It’s a relatively new development which involved a lot of negotiation at the time it was approved. Now the developer wants a variance to benefit the current and potential residents of the neighborhood.
The Springfield Township Board on Jan. 8 approved the site plan revision, but warned developer George Mansour of a potentially difficult time getting the variance from the township board of zoning appeals.
Of the 54 lots in the Hills of Kingston residential community off of Ridge Valley Drive near Dixie Highway, Mansour said there are 14 lots still to sell and approximately 30 on which building has yet to begin.
The problem, according to Mansour, is an overall combined setback of 75 feet for each home. While the requirement was agreed to when the original site plan was approved about four years ago, new homeowners are finding it difficult to build accessories such as garages and decks without violating the setback.
‘People came out here to enjoy the surroundings and they can’t even go out on a deck to enjoy it,? Mansour said.
The development was approved in the ‘cluster? style, with individual lots at smaller-than-normal sizes in exchange for a larger open space on the perimeter.
The minimum square-foot requirements as approved by the township government are 2,400 square feet for ranch homes and 2,600 square feet for one-and-one-half and two-story homes.
Mansour said the terrain is such that a main level grade patio is difficult if not impossible to build. That leads to desires for decks or screened-in porches which must follow setback requirements, and several property owners have struggled with their plans.
‘They had to scrap their ideas and rework everything else to make it fit on the lot,? Mansour said, noting that most plans do not miss the setback requirements by more than a few feet. ‘It’s frustrating because had I realized back then that the 75 feet would hurt me like it has, I would have asked for that change back then.?
Mansour requested a variance reducing the total setback requirement to 60 feet (35 front and 25 rear).
While township board members understood the issue, they said the zoning board may not be as sympathetic.
‘Assuming George can show sufficient practical difficulty to get a variance, I don’t see any problem,? Supervisor Collin Walls said, but, ‘Based on the information you’ve supplied, you’ve got a major uphill battle with the Board of Appeals.?
At issue, officials said, is the appearance of wanting a variance simply because of marketing or ‘oversight? reasons.
‘New developers have a tough time showing the need for a variance simply because they missed something,? Walls said. ‘Even though something might look better, there’s no practical difficulty to require the variance.?
‘It seems to me if I was going to the ZBA, I would look at some different rationales, and I think there are some,? Clerk Nancy Strole said.
Trustee Dennis Vallad said he, too, did not think of the implications when the plan was approved, and noted the tradeoffs to achieve the desired open space.
‘When we went through the approval process on this development, I had concerns that some of those lots were pretty small for larger homes. I never considered the combined [setback],? Vallad said. ‘I believe it’s a reasonable request.?