Your new post is loading...
UPDATE (6/22/23): DeLuca Construction, which sought to subdivide a 3.0+ acre lot at 70 Twining Bridge Rd in the #NewtownPA CM District into two 1.5-acre lots and build 2 single-family homes has withdrawn its Zoning Hearing Board application seeking zoning relief required to pursue its project.
The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board has continued an appeal until July on a developer’s plan to subdivide a property on Twining Bridge Road into two lots.
DeLuca Construction is seeking zoning relief for gross density, building separation, side yard setbacks, and building envelope to build two single-family homes on the .308-acre property located at Declaration Drive and Twining Bridge Road next to Devonshire Meadows. (View video: “Deluca's Land Development Attorney Defends 70 Twining Bridge Rd Project Before #NewtownPA BOS”; https://sco.lt/6tfi3U)
“This is not an instance of seeking to increase profit. Nothing happens on this property at all without the grant of this relief,” said Joe Blackburn, Deluca attorney. “One (home) doesn’t happen. Two happen or the status quo. This is not an attempt to maximize profit. It will cost us upward of $200,000 just to clean this dump up. And that cleanup does not happen absent two houses. This is not about maximizing profit. This is an attempt simply to clean up the property.”
During the hearing, the project’s lead engineer Justin Geonnotti from Dynamic Engineering in Newtown testified that the relief being requested is the minimum required to achieve the requested two-lot subdivision.
"We have heard the reason why the applicant wants to subdivide this property into two lots and that is because of economic hardship," he said. "This is just another step toward degrading the existing Conservation Management district - the three-acre zoning - which we have precious little of left in Newtown Township.”
Neighbor John McIntyre, who joined as a party to the appeal, read a statement into the record opposed to the relief.
"The Municipalities Planning Code is very clear that there must be a hardship,” he said. “The applicant in this case has not proven a hardship and that’s because none exists. If there’s any type of hardship here it’s to my property,” said McIntyre.
“I already have significant flooding on my property during hard rains. It flows from this property to my property. During heavy rain, it’s like a huge water slide. Now they want to add more impervious surface," he told the zoning board.
“Thirty-six years ago when my wife and I were looking for a piece of ground to build our house we wanted something with open space,” said McIntyre. “When we found this lot one of the first things I did was to ask the township if more than one house could be built on that property. I was told it won’t happen because it is conservation management land. With that in mind, we bought the ground. We have lived there comfortably and happily for the last 35 years. Now here I am tonight looking at more than one house getting built on that property. It just doesn’t sit well with me.”
The zoning board continued the hearing to its July 6 meeting during which it will take public comment and then render its decision. In the meantime, it has asked the lawyers to send them relevant case law regarding the appeal.
Related Content: