residence and questioned how the parking of vans at the facility would be permitted. Following discussion between the Board, counsel and all interested parties, it was decided that the parties will submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by to Mr. Bishop 30 days following receipt of the transcript and before July 18th. There will be a special meeting held on Wednesday, July 18 th. Each party will have 15 minutes to make a final closing argument. A decision will be rendered by September 13 th. Since September 13 th falls outside the 45-day window, Mr. Wratcher agreed to waive the time period. Motion to continue the hearing to Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 7:30 p.m. made by Mr. Porter and seconded by Mr. Woods. 6

7 Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Porter and seconded by Mr. Woods. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. William C. Woods, Secretary Minutes prepared by Noreen A. Re, Certified Realtime Reporter. 7