WHAT Is This ALL ABOUT?

A self storage facility was proposed for development at the corner of Spackman Rd. See "APPLICATION DENIED" below.

WHERE ARE WE ON THIS?

APPLICATION DENIED

This application for the zoning variance was unanimously denied by the Zoning Hearing Board on 10/24/24, after testimony from those designated as "parties" were given an opportunity to testify, and after all residents who were not given "party" status who wanted to make a statement were also heard. The lawyers for both sides gave their closing arguments, and after the ZHB went into a brief executive session, the decision was announced.

The efforts of Mr. Woolfrey to develop this land are expected to continue. When a new proposal for this tract is filed with the ZHB, will you have the right to be heard, to testify, and to cross-examine the applicant or any others associated with the new filing? That all depends upon whether you live in that magic "300 foot party zone".

It is suggested that a group be formed to request that the Township come up with a more equitable and perhaps a more flexible method of designating a resident as a "party" to a zoning matter. If this is something that sounds like you would want to be a part of, please email:

NoSelfStore@yahoo.com

This website will stay online for the foreseeable future, and if it appears that there are people interested in this proposal (to ask the West Whiteland Township Board of Supervisors to take another look at this WWT Ordinance), a new website may be put in place to do much the same thing that this one has done - which would be to keep the public informed of significant developments concerning that new initiative.

The "300 Foot Rule"

In the Woolfrey Zoning variance application, notices regarding the filing with the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) were required to be sent to residents within 300 feet of the site where the variance was proposed. The requirement to notify the owners of all properties within 300 ft. is a Township requirement that’s in the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 325-114.A(B)), it is not a ZHB decision or determination. This WWT zoning ordinance stipulating 300 feet was applied to this situation, and as a result most of the residents in the neighboring streets and neighborhoods were excluded from cross-examining the applicant or his lawyer's "expert witnesses" and testifying before the board as '"parties".

According to Mr. Weller of the Zoning Hearing Board:

The State requirement for written notices simply states, “Written notices shall be given at such time and in such manner as shall be prescribed by ordinance…” (Sec. 908(1) of the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act 247 of 1968) - So it’s entirely up to the Township who gets the notices, and consequently who becomes a "party" to the application hearing.

He notes that this particular 300 ft. requirement has been used for 20+ years. . In addition to PA law requiring ome sort of written notice sent out, "written notice of said hearing shall be conspicuously posted on the affected tract of land at least one week prior to the hearing".

So, there is nothing written into PA law that states that this boundary can't be more or less than 300 feet. In this instance, it should have included AT LEAST all of Spackman and Burgoyne Roads, as well as the neighborhood including Outlook Dr., Dogwood Dr., and Oak Ln. , as well as the Pine Needle neighborhood, overlooking the site. The impact of a self storage business at Burgoyne & Spackman affects AT LEAST the residents of these neighborhoods. There are most likely residents further out from this area who would have wanted to be able to participate as "parties", such as mature neighborhoods off Burke RD, Grove Rd, and Whitford Rd, for example.

CONCLUSION:

The 300 foot rule, which may have served the ZHB for many years insomuch as written notices didn't need to be sent to so many people, was inappropriate and insufficient in this particular matter. This ordinance needs to be challenged and changed, and is probably something that has to be brought up with the Township. It did not serve the residents who would have been affected by this proposed business, and it will be insufficient in the future, at least concerning the Woolfrey property.

Residents should at least be on a position to challenge his next appliication or appeal, and ALL of the affected residents should "join the party".

If you feel that the information regarding "The 300 Foot Rule" posted here is inaccurate or misleading, we would appreciated any corrections.

Please send them to:

NoSelfStore@yahoo.com

THE PROTEST SIGNS

Banners that were hung from the railroad bridge at the proposed entrance to the self storage business were torn down, but a very kind individual from the neighborhood rescued them and they have been relocated.

One sign that was on Burgoyne RD is now visible on the hill on the opposite side of the low overhead bridge next to the proposed business. It sits at the top of the Spackman Rd where it turns off to the left & intersects with Burgoyne Rd.

The relocated banners are flying at a private residence on Burgoyne Rd.

There are at least two more signs that are available to put up in the area, and if you know of a good place to put them up, please email:

NoSelfStore@yahoo.com

WHAT Is This ALL ABOUT?

WHERE ARE WE ON THIS?

APPLICATION DENIED

ThIS Forest Stores Carbon now - What about later?

YOU PAVE PARADISE.....

The "300 Foot Rule"

THE PROTEST SIGNS

WHAT Is This ALL ABOUT?

WHERE ARE WE ON THIS?

APPLICATION DENIED

ThIS Forest Stores Carbon now - What about later?

YOU PAVE PARADISE.....

The "300 Foot Rule"

THE PROTEST SIGNS

This website uses cookies.