Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opposes impervious-cover increase for King Roofing site, takes no position on use
Summary
Supervisors reviewed a King Roofing conditional‑use and impervious‑coverage variance for a 2‑acre lot; the planning commission recommended support, but the board voted to oppose an impervious‑coverage increase to ~31% while taking no position on use itself and directing staff to send a letter to the zoning hearing board.
Honey Brook Township supervisors on July 8 took a formal position against an increase in impervious coverage for a King Roofing location and declined to take a formal position on the underlying use variance.
Planning staff told the board that King Roofing had moved operations to a 2‑acre parcel and that historical aerials show an added stone parking area that increases impervious coverage from roughly 27% to about 31% (the ordinance allows 20% in that district). The planning commission recommended support on both variance requests by a 4–3 vote.
The board considered positions of support, non‑support or no position. After discussion, a motion carried to take no position on allowing the roofing business as a principal use but to oppose the dimensional variance increasing impervious coverage. A supervisor noted the matter will be part of a zoning hearing scheduled tentatively for August 10 and that staff will send a letter documenting the board’s position; the solicitor may attend where appropriate.
What was decided: The board recorded an opposing position on the impervious‑coverage relief (approximately 31% vs. the 20% allowed) and took no position on the use‑type variance, leaving the ultimate determinations to the zoning hearing board. Planning staff indicated about 15 employees and multiple vehicles would operate at the site on a routine basis, information the zoning hearing board will consider.
Next steps: Staff will prepare and send the board’s letter to the zoning hearing board and confirm whether the solicitor should attend to advocate the board’s position on the impervious‑coverage variance.
