Council waits to decide on proposed townhouses

It’s been said sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing at all.

Despite the pressure of more than 50 residents in attendance opposing the plan, borough council took no action Tuesday regarding a subdivision and land development application for 22 townhouse units at 701 S. Main St.

Neighbors complained the project’s design does not comply with the borough’s ordinances, saying the units were too tall for the residential area and would ruin the look of the borough.

“There’s differences of opinion as to whether its townhomes or multi-family (homes),” said Borough Manager Jean Krack. “The main argument that is used as a difference is multifamily allows for a 45-foot height. A townhome allows for a 35 foot height. So there’s a 10 foot height difference in those two definitions. And that’s important.”

Sean O’Neill, an attorney representing residents Dave and Susan Meadows, argued that based on the borough ordinance, in order for it to be considered multi- family, there needs to be multiple units in a single lot, instead of single, attached units on single lots. The applicant recognized this problem but rather than change the design, they decided to find and replace the words townhouse in all submitted documents to multi- family (homes).

“Lincoln once said ‘if you call the tail on a dog a leg, how many legs would it have?’” O’Neill said. “‘Not five. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.’”

He also took issue with the amount of space for each unit’s setbacks, saying they didn’t give preference to adjacent buildings, which is required under the borough’s ordinance.

Other neighbors complained the townhouses would ruin the landscape of the borough.

When the plan was brought before the borough planning commission, it unanimously recommended borough council deny the application. The developer circumvented the advisory board’s decision and took the plan to council asking for a vote. The developer also wrote a letter to borough council extending the time frame for council to review the plan.

“At the time the planning commission reviewed the plan, the deadline was essentially this meeting,” explained Solicitor Charles Garner. “The applicant has now extended the clock until the middle part of November, which would take you to your next meeting.”

Additionally, prior to the borough council meeting, the developer revised the plan, “presumably to address the comments of the planning commission and the engineer for the borough,” Garner said.

“It is my opinion that under the case law, an additional 90 days is automatically granted to the borough to decide to take any action on the plan,” he said. “I’m recommend the revised plan be reviewed to determine compliance with the ordinance.”

If the plan is found to be deficient, council can reject the plan. “My concern for the borough would be if that plan was out there and was not reviewed and a decision was not rendered in a timely fashion, i.e. 90 days, the borough could be looking at a position of approving the plan by failing to act.”

“If the plan is fundamentally deficient, I don’t see how the revised plan can change that,” he continued. “But certainly in my opinion the borough has a duty of good faith to review plans to make sure to determine compliance.”

Council agreed that if the developer was serious about moving forward with the project, the revised plan should be sent back to the planning commission for review. If the developer refuses to do so, council then has the option to reject the plan flat out.

“We cannot do anything tonight,” said council member Jon Ichter II. “We need our solicitor to know what information we need from him. We need the borough staff to get involved in this. (Let’s) wait upon information from our solicitor and borough staff and make our next decision on action at our next full meeting of council.”