Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
---
In Re: Hearing to consider petition of Alfred Natale and
David Crumb to rezone part of Parcel No.
19/15/1/22-27.
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Monday, August 13, 2007 beginning at 6:35 p.m.
---
PRESENT: JOHN E. KERRICK, Chairperson
HEIDI A. PICKARD, Vice-Chairperson
ANNE SINCAVAGE, Board Member
HUGH LAMBERTON, Board Member
JAMIE B. KEENER, Board Member
EMANUEL KAPELSOHN, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
APPEARANCE: JAMES V. FARERI, ESQUIRE
712 Monroe Street
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
For the Petitioner
________________________________________________________
PANKO REPORTING
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. KAPELSOHN: Good evening. I'd
2 like to call to order the hearing on the
3 petition of Alfred Natale and David Crumb to
4 rezone part of Parcel No. 19/15/1/22-27 located
5 on Route 940 between Christ The King Family
6 Center and the First National Bank of Palmerton,
7 from low density residential to commercial.
8 Public notice of this hearing was
9 published in the Pocono Record setting this
10 hearing for this date and time. Some of you
11 will recall that we had a previous hearing or
12 attempted hearing on this same topic; and
13 although the neighborhood was posted and
14 neighborhood residents were given notice of it,
15 inadvertently notice was not sent to the
16 petitioners or their counsel, and so this is a
17 rehearing of that same matter.
18 And I note that Attorney Fareri is
19 here on behalf of the petitioner and I would ask
20 first, for clarification or a position of the
21 petitioner on one issue; which is, that that
22 attempted hearing was held several months ago,
23 as you know, there were, I think, two people
24 here, two or three who spoke on the issue at
25 that time believing, as we all did, that that
3
1 was a valid hearing at that time -- there is a
2 transcript of that hearing -- are you willing to
3 have that testimony still stand before the board
4 that was given several months ago?
5 MR. FARERI: I don't think I could
6 do that because I -- number one, I've never seen
7 the transcript, I have no idea what they said.
8 MR. KAPELSOHN: Okay.
9 MR. FARERI: And I wasn't present
10 to cross examine. And I see there's people
11 here, I'm assuming there's interested parties
12 here tonight since we advertised and they have
13 the opportunity to come again.
14 MR. KAPELSOHN: All right. So
15 you're not willing to accept -- to have that
16 prior testimony stand?
17 MR. FARERI: I don't think that
18 would be proper.
19 MR. KAPELSOHN: All right. In
20 that case, I would have to advise the board to
21 disregard anything you may remember that was
22 offered in testimony previously and to accept
23 this testimony, just what you hear here tonight.
24 At this point then I would ask the
25 petitioner or petitioner's counsel to proceed
4
1 and present what you wish to us.
2 MR. FARERI: All right. This --
3 by way of opening this, this matter was --
4 actually has a history here in the township. I
5 don't know how many of the present supervisors
6 are aware of it, I don't think any of the
7 supervisors that are sitting now on the board
8 were here when this first came before the
9 township, but there was a petition filed
10 actually back in 2003. It came before the
11 board, I think, in 2004 and the board denied
12 that petition.
13 It was basically the same subject
14 matters we'll hear tonight with the variation
15 that I'll get to in a minute, but it was denied
16 and there was an appeal taken to the court of
17 common pleas which is still pending as I speak.
18 I, and the Attorney Kapelsohn,
19 your solicitor, entered into a stipulation with
20 the court, it was approved by Judge Cheslock,
21 stating that the applicant would come back here
22 with a -- basically what amounts to a settlement
23 proposal, an offer on the proposal of the
24 position that the applicant originally took.
25 And if the board approved that, the case would
5
1 be over. If the board doesn't approve that,
2 then it goes back and continues in litigation.
3 The original petition asked that
4 the entire property be zoned from residential to
5 commercial. The present petition, if you happen
6 to have the opportunity to look at the map that
7 accompanied the petition, actually presents what
8 I'm going to refer to as a compromised position,
9 whereby the line is redrawn further in the rear
10 of the property but not all the way in the back
11 of the property as was originally the case.
12 We have a map, I think it's
13 attached to the petition, but I have a large
14 copy of the map here which I'd like to show
15 everybody. We've marked it as Applicant's No.
16 1. And this was a map that was drawn by Chuck
17 Niclaus, who actually was the engineer at one
18 point in the township, who drew the zoning map.
19 And we ask -- we specifically asked Chuck to
20 look at this because he had drawn one of the
21 zoning maps in the township.
22 The property that we're talking
23 about is the property that shows the proposed C
24 zone and proposed R-1 zone. The property is on
25 940. It's -- there's a bank to the left of the
6
1 property and there's a church to the right of
2 the property along with Paper Street,
3 Chestnut Street. You can see where the existing
4 line is on the property.
5 Do you want --
6 MR. KERRICK: You have to put one
7 on the board for the audience. Sorry.
8 MR. FARERI: No problem.
9 Where the existing line is drawn
10 you can see where it says existing C zone and
11 existing R-1 zone. The result is that this
12 property, which is like 3.98 acres, has one acre
13 in the commercial zone and three acres in the
14 residential zone. We're proposing to draw the
15 line in a diagonal fashion that's set forth here
16 by the engineer such that roughly there would be
17 two acres for each zoning district; two acres
18 commercial and two acres residential. It's --
19 they're approximate measurements, but that's --
20 MR. KAPELSOHN: Could you do your
21 indicating over there so that everyone in the
22 audience could see what you're -- maybe we can
23 turn this back slightly toward us so that we can
24 see it at the same time.
25 MR. FARERI: You tell me when it's
7
1 turned enough.
2 MR. KAPELSOHN: Annie, why don't
3 you tell us when you can see it?
4 MS. SINCAVAGE: That's fine.
5 That's fine.
6 MR. FARERI: That's good?
7 The property that we're talking --
8 this is Route 940 here. The property we're
9 talking about is this oddly shaped property
10 here. Existing zoning line is here. This is
11 commercial. The base is 940 and this is
12 residential back in through here.
13 What the applicant is asking the
14 board to do is, to redraw that line so that the
15 commercial zone would be from this line going to
16 940 and there still would be two acres of
17 residential zone back here. So we feel that
18 even with that redrawn there's more than
19 sufficient area that's still zoned residential
20 that would protect the residential uses in the
21 rear, and that the commercial use of the
22 property would not interfere or disturb the
23 residential character of the neighborhood.
24 And, again, that's presented as a
25 compromise to what is filed in court. What's
8
1 filed in court is that we asked that the entire
2 property be zoned commercial, that's what's
3 being appealed. So the applicant is basically
4 saying we ask two plus or minus acres remain
5 residential and asking the board to consider
6 making that -- the other portion the
7 commercially zoned.
8 And I would just point out that
9 the line that's drawn there is consistent with
10 the line where the church is. It picks up where
11 the rear of the zoning line, where the church is
12 and continues -- would continue up to where the
13 existing line is, which goes through the --
14 essentially through the middle of the adjoining
15 property, which I understand is the bank
16 property. And I don't know it for a fact, but I
17 think the bank property is more towards the
18 property here, but whether there's any
19 commercial use that goes over that line -- it
20 may be nonconforming, I don't know.
21 And that basically is our
22 position. We're asking basically to -- it's a
23 compromise position. We think it's reasonable,
24 we think it accommodates both the neighbors, as
25 well as the applicant, and it makes sense.
9
1 MR. KAPELSOHN: I remember back
2 from several years ago you had various arguments
3 for why you thought the township zoning map and
4 the current zoning was in error.
5 Can you explain that to us or is
6 that no longer part of your position?
7 MR. FARERI: Well, I think it's --
8 I don't think it's relevant. What's relevant
9 is, this is presented as a compromise to what is
10 important. We think it's a fair and reasonable
11 proposal.
12 I mean, originally -- it's of
13 record -- the testimony was originally that when
14 the applicant's representatives went to find out
15 where the line was, that there was confusion in
16 the township about where the line was. And the
17 applicant actually thought that the line was
18 somewhere other than where it is, and there was
19 some testimony to that effect.
20 So that the applicant basically
21 was taking the position that it was not the
22 applicant's fault, the applicant did not realize
23 where the correct line was.
24 MR. KAPELSOHN: Is there such
25 testimony tonight?
10
1 MR. FARERI: There is no such
2 testimony tonight.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: Okay.
4 MR. FARERI: But I'd point out,
5 Mr. Solicitor, that in the event that the
6 board -- in accordance with the stipulation that
7 is of record with Judge Cheslock, in the event
8 that this board should reject this proposal,
9 that we go back to that first appeal and we
10 don't -- there won't be an appeal in this
11 provision here, whatever the board decides. We
12 go back to our original position and so the
13 township would go back to its original position.
14 So this basically is, as I've
15 indicated to you and I'm indicating to the board
16 tonight, is a compromise position of the
17 applicant that we're asking the board to take a
18 look at.
19 MR. KAPELSOHN: Do you have
20 anything further?
21 MR. FARERI: I have nothing
22 further.
23 MR. KAPELSOHN: Do you have any
24 witnesses that you want to present?
25 MR. FARERI: I don't believe so.
11
1 I'll be happy to answer -- of course answer any
2 questions.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: Does anyone on the
4 board have any questions of Attorney Fareri?
5 MR. KERRICK: I have a question on
6 your proposal.
7 Where you have your line drawn, in
8 our zoning ordinance, if it splits -- if your
9 property is split by the two zones you can still
10 go so many feet. I'm not sure of the exact
11 number, but your proposal is that's it, no
12 commercial past there or would you still look
13 for that buffer? And that's really not a
14 buffer, but you could go --
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: Let me speak to
16 that and certainly let's hear from Attorney
17 Fareri, but my understanding, based on prior
18 conversations and agreements, is that if this
19 were to be permitted, it would be the line,
20 definitely not the line to be extended by any
21 further provision. I think that was in the
22 letter that I wrote back some time ago.
23 MR. FARERI: Attorney Kapelsohn,
24 last year when there was a different board here,
25 maybe -- I'm sure some of you were on the board
12
1 at that time, had conversations with regard to
2 this compromise. It did include in that
3 provision, that's correct.
4 MR. KAPELSOHN: So in other words,
5 it wouldn't be subject to the further extension.
6 MR. FARERI: If you grant it and
7 make that a condition of it, that's your
8 discretion, I believe.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: Anything else from
10 the board?
11 All right. Then members of the
12 public who wish to speak?
13 Please identify yourself for the
14 court reporter.
15 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: I'm Rose
16 LiCastri. We own the property at 1 Ana Road,
17 which is really the one that is involved right
18 next to it. I bought it because it's private
19 and residential and now it's not only commercial
20 but they're going to extend it down, which is
21 really next -- you know, I don't know what
22 they're gonna put in there. And there goes all
23 the privacy and the reason for buying that piece
24 of property.
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: Could you show us
13
1 just where your property is located, please?
2 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: I'm right
3 here. I'm behind the Christ The King Church.
4 So 1 Ana Road is the first -- over here it has
5 Richard Rye (phonetic), we're the new owners,
6 LiCastri. So if he extends this, it's like -- I
7 don't know. I'm not happy with it at all,
8 because there's not only enough that, you know,
9 would be commercial up here, which is 940,
10 whatever he wants to do, that's bad enough; but
11 extending the line --
12 MR. KAPELSOHN: Hold on one
13 second. I've actually committed an error which
14 is, I should really have the court reporter
15 swearing you. So would you remain standing
16 please and would --
17 Is there anyone else who intends
18 to speak this evening?
19 Would you all stand if you would,
20 anyone who intends to give testimony at this
21 hearing?
22 And would the court reporter
23 please swear all of them?
24 And you need to give your names to
25 us, if you would.
14
1 MR. ROBERT McBRIDE: Robert
2 McBride.
3 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: Stephanie
4 McBride.
5 MS. ROSEMARY POTTER: Rosemary
6 Potter.
7 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: Rose LiCastri.
8 MS. CHRISTINA ROCK: Christina
9 Rock.
10 (Robert McBride, Stephanie
11 McBride, Rosemary Potter, Rose LiCastri and
12 Christina Rock were sworn.)
13 MR. KAPELSOHN: Ma'am, you've
14 indicated to us already where your property is
15 located. And rather than have you repeat
16 everything that you've said, may I just ask you,
17 now that you're under oath, would your
18 presentation to this hearing be the same as what
19 you've already given?
20 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: Yes, yes.
21 MR. KAPELSOHN: And is there
22 anything else you wish to add to it?
23 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: No. It's just
24 that -- you know, I don't know if you're
25 familiar, it is very private, it's very nice.
15
1 940, whatever they want to do, it's low density
2 behind my neighbors. Behind would be the
3 church, the other one is the back. Not only
4 they want a commercial, they want to extend it;
5 so you don't know what's gonna be in there.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. KAPELSOHN: May I ask Attorney
8 Fareri, do your clients have any current plans
9 for what they intend to build there?
10 MR. FARERI: No, we can't because
11 we don't know how much land is available for
12 commercial zone. I mean, obviously it's driven
13 by how much land to build. If it's two acres,
14 it's not going to be anything substantial.
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: Do you have any
16 questions of the woman who just testified?
17 MR. FARERI: Ma'am, do you
18 understand that the property that's -- this
19 property here, this parcel here, that's going to
20 be residential, if this goes through that's
21 still going to be residential?
22 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: Look how
23 you're surrounding --
24 MR. KAPELSOHN: One at a time,
25 please.
16
1 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: -- extended.
2 That limit is extended down.
3 MR. FARERI: Right. But the
4 property immediately adjacent to yours is still
5 going to be zoned residential.
6 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: This line
7 going down, I know on paper it looks very
8 little, but I'm sure that it's taking enough.
9 MR. FARERI: And there's a church
10 behind you now?
11 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: Yeah.
12 MR. FARERI: Did you know that the
13 front part of this property was -- do you know
14 that was zoned commercial when you bought the
15 property?
16 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: That's a low
17 density according to the letter too. And they
18 want to bring it to commercial, no?
19 MR. FARERI: The property's -- the
20 front of that property is commercial as we sit
21 here right now.
22 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: All right.
23 That's a small piece so there's no problem.
24 MR. FARERI: And there's a bank in
25 the corner here, correct?
17
1 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: That's fine.
2 MR. FARERI: Okay.
3 MS. ROSE LICASTRI: But now look
4 at the piece that they want to bring commercial
5 all the way down.
6 MR. FARERI: I have nothing else.
7 MR. KAPELSOHN: Thank you. Anyone
8 on the board have any questions for her?
9 All right. Who else from the
10 public then?
11 Yes, ma'am. Please identify
12 yourself to the court reporter.
13 MS. ROSEMARY POTTER: I'm
14 Rosemarie Potter. I'm actually her daughter.
15 And one of my concerns is, will it bring down
16 our property value? There is a church and a
17 bank which feels pretty safe. We have no idea
18 what kind of business will be going in, so
19 there's that question, you know, you don't --
20 you have no idea what will be next to you. And
21 also it's a very quiet road. There are kids
22 that ride their bikes down. Will that increase
23 traffic with people coming across to go to that
24 business? There's lots of entrances into the
25 development.
18
1 I moved in there two years ago
2 because it is quiet and children can play in the
3 street and it's fine. Having no idea what kind
4 of business is going in there, is that going to
5 increase traffic? And, you know, it does
6 change -- it will change -- I'm on that same
7 road, I'm on Ana Road also. So how will that
8 increase traffic, how -- will that reduce
9 property values?
10 MR. KAPELSOHN: First, I'd like to
11 ask whether the petitioner has any response to
12 any of that?
13 MR. FARERI: With regard to
14 traffic, I mean, I can't see any commercial
15 development causing any additional traffic on
16 Ana Road. I mean, if it's -- if the front part
17 is commercially developed, I mean, the ingress
18 and egress is going to be from 940, as the
19 developer would want. And the developer is
20 going to want to draw his customers in from the
21 highway, not from the back road there. And the
22 proposal, as I pointed out to the last witness,
23 basically, you know, protects and insulates that
24 residential community. You would basically be
25 the same as it is now.
19
1 MR. KAPELSOHN: Do you have any
2 questions of --
3 MR. FARERI: I have no questions.
4 MR. KAPELSOHN: -- this witness?
5 Anyone on the board have any
6 questions of her?
7 All right. Who else from the
8 public wishes to speak?
9 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: I have a
10 question.
11 MR. KAPELSOHN: Identify yourself.
12 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: Oh, I'm
13 sorry. Stephanie McBride.
14 The property that extends behind
15 the bank, is that owned by the bank, do we know?
16 MR. KAPELSOHN: I believe it's the
17 same lot, isn't it?
18 MR. FARERI: It's the same lot.
19 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: My concern
20 was actually something that was as a result of,
21 I believe, what you had -- omitted as saying,
22 Ms. Sincavage, in the last -- in the March
23 minutes, that said if -- and correct me if I'm
24 wrong -- if you all allow the movement of this
25 line, what would stop -- you would have no
20
1 justification particularly for stopping the bank
2 from moving its line back further as well which
3 would put further commercial development into --
4 sort of more into the neighborhood. So -- did I
5 have that right?
6 MS. SINCAVAGE: I think that was
7 close along that line, yes.
8 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: You
9 weren't making a statement really one way or
10 another, but you were making an observation.
11 And so that -- I would have that same -- I would
12 have that concern too, that having moved that
13 why not move the other, why not move -- we're
14 concerned about the property that's on the other
15 corner as well that's commercial.
16 MR. KAPELSOHN: Do you live in
17 that area?
18 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: Yes.
19 MR. KAPELSOHN: Where do you live?
20 MS. STEPHANIE McBRIDE: We live on
21 Hemlock. And whereas Ana may not get increased
22 traffic, Hemlock certainly will so -- people cut
23 the corner already to avoid the light at 115 --
24 at 940 and 115, so they come through the
25 neighborhood that way. And if it means getting
21
1 up to that -- another business there, then it's
2 an easy route so --
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: Does the
4 petitioner have any questions of this witness?
5 MR. FARERI: No, only to point out
6 once again that I don't see how this change
7 would result in increased traffic either on
8 Hemlock or Ana Road, because the in-and-out
9 traffic is going to be from 940 directly into
10 the parcel. I mean, I just looked at that map,
11 there's no possible way you can get ingress,
12 egress otherwise. I don't think the board
13 would -- neither did the applicant come in here
14 and suggest that. The board's not going to
15 permit it through residential areas. So I don't
16 think that's a realistic concern.
17 As far as redrawing the line, I
18 mean, there is no petition that I know of
19 pending from the owner of that other parcel to
20 redraw the line. I mean, these proceedings have
21 been -- these proceedings were initiated in
22 2003. So, I mean, the bank, you know, knows
23 about them or should know about them or at least
24 has constructive knowledge of them. You would
25 think they would know -- be concerned with
22
1 what's going on with the adjacent parcel, has
2 not certainly communicated with me about joining
3 in any requests and it's not, you know evidenced
4 any desire to redraw the line.
5 In terms of, you know, whether
6 you're automatically, in essence, approving the
7 second redrawing of that line of the bank
8 property, I'd point out that there is a
9 difference; and that is, that the property
10 you're talking about is not developed, the other
11 property is. And I'm assuming that the bank is
12 content with being a bank and intends to use
13 what's there, would not really serve any purpose
14 to draw the line back further because they
15 already have the benefit of whatever use they
16 have there.
17 MR. KAPELSOHN: Anyone on the
18 board have any questions of Ms. McBride?
19 All right. Who else from the
20 public wishes to speak?
21 Mrs. Rock?
22 MS. CHRISTINA ROCK: Hi, my name
23 is Chris Rock. I live at 29 Hemlock Road. And
24 I have a question before I continue. Is
25 everything that I said over the past three years
23
1 not valid today; is that correct?
2 MR. KAPELSOHN: No, that's not
3 correct. It is only the last hearing, several
4 months ago, that is not now able to be
5 considered by the board because that hearing was
6 not properly notified to the petitioner's
7 attorney. But what you've said previously --
8 MS. CHRISTINA ROCK: Okay.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: -- is still of
10 record.
11 MS. CHRISTINA ROCK: Great. I
12 want to make sure of that point because, again,
13 I've been coming here for the past three years
14 talking about this. I've lived in Hemlock -- on
15 Hemlock Road for seven years in May and
16 everything that the other folks have said I
17 totally agree with. We purchased our property,
18 quiet, we don't want increased traffic.
19 I, in the very beginning, was
20 always questionable as to what they were going
21 to put there. Why were they not telling us what
22 they're going to put there? To me that's still
23 very questionable regardless if it's two acres,
24 three acres, regardless.
25 But I guess primary precedent, if
24
1 you have to do it for this individual, you're
2 going to have to do it for other people coming
3 down the line. And Natale/Crumb, when they
4 purchased the property, should have known what
5 the zoning boundaries were, just like we all
6 have to know certain things when you purchase
7 something based to their due diligence perhaps.
8 I don't think it's going to be
9 fair to all of us homeowners if precedent will
10 be changed because, like I said, what's going to
11 stop them from other people coming down the road
12 and decreasing our home values, the quietness,
13 and everything that everybody else said. I just
14 think it's not fair and I really would
15 appreciate it if the board would, again, deny
16 this so it would not go any further.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. KAPELSOHN: Does the
19 petitioner have any questions?
20 MR. FARERI: Well, the concerns,
21 again, seem to be increased traffic. And once
22 again, I don't see that as being -- the traffic
23 being increased if this proposal is approved.
24 As to the concern about precedent, I'm a
25 township solicitor, I mean, these things are on
25
1 a case-by-case basis. The townships change
2 boundaries all the time, it's not uncommon.
3 This particular property is, I
4 would submit, unique because the boundary runs
5 through the middle of the property and there's
6 probably not a lot of property in the township
7 that that occurs or in any other township, for
8 that matter. But generally when they draw these
9 lines they try to draw them in accordance to
10 where the properties are.
11 But I don't think -- and once
12 again, I don't think the residential character
13 of the neighborhood is going to be affected at
14 all because there's two acres back that are
15 going to be zoned residential. I would submit
16 that if that property is developed there would
17 be no difference in that residential
18 neighborhood than it is now.
19 MR. KAPELSOHN: Does anyone on the
20 board have any questions of Mrs. Rock?
21 Any other member of the public
22 wish to speak on this?
23 MS. ROSEMARIE POTTER: I have one
24 more question.
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: Yes.
26
1 MS. ROSEMARY POTTER: How many
2 acres are already zoned commercially for that
3 property?
4 MR. FARERI: It's approximately
5 one.
6 MS. ROSEMARY POTTER: And you're
7 trying to increase it to two?
8 MR. FARERI: Correct,
9 approximately.
10 MS. ROSEMARY POTTER: And you have
11 no idea of what you want to the put on that
12 property? How do you know you need two and not
13 one? Like I'm just wondering, is there --
14 MR. FARERI: It's not a matter of
15 what you need, it's a matter of what you can do
16 with how many acres you have. I mean, under the
17 current zoning ordinance, you know, you're
18 constricted with one acre, where you have some
19 more options if there's two.
20 And obviously, I'm not going to
21 lie. I mean, the developer would take as many
22 acres as he could get. I mean, that just makes
23 sense. But again, even if you want to see
24 what's permitted there, you can just look at the
25 ordinance, see what types of things would be
27
1 permitted there. I mean, if it is a -- you
2 know, the front is a commercial zone and the
3 township wants commercial uses along 940 in that
4 area.
5 Again, it's two acres. I mean,
6 it's not going to be anything big because two
7 acres doesn't give -- under the zoning ordinance
8 doesn't give you that much space to work with.
9 I mean, the type of setbacks and everything
10 else, you're still fairly constrained.
11 MR. KAPELSOHN: Anyone else from
12 the public have anything they wish to ask or
13 add?
14 Anything from the board, any
15 questions of any of the witnesses or petitioner?
16 MS. SINCAVAGE: I just have a
17 question. Was a survey performed on this
18 property before it was purchased?
19 MR. FARERI: I don't believe so.
20 I did not represent the applicant when the
21 property was purchased. Generally, it's fairly
22 rare that a survey is done on the property.
23 MS. SINCAVAGE: I find that hard
24 to believe.
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: Any other
28
1 questions?
2 Yes, sir.
3 MR. KEENER: I comment about the
4 depth of the lot. If you look at the overall
5 zoning map -- not this map but the one that's in
6 the petition, if you look at the depth of the
7 last one on the north side of 940, that depth is
8 somewhat consistent with what is currently the
9 depth of the zoning of that property on the
10 commercial side.
11 Again, I don't know why it was
12 placed exactly at that location but it seems as
13 though, if you look a little further to the
14 east, between the -- what's shown as Chestnut
15 Street and Maple, there's approximately three
16 lots there that have consistent depth as well.
17 MS. PICKARD: I had a comment also
18 just about there would be nothing precluding
19 going to the zoning board for a variance with
20 the specific project. At the time there was
21 one.
22 MR. FARERI: You could go -- I
23 mean, if it's this one acre or -- no. I mean,
24 you can't go get a variance -- you could always
25 ask for some kind of a variance, but you
29
1 couldn't ask for a variance to go past your
2 boundary.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: But couldn't you
4 ask for a -- let's say you were going to put
5 something on the acre that is commercial except
6 the building wouldn't have enough setback at the
7 rear or something like that, you could ask for a
8 variance --
9 MR. FARERI: Sure, of course, you
10 could.
11 MR. KAPELSOHN: -- of that setback
12 requirement.
13 MR. FARERI: Yeah.
14 MR. KAPELSOHN: Anything else from
15 anyone?
16 Anything else from the public?
17 All right. Then I close this
18 hearing at 7:02 and let's take a five-minute
19 recess please before -- ten? Ten minute recess
20 before we begin the board of supervisors.
21 (Hearing concluded at 7:02 p.m.)
22 ---
23
24
25
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I hereby certify that the
12 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
13 accurately in the notes taken by me at the
14 hearing in the above matter; and that the
15 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
16 the same.
17
18
19 ______________________
20 EVILYS E. BRATHWAITE
21
22
23
24
25