|
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MOSE’S LANDSCAPE DESIGN & MAINTENANCE, INC. |
: |
WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 2004.01 |
DECISION GRANTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE
Applicant has requested a special exception in order to expand an existing nonconforming use in the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zoning district on the property located at 105 Piketown Road.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is Mose’s Landscape Design & Maintenance, Inc., with a business address of 105 Piketown Road, Harrisburg, West Hanover Township, Dauphin County Pennsylvania 17112.
1. The property on which Applicant operates its landscape design and maintenance business is owned by George Mosey, the father of Steven A. Mosey, CEO of the applicant corporation.
2. The tax parcel number for the subject property is 68-028-093.
3. The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Piketown Road and Interstate 81.
4. The subject property is being used for a lawful nonconforming use as a landscaping business.
5. The property has a history of being used for commercial purposes, such as plumbing and oil delivery, although it is in the residential district.
6. Applicant has been conducting its business on the subject property since 1996 and obtained a certificate of nonconforming use.
7. In approximately 1999 a home was built on the property immediately adjacent to the northern line of the subject property.
8. Applicant filed the application for special exception in order to use two greenhouses on the property for temporary plant storage and to utilize the rear (northeastern corner) of the subject property for temporary storage of landscape materials and to use the area along the front corner of the property (the southeastern portion of the property) for temporary parking of equipment and overflow parking.
9. In the Fall of 2003 Applicant installed a raised berm buffer and planted trees along the property line between his property and the property to the north owned by Shullers.
10. Shullers were present at the first hearing and expressed opposition to some of the work which Applicant had performed on his property which allegedly caused harm to theirs in the form of erosion caused by water runoff.
11. The Shullers main objection was not to the business itself, but the lack of a buffer area between their property and the Applicant’s nonconforming use.
12. Neither Applicant nor Shuller was able to produce any plan which specifically located the berm and trees which have been planted by Applicant with respect to the property line.
13. In addition to expansion of the use of the lot, Applicant also has tentative plans to add an extension to the existing 40 by 60 building, the area of which is currently a gravel surface.
14. The Zoning Ordinance permits the expansion of the building by 25 percent, which would be 600 square feet for the proposed building addition.
15. Applicant was agreeable to the suggestion that he plant more trees along the property line between his property and that of the Shullers.
16. The only identified objection or impediment to the proposed expansion of the nonconforming use related to the buffer and screening between the subject property and that of the Shullers to the North.
17. Section 195-122.C.(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot buffer and level screening between the subject property.
18. Neither Applicant nor Shullers were insistent upon level three screening.
19. The initial hearing on the application for special exception was held on February 12, 2004.
20. At that hearing, after receipt of testimony from the Applicant and Shullers, the parties agreed and the Board acting in accordance with their joint request tabled the matter to give the parties an opportunity to definitively mark the property line and to discuss arrangements for an acceptable buffer and screening between the properties.
21. The hearing was reconvened on March 11, 2004.
22. At the hearing on March 11, 2004, Applicant testified that he and the Shullers had agreed upon a buffer and screening plan as depicted on the site plan submitted by Applicant which was admitted into evidence.
23. The site plan admitted into evidence on March 11, 2004 added trees and other screening materials on Applicant’s side of the property line and, at the request of Shullers, Applicant agreed to plant additional screening materials on Shullers’ side of the property line to create a visual screening between their house and garage and Applicant’s property.
24. Mrs. Shuller was present at the hearing on March 11, 2004 and confirmed that she and her husband and the Applicant have agreed upon the buffer and screening as depicted on the plans submitted by Applicant.
Conclusions of Law
1. Section 195-154.H.(1) permits the expansion of land or buildings devoted to a nonresidential use not permitted in the district in which the property is located so long as it expands not more than once by 25 percent of the existing lot area for the nonconforming use of land or 25 percent of the floor area of the building for a nonconforming use of a building.
2. Pursuant to Section 195-154.H.(1), the special exception is authorized to be issued by the Zoning Hearing Board upon its findings which are hereby made, that:
A. The proposed expansion will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the district.
B. The proposed expansion will not exceed 25 percent of the floor area of the building or the lot area.
C. The expansion will not cause a depression of the value of other property and uses permitted in the district.
D. The proposed expansion will be able to adequately handle increases in traffic and safely ingress and egress.
E. The proposed expansion will not adversely affect the privacy of persons residing in the immediate vicinity.
F. The proposed expansion will not reduce parking incidental to the nonconforming use.
G. The proposed expansion will not increase the hazard in the area of fire, offensive noise, smoke, dust, debris, or other objectionable influences.
3. In addition, Section 195-200.C. of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Hearing Board can grant a special exception only if it finds from a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed use is in harmony with the orderly and appropriate development of the district; there is adequate water supply, sewage disposal, storm drainage, and fire and police protection; the use of adjacent land and buildings will not be discouraged and the value of adjacent land and buildings will not be impaired by the location, nature and height of buildings, walls and fences; and the use will have proper location with respect to existing or future streets and will not create congestion or cause nonresidential traffic on local residential streets.
4. The Zoning Hearing Board specifically finds that the evidence produced at the hearing satisfied not only the specific criteria set forth in Section 195-154.H.(1), but also the general conditions required for granting special exceptions under Section 195-200.C. of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Applicant agreed that is a condition to the grant of the special exception to install the buffer and screening as depicted on the plans submitted at the hearing on March 11, 2004.
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 special exception to expand the nonconforming use of land as depicted on the plans submitted on March 11, 2004 be and is hereby GRANTED and further that the 40 by 60 building present on the subject property be permitted to be expanded once by not more than 600 square feet. The grant of the special exception is expressly conditioned upon Applicant installing a buffer and screening as specifically depicted on the plan submitted at the March 11, 2004 hearing, which is incorporated herein by reference thereto.
Date: WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP
ZONING HEARING BOARD
Linda L. Turns, Chairperson
George O. Kline
393774v1
Beth Carricato