Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council to appeal variance for 516 North Church Street; developer’s lawyer defends board decision
Summary
Neighbors told council the 516 North Church Street variance did not meet legal hardship standards and increases building coverage by roughly 500 sq ft; the applicant’s attorney said the zoning hearing board found the variance dimininimous and warned council against spending taxpayer funds to oppose neighbors, while discussions continued about whether the applicant might forgo an ADU to reduce coverage.
Kimberly Love, speaking for nearby residents on the 500 block of North Darlington Street, asked the Borough Council to appeal a March zoning hearing board decision that approved a variance allowing a larger garage footprint at 516 North Church Street. “The applicant has not demonstrated the type of hardship legally required for zoning relief,” Love said, and added that the requested 800‑square‑foot footprint exceeds the normal two‑car garage size and increases building coverage by about 4.13 percentage points (roughly 500 square feet over the permitted coverage).
Brian Nagel, attorney for the property owner, told council the project complies with borough stormwater and impervious‑coverage rules and that the zoning hearing board found the applicant met the legal standard for relief in a 2–1 decision. “We presented the case to the zoning hearing board,” Nagel said. “They approved the variance. If neighbors want to appeal, they are free to do so.” He argued it would be inappropriate for council to expend taxpayer funds to take a neighbor‑versus‑neighbor case unless the council believes the board erred.
Council members asked whether eliminating an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) would reduce the relief needed for building coverage; Nagel said his client was considering removing the ADU to address neighborhood concerns and that doing so might reduce the amount of varianced relief required but likely would not eliminate the need for some variance. Aaron Fluke, director of building and housing, provided measurements and said a typical two‑car garage ranges from 20x20 to 24x24 feet; he did not confirm the exact plans for the 516 project but noted the dimensions given in the hearing were roughly 38x26.
Council discussed the policy question of whether to involve the solicitor to challenge the zoning hearing board decision. The mayor and several council members said they wanted legal advice and further discussion in executive session before deciding whether to file an appeal; neighbors were advised they have 30 days to file their own appeal. No formal vote was recorded at the working session; council scheduled further discussion at the next meeting and asked the solicitor to prepare legal options and costs.
The dispute centers on the five‑part legal test for dimensional variances, neighbor outreach and the practical effect of the increased footprint on an alley‑facing neighborhood. Council members repeatedly emphasized interest in upholding the zoning ordinance while noting variances exist for particular circumstances.
