Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marple board denies interpretation for Greenbank Farm open-space certification
Summary
The Marple Zoning Hearing Board rejected a request from the Suthop trustees to treat a 49.1997-acre tract as a de minimis deviation from a 50-acre open-space requirement and denied related variance requests, voting to reject the applicants’ proposed interpretation.
The Marple Township Zoning Hearing Board voted to deny a requested interpretation and accompanying variances for parcels identified as the Greenbank Farm tract, concluding the property did not meet the locality’s open-space contiguous-acreage requirements.
The applicants, recorded in the hearing as the trustees Stephen Suthop and Dolores C. Suthop, asked the board to interpret section 300‑3(1) of the township code and, alternatively, to grant variances from sections 300‑33(c) and 300‑33(i)(1) that would recognize a 49.1997‑acre tract as a de minimis variation from the 50‑acre threshold and allow a separate 4‑acre parcel to count toward PRD open‑space requirements. The chair read the parcel numbers into the record during the case introduction.
Board deliberation focused on the statutory and ordinance requirement that qualifying open space be contiguous. One board member summarized the board’s reading of the law: “It has to be contiguous,” and the point was repeated during discussion as the basis for denying the applicants’ requested interpretation and variances. A motion to deny the variance requests and to reject the proposed interpretations was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote.
The denial preserves the board’s interpretation that the open‑space acreage requirement must be met by contiguous land as described in the township code; the board did not adopt the applicants’ alternate counting approach for the 4‑acre parcel. The board’s action was procedural and limited to the interpretation and variance requests on the record; there was no immediate advisory remedy announced from the board during the hearing.
The hearing record lists the case as 2026‑O3 for the Suthop trustees and includes the parcel numbers and the statutory sections cited. The board’s vote was recorded verbally as carrying in favor of denial. The board thanked participants and moved on to later cases.
Next steps: the board will issue a written decision consistent with the recorded motion; the record shows the board routinely issues its written findings within the 45‑day period noted during the hearing.
