MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE ZONING HEARING BOARD JULY 6, 2016 MINUTES. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Robert Stevenson.

Transcription

1 ZONING HEARING BOARD JULY 6, 2016 MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Robert Stevenson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence observed. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary, Sharon McIndoe, called roll and the following were present: Robert Stevenson, Richard Tieren, James Rosipal, Bruce Dice and Jason Straley. Mr. Caliari was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 1, 2016, a motion was duly made by Mr. Tieren to approve them, as submitted, and Mr. Rosipal seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS A MONTREAL NEON SIGNS, INCORPORATED The applicant is requesting a variance from Section (b) and (c) of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, to install two wall signs that will exceed 225 square feet and be placed greater than 100 feet apart. The property is located at 3936 Monroeville Boulevard in the C-2, Business/Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Ed Wieland came forward representing the applicant. He explained the request is for bigger signs on the hotel. Mr. Stevenson inquired how much over the allotted signage they were requesting and Mr. Wieland answered 87 square feet. Mr. Stevenson questioned whether that was for two wall signs and Mr. Wieland answered affirmatively. He added one would be on the front and one on the side.

2 Regular Meeting 2 July 7, 2016 There being no further discussion, Mr. Rosipal duly made a motion to approve Application No A and Mr. Tieren seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously A ROBERT KACH The applicant is requesting a special exception from Section 304 of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, to operate a home occupation of a pet sitting business. The property is located at 277 Loretta Drive in the R-2, Single Family Residential Zoning District. The applicant requested tabling until August 3, 2016 and waived all time limits A The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 804.B(1)(c)1) of the Monroeville Floodplain Ordinance No. 2618, to construct a parking lot in the Zone A Floodplain. The property is located on Saunders Station Road near the bridge crossing of Turtle Creek in the S, Conservancy Zoning District A The applicant is requesting a variance from Section of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, to permit a gravel parking lot instead of asphalt for the proposed Turtle Creek Rail Trail. The property is located on Saunders Station Road near the bridge crossing of Turtle Creek in the S, Conservancy Zoning District A The applicant is requesting a variance from Section of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended to eliminate the requirement of line striping of parking spaces. The property is located on Saunders Station Road near the bridge crossing of Turtle Creek in the S, Conservancy Zoning District A The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 306.5(d) of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, to eliminate the requirement of site lighting for parking lots. The property is located on Saunders Station Road near the bridge crossing of Turtle Creek in the S, Conservancy Zoning District.

3 Regular Meeting 3 July 7, 2016 Mr. Paul Estock from the Monroeville Parks and Recreation Department came forward with Mr. Jeff Richards from the Westmoreland County Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Richards explained he has been working with Monroeville on developing a bike path and this is Phase 3 which will run from Trafford to the Duck Park in Murrysville. He anticipated the construction of that trail will begin in the Spring He pointed out the proposed location for this application on Saunders Station Road. He explained they are proposing to improve an existing informal parking area that is used by fishermen and trail users. He added they are proposing to enlarge the parking area and develop it for trail use and general recreational access to the area along Turtle Creek. Mr. Stevenson questioned whether the area currently being used for parking is not a parking lot and Mr. Estock answered it has created its own parking lot. Mr. Stevenson asserted it has not been designated formally as a parking lot and it is just an area where people park when they want to fish and Mr. Estock agreed. Mr. Richards pointed out the dark blue area on the exhibit is Turtle Creek and explained the flood plain in that area shows on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps. He indicated it classifies that location along Turtle Creek as a Zone A which means they have not designated a specific elevation as the design elevation demarking the 100-year flood. He stated in a Zone A the guidance given from the flood insurance rate map is that 50 feet back from the top bank of the creek is considered the flood way which is in the baby blue color on both sides of the creek. He pointed out beyond the flood way is the flood way fringe which both comprise the flood plain. He further explained the flood area way is the channel along Turtle Creek that conveys the storm water associated with the 100-year flood event. He indicated the fringe during a 100-year storm event has additional flood that could occur but the fringe is an area that encroachment into the flood is allowed because the amount of the encroachment could displace flood storage capacity that is less than a foot in terms of elevating the flood condition. He stated in this case for the improvements to this informal nondesignated parking lot, the drainage area is so huge and they do not anticipate the water to go up more the thickness of a dime in terms of the impact to the amount of fill that would be brought in to constructing the parking lot improvements. He indicated it is an allowable encroachment into the flood way fringe according to the guidelines of the flood insurance rate FEMA. He requested approval to do that as a matter of process according to the ordinance and seeking approval is the first step. Mr. Straley requested he point out the existing proposed undefined parking area and he questioned whether it is the same one as on the drawing. Mr. Richards explained Exhibit 1 is the FEMA Zone A Flood Plain Exhibit and Exhibit 2 is an aerial photograph of the site. He briefly explained the site on Exhibit 2 and pointed out the proposed informal parking area. He stated the current area can fit approximately 20 cars and the proposed configuration would accommodate 34 cars. Ms. Jenna Ramito a resident that lives behind the trail came forward to inquire whether there would be signage indicating that the parking area would close at dusk. She

4 Regular Meeting 4 July 7, 2016 explained currently it is packed with kids drinking and smoking pot. She reported there was a fire on March 27. Mr. Richards answered affirmatively that there would be signage stating it will be a dawn to dusk facility. Ms. Ramito inquired whether the police will patrol the area and Mr. Richards answered it would be determined by each of the participating municipalities on how often it will be patrolled. He added they are working with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and there has been an officer walk the trail to issue violations. Mr. Rosipal added the police do patrol that area. Ms. Ramito asserted the residents do not mind it during the day but at night it is out of control. She explained currently it is filled and it is not an issue because no one can climb off the trail but in the winter they can climb through. She also mentioned how there was a fire in March and there were 15 different fire companies that had to gain access to put the fire out and they gained access through all three of her properties. Further discussion ensued regarding the property. Whereupon, Mr. Tieren duly made a motion to deny Application No A and Mr. Stevenson seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Richards questioned why it was denied and Mr. Stevenson explained the board did not believe that a flood plain is an area where there should be any activity. He indicated he has seen how 18 inches of rain in 24 hours can destroy an area. Mr. Richards inquired whether it could be approved because the engineers have proven that it is very unlikely to occur in this location. Mr. Stevenson felt a heavy rainfall could happen anywhere. Mr. Dice explained the other application becomes moot with the denial of the variance which is required under the flood plain ordinance that is a section of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Stevenson indicated Application Nos A, A and A become moot with the denial of Application No A. Mr. Estock inquired whether there are any other options and Mr. Stevenson answered they could go to district court to appeal the decision. Mr. Richards inquired whether there are a statutory number of days to make the appeal and Mr. Dice answered 30 days. He explained notice of the denial and the reason set forth will be within 30 days and they have a right to appeal A GEORGE A. MUZAR The applicant is requesting a variance from Table 201 A, Minimum Side Yard and Front Yard, of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, allowing for a trailer to be incorporated as an addition to the dwelling to encroach five feet into the required 15-foot side yard setback and ten feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback. The property is located at 420 Patton Street in the S, Conservancy Zoning District.

5 Regular Meeting 5 July 7, 2016 Mr. James Bogatay, attorney from DeRiso, DeRiso and Suher, came forward representing the applicant. He distributed information to the board. He explained these are not the optimal circumstances to review this type of decision because the standard would be not to have the improvements already in place before requests are made for the variances. He noted this is not an outright disregard for the ordinances or lack of concern for the community or the general aesthetic of the neighborhood. He explained how Mr. Muzar s family has resided on this part of Patton Street for generations and he takes pride in his property. He asserted it is one of the nicer houses on the street and Mr. Stevenson pointed out this was all done without permits. Mr. Bogatay inquired whether he could address the two issues of the fence and the side and front variances together. Mr. Stevenson requested they be presented separately. Mr. Bogatay referred to the front and side yard variance. He explained Exhibit 2 is a photograph of the property to the right of Mr. Mazur s which was taken prior to any improvements or additions being made. He pointed out the proximity of the structure on the right to the Mazar s property line which explained the deviation in the plot plan in the application. He stated that structure encroaches on his property even before the side yard setbacks. He explained how the adjacent property is decrepit, broken down with missing windows and abandoned but the applicant is maintaining his own property. Mr. Bogatay explained the applicant did not just throw these structures up because he had disregard for the process and procedure. He reported the applicant contacted the zoning office and there was some miscommunication. He stated immediately upon receipt of the violation notices and realizing the miscommunication, the applicant contact him for representation. He further apologized for any further miscommunication. Mr. Bogatay then referred to Exhibit 6 and explained the variances for the side and front yard will not result in any kind of eyesore or functional incapacity with any of the neighboring properties. He explained Exhibit 6 is a photograph reflecting the properties directly across the street from the applicant. He pointed out how they are located very close together and there is almost no front yard setback which is noncompliant even though they are located in Wilmerding. Mr. Bogatay explained Exhibit No. 1 is an overview of the zoning district from an aerial shot. He also referred to Exhibit Nos. 7 & 8 which reflects properties close to the applicant that are noncompliant. He felt the request is not out of place and the applicant is asking for a five foot variance on the side and a ten foot variance in the front yard. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Bogatay further explained exhibits of properties that are within a half mile radius of the applicant s property. He mentioned Exhibit 8 which shows property without adequate side yards. Mr. Stevenson pointed out the board deals with each case on its own merit. Again, Mr. Bogatay indicated the applicant is not asking to completely alter the character of the community or the immediate neighborhood and there are a lot of properties within the proximity of the applicant s property of a similar nature. He stated

6 Regular Meeting 6 July 7, 2016 Exhibit 9 shows the back of the properties in Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 10 and 11 are photographs the Shaw Avenue properties which have no front yards. He stated Exhibit No. 15 is up and behind the property and pointed out they are not requesting anything out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. He mentioned the front and side yard setbacks and requested the boards consideration in the fact that they did not want a miscommunication to result in a $12-14 thousand investment being removed or fines and fees. He again reported the applicant contacted the municipal offices and the communication was not good. Mr. Mark Ciufo, a resident of Patton Street, came forward to express his concerns. Mr. Ciufo pointed out that none of the exhibits presented but one shows a single-family structure with a trailer incorporated on the side as excess living area. He stated the exhibits shown were all variations on nonconforming to the front and side yard areas. Mr. Bogatay agreed and indicated that is what the variance submitted is regarding. Mr. Ciufo pointed out some of the homes in the exhibits shown are 80 or 90 years old and are existing nonconforming because the municipality adopted their first ordinance in 1920 and Mr. Bogatay agreed. He explained they are not trying to say that the adoption of those variances back 80 years ago have any precedent as to whether or not this variance should move forward. He stated most of the ordinances are in place to protect the property values and the aesthetic value of Monroeville and their request regarding the setbacks is not out of line with the other variances and setbacks in the area. He suggested it speaks to the general character of the properties and the aesthetic value of it rather than it having any precedent in this proceeding. Mr. Ciufo mentioned there was miscommunication between the municipality and the applicant and inquired whether the applicant would have placed the trailer on the property if given the proper information by the administration. Mr. Bogatay suggested that is a hypothetical question and he indicated he would not want to get into the miscommunication because of its nature. He felt the applicant would do the right thing if the proper information was communicated. Mr. Ciufo inquired whether there were any zoning permits issued for the fence or existing trailer and Mr. Stevenson indicated that was clarified and no permits were issued. Mr. Ciufo questioned whether the trailer was inspected by the building official and received any type of occupancy permit. Mr. Bogatay was uncertain. Mr. Stevenson indicated that has nothing to do with the variance and this is dealing only with the setbacks. Mr. Ciufo pointed out the legal notification indicates the trailer will be incorporated as an addition to the structure. Mr. Bogatay clarified the applicant acknowledged that the steps were out of order in the process and the process has stopped. He pointed out there is no attached corridor and the structure has not be incorporated to it as part of the home yet. He reported as soon as the applicant received violations of the ordinances, legal counsel was obtained and the issue was brought to the board. He indicated the applicant is trying to get the first steps approved before additional steps are taken out of place. Mr. Ciufo inquired whether a survey was available showing the contours of the elevations of the property and Mr. Stevenson answered negatively. Mr. Ciufo questioned whether a property survey was submitted with the application and Mr. Straley indicated whatever was submitted with the

7 Regular Meeting 7 July 7, 2016 application. Mr. Ciufo inquired whether he could review it and Mr. Bogatay indicated it was a plat map. Mr. Ciufo explained a steep slope exists behind the Mazur Property and the property is rectangular. He pointed out as required by the zoning ordinance, the square footage of a slope over 40 percent must be deducted from the square footage of the property. He questioned whether this is in compliance with the maximum floor area ratio and the minimum lot area requirements once the existing residential structure and the additional square feet are added together. Mr. Bogatay felt those issues are out of turn for this proceeding and suggested that is a future step within the permitting process for the trailer and the addition. Mr. Cuifo asserted it would fall under the zoning ordinance not the building code. He explained that it may require another variance because it may exceed the maximum permitted floor area and lot area requirements. Mr. Cuifo suggested trailer is a loose term and inquired whether it could be classified as manufactured housing. Mr. Bogatay answered the items before the board are the setbacks and the fence. Mr. Stevenson suggested the applicant stay on the issues requested in the letter. Mr. Ciufo read a statement and felt if it had been handled properly administratively the board should not consider this application after the fact. He advised the board to proceed cautiously with Application No A. He recommended if a variance application is approved by the board that instruction by the board members be incorporated to the building department and the department of engineering and community development that this is not the proper procedure for handling variance application after the applicant installed the public improvement. He suggested if Application No A is denied the remaining variance for A should be denied and the fence reinstalled in compliance with Section 210 of Ordinance No. 1443, as amended. Mr. Stevenson explained this board considers what is submitted to them in the appropriate amount of time and legalization per ordinances. Mr. Rosipal agreed that some of the surrounding structures are 80 to 90 years old and built when it was Patton Township. He mentioned how none of the structures have a fence blocking the road or view. He felt regarding the aesthetics of the homes, he stated the homes shown are occupied and they may be aesthetic to the residents because that is what they can afford. He added they are not building fencing to hide their homes. He disagreed with the photographs. Mr. Bogatay indicated he wanted to discuss the aesthetic nature of the fence and the variances together because he felt those things go hand in hand. He stated he has other photographs that show other properties with similar fences that have similar issues. He inquired whether he should discuss the fence and Mr. Stevenson answered negatively. Mr. Stevenson inquired whether there is a hardship and Mr. Bogatay answered it would be that if this is denied the applicant would have to remove the structures or be in permanent violation of the ordinance. He stated the attachment to the home cost $10-12 thousand and the replacement of the fence a few more hundred. He asserted there was a

8 Regular Meeting 8 July 7, 2016 substantial investment made with good faith and the applicant is trying to rectify the miscommunication with the office. He again stated if the request is denied there would be a substantial hardship. Mr. Dice clarified that it would be an economical hardship and Mr. Bogatay concurred. Mr. Dice questioned whether there is any topographical hardship and inquired whether the property the trailer is located is flat and Mr. Bogatay answered affirmatively. Mr. Dice questioned the width of the property without the trailer and Mr. Bogatay answered from the home to the property line is 25 feet without the trailer. Mr. Dice clarified the trailer now encroaches into the property line and Mr. Bogatay agreed. He added it is in the allotted side yard and front yard. He recognized the issue of taking the proper steps out of order. He mentioned the request is for ten feet in the front yard and five feet on the side yard. He stated this request is for a minimum variance to make it work. Mr. Dice questioned the percentage of the variance for the side yard and Mr. Stevenson answered it is 33.3 percent. Mr. Stevenson inquired about the front yard set back and Mr. Straley explained the required front yard setback is 30 feet. He added the applicant is requesting 10 feet so is it 33.3 percent. Whereupon, Mr. Tieren duly made a motion to deny Application No A and Mr. Rosipal seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously A GEORGE A. MUZAR The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 210 of the Monroeville Zoning Ordinance No. 1443, as amended, to permit a six-foot fence less than 50 percent open in construction with the required front yard area. The property is located at 420 Patton Street in the S, Conservancy Zoning District. Mr. James Bogatay explained this application is in the same nature as the previous application. He referred to Exhibit No. 2 which reflects an image of the home before the improvements. He explained the fence is considered a side yard fence even though it faces the front yard. He reported the applicant previously had a six-foot privacy fence adjacent to his garage shown in Exhibit No. 5. He asserted the applicant replaced that fence with an identical one but it is ten feet further out. He suggested it preserves the aesthetic quality of having the attachment there because of the closed front and the sixfoot height. He stated it made sense with what was previously located there but also with the aesthetics of the addition. He explained the applicant replaced the existing and did not think it was noncompliance. He felt that size fence made sense for that attachment and addition. He showed there are other homes that had other fences fronting the properties that had six-foot privacy fences. He mentioned the side yard fence is actually a front yard fence. He stated the six-foot side yard privacy fence extends into the front yard and it is greater than four feet high and does not have the 50 percent construction. He reviewed other properties in the area with similar fences. He pointed out the homes in the area are older and the fence is not deviating from the characteristics of the other properties. He stated the request is to allow the applicant to keep his fence.

9 Regular Meeting 9 July 7, 2016 Mr. Stevenson again explained the board considers each individual variance on its own merit. He stated the board also hears items when the code enforcement finds thing that are in violation. Mr. Ciufo requested language be added if this is approved stating the amount of encroachment into the front yard area. He pointed out it reads, to permit a six-foot high fence of less than 50 percent in construction within the required front yard. He stated it does not mention how much it encroaches. He suggested it could say, as attached on the survey. He felt the language is too vague and if the variance is granted the applicant could move the fence all the way out. Mr. Ciufo mentioned there is a receiver on the front of the trailer and he questioned whether the encroachment is as a result of that frame supporting the trailer and Mr. Bogatay answered negatively. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Ciufo questioned how far the six-foot high fence extends from the side of the structure out to the side yard and Mr. Straley answered it is not provided. There being no further discussion, Mr. Tieren duly made a motion to deny Application No A and Mr. Rosipal seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the zoning hearing board, at this time, a motion was duly made by Mr. Tieren to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m. and Mr. Rosipal seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, RS/sam Robert Stevenson Chairman