Setbacks Common at Zoning Hearing

• Appeal 2857 (Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia)— Pushed to September meeting

Members and counsel from the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia testified in front of the board July 21 about the proposed addition of a Judith Creed Homes for Adult Independence apartment complex at the Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy located on South Bryn Mawr Avenue. JCHAI serves developmentally disabled adults and gives them a place to live.

Such an addition requires either a special exception or variances from the township zoning ordinance. David Falcone, legal representation for the Jewish Federation, presented his case explaining that the impact on the surrounding area would be negligible and in keeping with the standards of the neighborhood.

The board was more interested in the use of the project and whether it was in accordance with the zoning ordinance, which would require every person living in the JCHAI building to either be students, faculty, staff or employees. 

While Falcone's presentation focused on the use of the proposed projects, board member Noah Cutler focused on the language of the ordinance, which allows only one principal use for the property. 

"We have to deal with the limitations of the ordinance," Cutler said. "Is it permissible to have two uses?"

Falcone elected to table the issue until the September meeting and submit a memorandum of law to the board stating that the ordinance has vague language. If the board agrees the language is vague, any resulting decision must favor the applicant. 

• Appeal 2858 (Ilona Csaky, Harmonia Spa)— Pushed to September Meeting

Following the tabling of the Federation's issue, Ilona Csaky, owner of Harmonia Spa in Wayne, approached the board with her counsel hoping to be awarded a variance for her property. 

Csaky's business is operated out of two buildings, though both are on separate properties. Some events at her spa require patrons to travel between the two buildings. Patrons are expected to have a relaxing time, she argued, and the travel between the two houses is less than ideal.  Csaky requested permission to build a breezeway between the two properties, which would violate the side yard setback requirements. The board saw the changes as too severe to allow variance.

The board was reluctant to offer a variance due to the fact that the properties are not both owned by Csaky, one is owned by her family. As a result Csaky was granted an extension to her case and is expected to either merge the two properties or "condo" them, which would get around the necessity of a side yard variance.

• Appeal 2860 (Paul Mastropieri, Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc.)— Determined by the board

The final case of the evening regarded the proposed Rite Aid on the property at 237-245 East Lancaster Ave. Attorney Donald Petroso and his client, Paul Mastropieri, approached the board in order to decide whether or not the building must be positioned  along a "build to" line on North Aberdeen Avenue. 

After hearing the arguments, the board quickly determined that the "build to" line, which, in this case, is 45 feet from the center of the road, only affected the front portion of the proposed project, and not the side that faces North Aberdeen Avenue. The board elaborated that the "build to" is not, in fact, a line on which the building must be built, but rather one that it cannot exceed. Therefore, a building can be placed as far back as necessary, but cannot exceed that line. 

While project's architect Robert Lynne made a few design exceptions to his plan, the Rite Aid project was eventually authorized by the board.