IN THE MATTER OF THE

1. The Applicant/Owner is Eric Krell of 7516 Manor Drive, Harrisburg, West Hanover Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17112.

2. The tax parcel number for the subject property is 68-024-195.

3. The subject property consists of a vacant lot which is adjacent to tax parcel 68-024-196 which is also owned by Applicant/Owner on which he has constructed his residential dwelling.

4. The subject parcel is located in the Suburban Residential (R3) zoning district.

5. Applicant has owned the property since 1980.

6. Applicant is the owner of H&K Distributors, Inc., a distributor of potable water.

7. Applicant has been operating his business out of his home since 1982.

8. Applicant’s water delivery business is seasonal and his primary customers are swimming pool contractors.

9. Applicant has seven trucks which are used to deliver water which he parks in a rented area in Lower Paxton Township.

10. Applicant’s business involves the transportation of water within a 65 mile radius of his home and includes municipal as well as private customers.

11. Applicant has served customers in the West Hanover and East Hanover Township area from the inception of his business being run from his home in 1982.

12. Applicant purchases water from public water suppliers and has 27 filling points which are used depending upon the geographic location of the customer to whom water will be delivered.

13. In June of 2001 Applicant installed an underground meter pit and the standpipe with four railroad tie bollards at the corners to protect the standpipe from motor vehicles.

14. The standpipe is connected to a 16 inch water main of Pennsylvania American Water Company from which he purchases the water.

15. The only improvement to the area around the standpipe and bollards is a stone pull- off/parking area which Applicant installed in or around June 2001.

16. Applicant testified that he operates his trucks at the Manor Drive location only during the daylight hours and only six days per week.

17. Applicant testified that the tankers used in his business haul 6,000 gallons of water.

18. Applicant estimated that during the month of July 2001 he hauled 1,400,000 gallons of water from his filling point on Manor Drive.

19. Dividing the total number of gallons hauled from the Manor Drive filling point in July of 2001 by 6,000 gallons per tanker means that 54 tanker loads of water are hauled from the Manor Drive filling station per week.

20. Applicant testified that his primary source of water is in Harrisburg from which he transports 6 to 8 million gallons of water per month.

21. Applicant testified that the eyesore or detriment of the standpipe is very minor and no one complains.

22. Applicant testified that he installed the standpipe at the Manor Drive location to expedite delivery time and to keep the price of delivered water lower.

23. Admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 1 were photographs taken by the Codes Enforcement Officer on June 6, 2001.

24. Entered into evidence as Exhibit No. 2 was a copy of the Application for a driveway permit submitted by Applicant, which did not show the filling station/standpipe.

25. Admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 3 were the July 5, 2001 notes of the interim Codes Enforcement Officer’s conversation with Applicant regarding the details of his business conducted from his home.

26. Admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 4 was a July 12, 2001 letter from Applicant explaining his business and its history, setting forth the fact that only one employee other than the resident of the household was involved in the business and that independent contractors haul the water.

27. Admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 5 was a copy of the August 2, 2001 zoning violation letter which was sent by Certified Mail and received by Applicant on August 9, 2001.

28. The Application for variance was filed on September 19, 2001, more than 30 days after Applicant received the zoning violation notice.

29. Before adding the standpipe/filling station to his property, Applicant’s conduct of his business as a home occupation was in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

30. Applicant agreed to amend his application for a variance to specifically request a variance from the following sections: 195-99.A.(2)(a); 195-99.A.(2)(e); and 195-99.A.(2)(g).

31. Applicant also agreed that if the Board were to grant to approve a variance from the foregoing standards for a home occupation that he would agree the variance be limited to a period of three years.

32. On Applicant’s application for a variance he indicated that there are no unique physical circumstances or conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property.

33. Applicant’s application for a variance indicated that there are no physical circumstances which preclude use of the property in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

34. The Applicant’s application for a variance stated that there is no unnecessary hardship.

35. When asked to articulate the hardship, Applicant was unable to identify any hardship which precluded use of his property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance.

36. Notice of the public hearing held on October 11, 2001 was properly advertised, notice was posted at the Municipal Building, the property was properly posted and all adjoining property owners were notified by certified mail.

37.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Section 195-99.A.(2)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the home occupation must be conducted solely within the dwelling unit of the individual engaged in the particular home occupation.

2. Applicant’s addition of the filling station/standpipe to his property represents an exterior component of the home occupation contrary to the provisions of Section 195-99.A.(2)(a).

3. Section 195-99.A.(2)(e) prohibits the use of any vehicle used exclusively in the conduct of the home occupation.

4. Applicant uses seven tanker trucks which are parked in a rented area in Lower Paxton Township in the delivery of water from his property on Manor Drive and from other filling point locations throughout the area, which vehicles are used exclusively in the conduct of the home occupation.

5. Section 195-99.A.(2)(g) requires that there shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation or variation of the residential character of the dwelling, except for a sign.

6. The water filling station/standpipe is an exterior component of the home occupation and is at variance from the residential character of the dwelling.

7. Section 195-199.A. of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code allow the Zoning Hearing Board to act upon the requests for variances and to grant such requests under certain conditions of hardship and may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the Ordinance.

8. Section 195-199.A. of the Zoning Ordinance provides that a variance may be granted if there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the neighborhood or District in which the property is located.

9. There are no unique physical circumstances or conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the Applicant’s property which constitute an unnecessary hardship.

10. Applicant was unable to articulate any such unique physical circumstances or conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to his property in his Application for a variance and was unable to identify any during his testimony at the hearing.

11. Section 195-199. of the Zoning Ordinance provides that a variance can be given only if because of such physical circumstances or conditions there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

12. Applicant’s property is already developed with a single-family dwelling in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and in which, prior to June 2001, he had been operating a lawful home occupation.

13. Therefore, a variance is not necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.

14. Accordingly, there was no articulated physical circumstance or condition or exceptional topographical or other physical condition peculiar to the particular property which constituted a hardship necessary to justify the grant of a variance.

15. If Applicant’s position is that installation of the water filling station/standpipe at his property was necessary to expedite delivery of water and to keep the price down, at best he would be arguing the existence of a financial hardship, which is not a legal hardship countenanced by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.

16. With regard to any possible hardship, Applicant has demonstrated nothing more than the Zoning Ordinance itself creating the inability for him to do what he desires with the subject property.

17. Applicant has not satisfied his burden of proof in establishing an “unnecessary hardship” by attempting to place special-sounding personalized characterizations on what is, in essence, a general problem caused by the restrictions of the Ordinance itself with regard to home occupations.

18. There was no testimony or other evidence that the property could not be developed and used in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. To the contrary, as stated above, the property is improved with a single-family dwelling and may be used to conduct a home occupation so long as it is done in conformance with Section 195-99 of the Zoning Ordinance.

DECISION

In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in view of the evidence and testimony presented to the Zoning Hearing Board, it is the decision of the Board that the requested variance be and is hereby DENIED for the reason that Applicant did not demonstrate unique physical circumstances or conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical circumstances peculiar to his property and did not demonstrate an unnecessary hardship resulting from any such unique physical circumstances or conditions of the land itself and did not establish that because of such physical circumstances or conditions there is no possibility the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

DATE: WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD

Brian F. Jacobeen

Ruth C. Shields