Meeting minutes

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania


MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday April 3, 2002 at 7 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Tom fritz, Samuel Maurer and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
The Board accepted into the file the minutes of the August 23, 2001 meeting.
The first order of business by the board was the election of officers. Sam Maurer was elected Chairman for the year 2002 and Tom Fritz was elected Vice Chairman for the year 2002. Elected recording Secretary was Zoning Officer Francis Spangler.
A hearing was held on the special exception application of Sandra Gerlach who requested a special exception under section 423 for a home occupation at 2520 Golden Drive. Occupations are addressed under the guidelines of Section 423.
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
Board chairman Maurer requested of Mrs. Gerlach to try to limit the number of people that would come to her property.
The application of Sandra Gerlach for a special exception from the requirements of Section 423 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is granted, subject to the following condition: everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application, the drawings filed with the application and submitted to the Board, and the testimony and evidence submitted to the Board.
A hearing was held on a variance application of B. L. Herr Inc., who requested a variance under Section 204.4 which allows only one principal use on a lot, add an additional office use.
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
The application of B.L. Herr Inc, for a variance to add an additional office use on the property at 5982-84 Main St., under Section 204.4 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is granted, subject to the following condition: everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application, the drawings filed with the application and submitted to the Board, and the testimony and evidence submitted to the Board.

A hearing was held on the variance application of Sandra M. Wasilus and Sandra Wyslutsky under Section 201.6, Side Yard Setback and Section 201.8, Maximum Lot Coverage.

Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
The application of Sandra M. Wasilus and Sandra Wyslutsky for variances of lot coverage and side yard setback at 2426 State St, is denied and dismissed.
The Board instructed the solicitor to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law explaining the Board’s reasons for the denial.
The Board also instructed the solicitor to prepare letters informing all parties of all the decisions made pursuant to section 908(10) of the Municipalities Planning Code.
A stenographer whose transcript contains the names of all citizens who appeared officially and also contains the subject of their testimony recorded all the hearings.
There being no further business to come before the Zoning Hearing Board, the meeting was concluded at 8:20 p.m.

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania


MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 7 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Samuel Maurer, Kathy McClair, alternate member Randy Bucksner and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
The Board accepted into the file the minutes of the April 3,2002 meeting.
A hearing was held on the special exception application of David Dearholf, 1619 Graystone Rd., for a special exception to construct a garage to exceed 200-sq. ft., Section 201.3.1.
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
The application of David Dearholf for a special exception from the requirements of 201.3.1 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is tabled until June 26, 2002.
A hearing was held on the special exception application of Jack D. Wissing, 6327 Lemon St., for a special exception to construct a garage to exceed 200 sq. ft., Section 202.3.1 and a variance to exceed the height of 10', Section 202.5, Design Standards, Accessory Use Height
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
The application of Jack D. Wissing for a special exception to construct a garage to exceed 200 sq. ft., on the property at 6327 Lemon St., under Section 202.3.1 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is granted, subject to the following condition: everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application, the drawings filed with the application and submitted to the Board, and the testimony and evidence submitted to the Board.
The application of Jack D. Wissing for a variance to construct a garage to exceed 10 ft. in height, on the property at 6327 Lemon St., under Section 202.5 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is granted, subject to the following condition: everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application, the drawings filed with the application and submitted to the Board, and the testimony and evidence submitted to the Board.
A hearing was held on the variance application of Douglas Hershberger under Section 202.5, Side Yard Setback and Section 201.8, Maximum Lot Coverage.
Al Olah of Rettew Associates Inc. presented this case to the zoning hearing board on behalf of Mr. Hershberger.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:

The application of Douglas Hershberger for a variance of Section 202.5 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is granted, subject to the following condition: everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application, the drawings filed with the application and submitted to the Board, and the testimony and evidence submitted to the Board.

The Board also instructed the solicitor to prepare letters informing all parties of all the decisions made pursuant to section 908(10) of the Municipalities Planning Code.
A stenographer whose transcript contains the names of all citizens who appeared officially and also contains the subject of their testimony recorded all the hearings.
There being no further business to come before the Zoning Hearing Board, the meeting was concluded at 8:45 p.m.

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday June 26, 2002 at 7 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Samuel Maurer, Kathy McClair, alternate member Randy Bucksner and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
The Board accepted into the file the minutes of the May 22,2002 meeting, with the following correction. After hearing the testimony of David Dearholf the Board tabled, not closed the record.
A hearing was held on the variance application of David Dearholf, 1619 Graystone Rd., for a variance of setbacks to construct a garage.
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
The application of David Dearholf for a variance from the setback requirements, Section 401.3 of the East Petersburg Borough Zoning Ordinance is denied.
A hearing was held on the application of Commonwealth Mailing Service, 6155 Main St., for a special exception of Section 502 and Section 503, Nonconformities to extend and reconstruct the rear dock to enable them to eliminate tractor trailers from blocking traffic on Rt. 72.
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
A motion was made by Kathy McClair to approve the special exception application. The motion was not seconded. Then the Chairman Samuel Maurer IV moved to deny the application. This motion was seconded. The vote on this motion to deny was: Samuel Maurer IV, in favor of the motion; Kathy McClair, opposed to the motion. The Chairman declared that the effect of this tie vote was a denial of the application.
The Board also instructed the solicitor to prepare letters informing all parties of all the decisions made pursuant to section 908(10) of the Municipalities Planning Code.
A stenographer whose transcript contains the names of all citizens who appeared officially and also contains the subject of their testimony recorded all the hearings.
There being no further business to come before the Zoning Hearing Board, the meeting was concluded at 8:30 p.m.

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday January 22, 2003 at 7 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Samuel Maurer, Kathy McClair, alternate member Randy Bucksner and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
A hearing was held on the special exception application, Section 504, Substitution of Another Nonconforming use, of Jennie S. Root and Ron Aument regarding the property at 5988 Main St.
Nobody asked to be recognized as a “party”.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
The application of.

The Board also instructed the solicitor to prepare letters informing all parties of all the decisions made pursuant to section 908(10) of the Municipalities Planning Code.

A stenographer whose transcript contains the names of all citizens who appeared officially and also contains the subject of their testimony recorded all the hearings.
There being no further business to come before the Zoning Hearing Board, the meeting was concluded at 8:30 p.m.

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday August 25, 2004 at 7 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Randy Bucksner, Tom Fritz and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
It was moved and seconded (Tom Fritz/Randy Bucksner) to approve the minutes of the July, 2004 Hearing. Unanimous approval
A hearing was held on the special exception application of Douglas Kann, regarding the property at 5037 Martin Drive. Mr. Kann would like to build an accessory building over 200 sq. ft. to be able to store equipment and outdoor furniture in the winter.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
Motion was made and seconded (Randy Bucksner/Tom Fritz) to approve the special exception application of Douglas C. Kann subject to the following condition that everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application and drawings submitted to the board and the testimony in evidence submitted to the board. Unanimous approval
It was moved and seconded (Tom Fritz/Randy Bucksner) to adjourn at 7:29pm. Unanimous approval
EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday November 22, 2004 at 7 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Randy Bucksner, Tom Fritz and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
It was moved and seconded (Tom Fritz/Randy Bucksner) to approve the minutes of the August, 2004 Hearing. Unanimous approval
A hearing was held on the special exception application of Douglas Kann, regarding the property at 5037 Martin Drive. Mr. Kann would like to build an accessory building over 200 sq. ft. to be able to store equipment and outdoor furniture in the winter.
After taking testimony and evidence, the Board closed the record and made the following decision:
Motion was made and seconded (Randy Bucksner/Tom Fritz) to approve the special exception application of Douglas C. Kann subject to the following condition that everything the applicant does pursuant to this decision must be exactly in compliance with the application and drawings submitted to the board and the testimony in evidence submitted to the board. Unanimous approval
It was moved and seconded (Tom Fritz/Randy Bucksner) to adjourn at 7:29pm. Unanimous approval

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday December 22, 2004 at 7:12 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Randy Bucksner, Catherine Donohue, Alternate John Wolf and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
It was moved and seconded (Catherine Donohue/Randy Bucksner) to approve the minutes of the November, 2004 Hearing. Unanimous approval
David Wagenseller: The application to be heard is the application of Rich Ressler Construction for a lot at 1501 Stevens St., East Petersburg. First of all the court reporter who should be here has not appeared and so a tape recorder has been provided, so if anyone would like to object this is the time you need to object to having a tape recorder instead of a court reporter. I hear no objections so the board can continue. I see there are a number of people here so I need to say that the zoning ordinance and state law that governs zoning hearing boards provides that anybody that is affected by an application is entitled to be recognized formally as a party to the proceeding. You don’t have to be a party to give facts to the board; you don’t necessarily have to be a party in order to tell the board what you think they ought to do in their decision. Party status gives you special rights, such as the right to appeal if the decision does not go your way; the right to cross examine witnesses and the right to receive a copy of the decision at the end. If anyone here wishes to be formally recognized as a party I’ll ask you to stand then I’ll ask you to give your name and your address to the zoning hearing board and some a statement about how you are affected by the application. Then the board may examine you on whether by law you are qualified to be a party and the applicant also has the right to cross examine you about your qualifications if you are entitled by law to be a party. Is there anyone here wishing to be formally recognized as a party please stand up. I would. Would you tell the board your name and address? My name is Susan Zeidler, 1610 Stevens Street. How far are you from the lot? I’m right across the street from the lot. At the corner of Stevens Street and Sundra Circle.
Randy Bucksner: What would you like to say?

Zeidler: I would, is that road, are the plans that I see, that’s what we’re talking about tonight. Your proposal that Sundra Drive is going to come over to Sundra Circle?

Bucksner: Yes

Zeidler: And you are going to build nine houses on that lot?

Bucksner: That is the suggested proposal by Rich Ressler Construction, yes.

Wagenseller: At this point, before we’ve heard anything from the applicant, it’s your opportunity to explain to the board how you are affected by the application.

Zeidler: Well, if that goes through, there is going to be a tremendous amount of traffic that will be going right by my house, especially on Tuesdays. People will be coming down Stevens Street at a high rate of speed, cutting across to go to Graystone Road, and a lot of people ride their bikes, ride on that road like I do.

Wagenseller: Would you come up to the table and show the board on this site plan where your house is.

Zeidler: Right there. The railroad tracks are right there, so there is where my house is. So obviously, you can see, right now it is a pretty quiet street, I have children, I have a two year old, I didn’t move into that house to so I can have traffic all the time. If you built those houses there, I wouldn’t like all those houses but, the worse part to me is the road coming over there to my house.

Bucksner: So, for you it’s less about that that plot is going to be developed, the road is more the issue.

Zeidler: Well, nine houses are too much for me, obviously empty land is going to be developed, it’s only a matter of time. But that road is going to be very detrimental, to my property value to.

Bucksner: Thank you

Wagenseller: Generally, anybody who is abutting or adjacent land owner is normally recognized in the law as entitled to be a party. So as Chairman you want to put on the records whether you believe this person ought to be a party or not.

Bucksner: This person is going to be a party.

Bucksner: Anybody else? Yes, sir

My name is George Kiehl; I live at 6280 Sundra Drive.

Bucksner: Ok, can you show us on the map?

Kiehl: Here. I’m concerned about the thoroughfare. I’ve lived here for 40 years, 40 years ago when we first moved in here there were 52 kids on that street. The streets are playground, on Tuesday night we got Roots sale; it will be like a speedway going through there. I went to the Borough about 38/39 years ago and got a “dead end” sign for the street. Now, all the kids are grown and we are getting kids back on the street. And a lot of kids play on the streets. Another issue I have is I have a ½ acre of ground with a house on it, and here is 3/12 acres with nine houses on it. That’s a bunch of baloney to me. And then the other thing I’m concerned about is did anybody say anything about runoff on here.

Wagenseller: Well, that isn’t for the zoning hearing board, that would be an issue for the Borough at the land development stage. What the applicant came for is to ask for permission to have narrow entrances on a couple of lots. I’ll assume the applicant will speak up incase you want to cross examine anyone who wants to be a party.

Kiehl: Because what I’m concerned about is runoff here, down here this property, the third property, storm surge runs through here, under the railroad tracks. And all the water from this development goes down through there.

Wagenseller: That is an issue that will be considered at an additional, later proceeding.

Bucksner: Mr. Kiehl, your issue then is with the traffic and the runoff more so then the actual development.

Kiehl: Well, I don’t like the plan with all the houses there and I don’t like the thoroughfare. What I said, we’re going to have traffic come down there and Root’s night they come down there and that first street on the other side of the railroad tracks they make a right hand turn thinking they are going to run parallel with 72, their going to come down there across, where are they going to go, it’s going to be, it’s chaos.

Bucksner: Thank you for your testimony.

Wagenseller: It’s up to your judgment if you want to qualify them as party.

Bucksner: Party

Wagenseller: Ok

Bucksner: Anybody else?

Emily Lantz

Wagenseller: What’s your first name again?

Lantz: Emily

Wagenseller: And your home address?

Lantz: 6198 Sundra Circle. I am concerned about the traffic but another concern I have our house is sitting on a ??? rock that runs right across there to Binkley & Ober, they fixed the end of our house twice, if you blast in that field there is going to be a lot of houses damaged. I think that nine houses in that small property is way too many unless they are going stick low income housing in there.

Bucksner: So you’re not totally opposed to the land being developed just to the plan as it is now.

Lantz: Right – the nine houses and really concerned about blasting. Because Binkley & Ober has already paid to fix our house twice.

Bucksner: ok, also a party to this hearing. Anybody else?

McElwain: My name is Connie McElwain I live at 6370 Sundra Drive. My concern is basically it has always been a dead end street and I can’t understand why it can’t stay the way it has always been and make a cul-de-sac.

Bucksner: So it isn’t that you are against the development, just specifically about that.

McElwain: Right

Bucksner: Very good. Anybody else want to be a party to this, any more neighbors? Mr. Ressler, do you want to say anything? Is that your attorney?

Unknown: I’m not an attorney, I’m a landscape architect.

Wagenseller: Because there is a tape recording, anybody who says anything must say their name first before you speak.

Unknown: I’m Carol Earhart and I am representing Diehm & Sons. Who are representing Mr. Ressler. I brought a drawling, it’s the exact same format only in color.

Wagenseller: Could you explain to the board which lot

Earhart: First off, I was going to ask do you want to mark all the exhibits first or as I present them?

Wagenseller: As you identify them please.

Earhart: ok, let me just go through and get you oriented, this property is about 3 and ¼ acres, it is in the R-1 district that permits 10,000 square foot lots which is typical of those lots which are surrounding it in size. The development itself is permitted by zoning and what we are here for is lots number 6 and 7 which are behind the main house. Lots 6 & 7 have only a narrow frontage on the proposed street and they are shaped what they usually call them are flag lots, the narrow long ??? going into that lot is considered a pole and then the property that supports the house is considered the flag. In both of these cases the flag without the pole exceeds 10,000 square feet. Lot number 6 shown at 16,927 square feet without the flagpole still has 13,848 square feet and lot number 7 shown at 12,765 excluding the flagpole has 11, 471 square feet. So they do not rely on the area that is within the flagpole to be compliant with the zoning ordinance. Lot number 3 in the corner here, you’ll see has lot frontage of the required depth of 80 feet on Stevens Street, having met with