MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD  2 3 4 5 INI RE: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA  Case No. 22-03  Christian Madera, Applicant.  DECISION  1. Thel Millersville Borough Zoning) Hearing) Board (herein also oard).gak-rotamaer 14 the following decisions regarding the Property: thati is owned by Applicant Christian Madera (herein also Street, Millersville, PA 17551 (UPI #440-87193-0-0000) (herein also "Property"): as follows:  15 AppleamrorOmmer)md admikeeaPetsiat  OMtrDwpNaNGa  A. AFFIRMS the Zoning Ordinance Violation Notice dated September 2022 (herein "ZOF")i in every, respect, and directs the Applicant tor move or remove they walll hei installed between the Studio Apartment and thel First Floor. Apartment in order tor restore the Studio  16, Officer Zoning (herein also  also "Violation Notice") from the Millersville Borough Apartment to its original 440 square feet; B. DENIES the requests for equitable relief in order to allow a fourth basement of the Property and below the ground level;  apartment in the Property and!  DENIES variances fromi the Millersville. Borough. Zoning Ordinance (herein also $380-55(C)i inc order toa allow a fourth apartmenti int thel basement oft thel D. APPROVES continuing the three apartments not in the Basement without having to include a principal commercial or institutional use in the building as would normally be required! by ZOCh.380,4 Attachment 2, Tableo ofPermitted Lie-Pimarb.Norilatal  "ZO") below  the ground level; and  Districts, Note 1.  2. This Decision is subject to, and the Applicant and Owner shall comply A. Except as modified by this Decision, in which case the  the with, following and Owner shall comply  general conditions:  Applicant  with this Decision, the Applicant and Owner shall at all times comply with and adhere to the evidence presented to the Board (including, without limitation, the application, plans, exhibits, and witnesses' testimony), all of which documents Applicant's are B. The Applicant and Owner shall obtain all approvals and permits that are applicable federal, state, and local law, ordinances, codes, This Decision shall be binding upon the Applicant and Owner, and their D. Any violation of this Decision or conditions described herein also shall be considered a violation ofthe ZO and shalll be subject to the penalties and remedies contained therein, in Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code, or both (whichever is  incorporated herein.  required by respective  and rules, regulations.  successors, heirs, and assigns.  applicable).  3. Ifthis Decision is appealed, the Board reserves the right to subsequently amend or  56 this Decision, findings off fact, and conclusions ofl law that were drafted and adopted without reviewing supplement the 7 U dicipVanserpdft the hearing in order to minimize the costs and expenses for all concerned persons.  DEC 27 202 D MILLERSVILLE BOBOUGH    59 60 61 62 63 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 30 81 82 85 86 87 88 90 91 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 104 105 107 108 110 111 113 114  FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW & DISCUSSION  4. Thei facts described abovei inl Paragraph 1 arei incorporatedl herein as] 5. The Property is located in Millersville Borough (herein also  part tofthesei findingsoffact. "Borough") and  contains proposed 4th has two floor, located on the square feet. floor, hast three below ground in thel which residing Basement, int  approximately 0.16 acre. apartment unit as follows:  6. The Property is improved with a residential dwelling with three apartments and a A. First Floor Apartment 1 (herein also "APTI") is located on the ground bedrooms, and contains around 1,000 square feet. B. First Floor Studio Apartment 2 (herein also "APT2" or ground floor, is as studio apartment, and currently contains around 300 Second Floor Apartment3 Aereinalso"APT3)sl located ont thes second: bedrooms, and contains around 1200 square feet. D. Proposed Basement Apartment 4 (herein also "Basement") is located level, has one bedroom, and contains about 650: square feet.  "Studio") is  7. Thel Property is owner-occupied, with the Applicant currently  83 isp proposed tol be a4" Apartment.  8. The Applicant purchased the Property on May 29, 2021 andi initially resided the Studio until 9. The Applicant testified that he spent approximately $40,0001 toi improve thel Basement for use as 10. The. Applicant testified that al kitchen and bathroom existed int thel Basement when hej  he moved into the Basement during. June 2022.  89 as separate dwelling unit.  92 thel Property, whichl he alleges is evidencet thatt the Basement was previouslyuseda asas separate purchased 93 The Board does not agree that such facts alone are adequate to conclude that the Basement dwelling unit.  94 previously a separate dwelling unit and, thus, such is merely unsubstantiated  was indeed dwelling. garage. Notice")  conjecture.  11. The Property alsol has a detached two-car garage and aj parking area to the rear oft the A. The parking area has at least eight parking spaces, two ofwhich are within the 13. TheApplicanty was served with botha a Zoning' Violation Notice (herein also "Violation 14. The facts in the Violation Notice were adequately, supported by documents and witness 15. As of August 3, 2022, the Lancaster County tax assessment records show the  12. The Property is served by public sewer and water.  103 and a Borough Code Violation Notice on or about September 16, 2022.  106 testimonies and, thus, are: incorporated. herein and accepted as findings of facts for this Decision.  tol be a dwelling  109 single family dwelling. 112 at three family dwelling.  16. As of October 22, 2022, the Lancaster County tax assessment records show the dwelling to be 17. The Residential Rental Unit License Applications (herein also "Applications") for this  --2-    115 Property showed only 2rental units for many: years through2020, andt then showed 31 rental units fort thei first  116 time on the. July 5, 2021 Application. 119 with 31 being apartments.  117 118 120 121 122 125 126 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 136 137 138 139 140 141 143 144 147 case. 148 149 151 same. 152 153 155 156 160 161 163 164  18. The Application dated August 24, 2022 discloses fort thei first time that there are 4 dwelling units 19. The Applicant applied for and obtained a Borough Building/Zoning Permit "Permit") on September 21, 2022 to add a wall between APT1 and the Studio. APT2 to create the Studio 123 with only 300s square feet, when ity was] previpusly440squarei feet] prior tos said walli installation. This Permit 127 construction: andi improvements: fort thel Basement, which Permit was obtained onlyaftert thev workv was 21. Borough Sewer/Trash & Recycling Services Bills (herein also "Trash and 2022 show that the. Applicant was being charged for 3 and not 4 dwelling units. Bills") 22. The Applicant presented several Property Maintenance Inspection Notices "Inspection Notices") through 2019, many of which are unreadable in many respects; but all  also (herein  124 was obtained only after the work was already completed.  20. The Applicant applied for and obtained another Permit on September 21, 2022 for certain  already bills for 2021 also (herein they appear but not APT3, the July  completed.  135 tos show the number of apartment units tol be 2.  A. The. Applicant also presented an. Inspection Notice for November 17, 2021, which shows 3a apartment units for the first time (specifically for APT1, APT2 & 23. The Applicant alsoj presenteda Borough Rental License (herein also "License") for. 2021 24. The Applicant testified he relied on the various Applications, Permits, Inspection Notices, and  Basement.  142 through July 2022 showing it was only for 2 apartment units.  145 Licenses as approval for his 3 apartments, and he just assumed he could use the Basement as a fourth 146 apartment. Thel Board believes that neither such reliance nor assumption are reasonable or justified in this 150 adversely affect the neighborhood or general welfare, buti no specific evidence was provided to substantiate 154 thel Boroughr rejecteds same. Hei nevertheless proceeded toi improve thel Basement as as separate apartment, dwellingunit. 157 apartment without requiring the Applicant to obtain a Permit and instead just approved approving the Applicant's 158 Application showing three apartments. The Board does not necessarily agree that such Permit is still not 159 required, buti it will consider such issue moot for purposes oft this case inl light ofthe Borough'sconcesion.  25. The Applicant also made bald statements that his variances if granted would not disturb or 26. The. Applicant testified that he requested approval from the Borough for the 4th 27. The Borough conceded that it's] prior ZOF appears to have made ai mistake in  but the 3rd  28. The evidence is clear that the Applicant did not apply for or receive a Permit to add a 4th 29. It should be noted that the Board had difficulty believing much of the Applicant's testimony,  162 apartment in thel Basement.  165 becausev whilel hei imtalyinguiedaboutandi followedthel Borough'sordinances, rules,andr regulations when 166 he bought thel Property, he thereafter either conveniently failed to or deliberately did not follow all ofthe 167 Borough's applicable ordinances, rules, and regulations applicable to the 3md and proposed 4th 168 andl hei failedt to obtain all thej proper inspections, permits, licenses, and other procedures from whichl apartments, her now 169 wants variances or tol bee excused: from following simply because oft thel Borough'sf failures to catchl him. He 170 even admitted at one pointi in hist testimony that hel knew he was in violation, but] he nevertheless proceeded  171 tol his own detriment.  -3-    172 173 175 176 179 183 184 186 187 189 190 193 195 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229  30. The Applicant first requests that the ZOF's' Violation! Noticel ber reversed ont thet theories ofeither  174 equitable/vested: rights or aj preexisting nonconforming use, which the Board finds meritless. 177 restriction. Thei right toi maintain ai nonconforming use is only available for uses that werel prohibitory lawful whent zoning 178 camei into existence: and which existed when the ordinance took effect.] Itist the burden the existence ofai nonconforming use to establish bothi its existence and legality! before the enactment party] proposing ofthe 180 ordinance at issue. That burden includes the requirement of conclusive proofb by way of 181 of the precise extent, nature, time of creation, and continuation of the alleged nonconforming objective use. 182 Pietropaolo V. Zoning Hearing Bd. ofLower Merion Twp., 979. A.2d969 (Pa. Commw. 2009). 32. In the present case, the Applicant failed to provide any conclusive, objective 185 existence and legalityofthei fourth apartmentb beinganonconforming: uset thats shouldb be allowed proof toc continue. 33. Zoning hearing boards have jurisdiction1 to grant equitable relief ini the nature ofa vested 188 when a municipality has taken some affirmative action such as the issuance ofa permit; a variance right estoppel when there has been municipal inaction amounting to active acquiescence in an equitablec estoppelwhent ther mnilyamiaulyaremog its positionwithreason 191 tol know that] landowner would rely upont that misrepresentation. Ailt three theories share common elements 192 ofgood faitha action ont thej part ofthel landownert that hei relies ont tohis detriment (such as expenditures), based upon ani innocent beliefthat the usei is permitted, andt that enforcement ofthe ordinance 194 wouldi result inl hardship (ordinarily that the values ofthe expenditures would bel lost). three theories is an unusual remedy granted only in extraordinary circumstances, and Estoppel the landowner bears 196 the burden of proving his entitlement to relief. Vaughn V. Zoning Hrg. Bd. of the  31. A lawful, nonconforming use ofap property is a use predating a subsequent  they evidence of the use; by or illegal substantial making under these 947 Twp. of Shaler,  ofthe  A.2d218 (Pa. Commw 2008).  A. In "vested rights" cases, municipal action thati induces reliance has generally been the erroneous (Pa. Commw. 1992). Thel Pennsylvania Supreme Courts set forthf fivei ofSmithfield factors for Twp,613A.24662 al landowner has acquired a vested right: (1) the landowner's due diligence in determiningwhether to eapendinureofsubstantial unrecoverable: funds;(4)thee expiration) proceedings; withouta (3) the which an appeal couldl have! beent taken from thei issuance ofap permit; and appealofthep (5) the periodduring evidence to prove that individual property rights or the public health, safety or insuficiencyofthe welfare would adverselyaffected byt the use ofap permit. However, suchi five factors are not absolute Mirkovic, supra; Highland Park Community Cluby. Zoning Bd. ofAdj.c o/hedlyefPlawgi.75 requirements. A.2d9 925 (Pa. Commw. 1984), affirmed, 5064 A.2d8 887 (1986). (1) Int thej present case, the Applicant ist not entitled toa a vested right for the 4" the Boroughi never erroneously! issued ap permit for himt tor rely upon. The apartment, exercised good faith or due diligence ina attempting to comply with the law. Applicant Ini fact, alsor he didn't never make any attempt to comply until he was served with the Violation Notice. He also had admitted at one point that] he knew he was violating the ZO. B. Courts have generally labeled the theory under which a municipality is "variance by, estoppel". when there has been municipal inaction amounting estopped to active acquiescence in ani illegal use. Skarvelis V. Zoning. Hearing. Boardo of Dormont, 679 A.2d (1) In thep present case, the Applicant has not showni thatt thel Boroughachiveyasguised in the illegal 4th apartment use. In fact, when the Applicant allegedly asked the Borough for permission for the 4th apartment, the Borough said no. When the Borough later found our about thel Basement beingi improved andi readied tol be used asa4"apartment thel Borough served the Applicant with two Violation Notices and Courts have generally labeled the theory under which a municipality is egulablesioppet'whent then mumicpaliyimtemtionaly, yorn negigantlyimisepesaiudis:  issuance ofap permit. Petrosky, infra; Mirkovicv. Zoning Hrg. Bd. with the law; (2) the landowner's good faith throughout the  attempting landowner's comply  be because  as a  278 (Pa. Commw. 1996).  proceeded to enforce them  as estopped  4-    230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260  position with reason to know that the landowner would rely upon the misrepresentation. Cicchiello V. Bloomsburg Zoning Hearing Board, 617 A.2d 835 (Pa. Commw. (1) In the present case, the Borough made no such intentional nor misrepresentations. The Applicant suggested that he relied on the negligent Permits, Licenses, Trash Bills, and] Inspection! Notices as the 4th apartment. But such reliance was unjustified and permission unreasonable, proceed andi none of such documents ever misrepresented the Borough's intentions. Applications specifically state the following: "This application is for the ofaresidentialrental. unitunder) Millersvillel BoogCadirigdOrdmnes at licensing 290. Issuance of a Residential Rental Unit License does not indicate that Chapter the residential rental unit is in compliance with the Borough Building Borough) PropertyMaintemance: Code, BoroughZoning applicable code or ordinance." (emphasis added) So the Ordimanctoranyather, Applicant couldi not and should not have been relying on the Applications or other documents, when he was not being truthful or complete with his answers in those documents particularly  appeal denied, 641 A.2d589 (1994).  1992),  toj Applications, with Moreover, the  Code,  34. The Applicant then requested variances from ZO $ 380-55(C) in order to allow a fourth  249 apartment in thel basement oft the Property and below the ground level, which the Board finds meritless.  35. ZOS380-55.C provides in relevant part as follows:  Minimum size of dwellings. Each dwelling unit of two or fewer bedrooms shall includear minimum of500squaref feet ofe enclosed habitable, indoor, heated floor area, which shall be primarily: above the ground level." This minimum floor area shall be increased to 800 square feet if there are three or more bedrooms.  (emphasis added)  36. Inthep present case, the Studio was originally 440: square feet ands such was reduced to feet byi installation ofhev wall. The Studio violated thea above section even at 440s square feet since 300square 88: 261 feet is needed for the three plus bedrooms the apartments have. How that occurred is not clear from square the 262 evidence. But the Applicant certainly could not make the deviation much worse by installing the walls such 263 that the Studio is now 300 square feet. Consequently, he must comply with the Violation] Notice andi move 264 or remove the wall: in order to restore the 440 square feet at ai minimum for the Studio. Furthermore, the 265 proposed 4tapartment would! bej primarily below ground level contrary tot the: above section. The 266 is not entitled to a variance for either the square footage or below ground violations for the reasons Applicant stated  267 below. 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290  37. 205380-12.D(3) provides inr relevant part as follows:  (3) Variances.  (a) Thel Board shalll hear requests for variances filed with the Boroughs staffin (b) Standards. Thel Board may grant a variance only within the limitations statel law. (Note: Asofthe adoption date oft this chapter, thel Municipalities of Planning Code provided that all oft thei followingf findings mustl bei [1] There are unique physical circumstances or conditions irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or (including exceptional topographical or other physical conditions shape or the particular property)a and that the unnecessaryl such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions hardshipis dueto created by the provisions of this chapter in the district in which the property is located; [2) Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; 3] Such unnecessary hardship has not been created by. The variance, if authorized, will not: alter the essential the character appellant; of  writing. where relevant:  made,5] peculiar to generally neighborhood or  -5-    291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 306 307 310 Zaruta 313 $10910.2. 314 315 317 318 319  the neighborhood or district in which the property is substantially or permanently impair the appropriate located, use nor or development ofadjacent property, nor be detrimental tot the public [5] The variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum that will afford relief and will represent the least modification variance possible of the regulation in issue.) (c) Ingrantinganyy variance, thel Board mayattachsuchi reasonableconditions and: safeguards asitmay deem necessary toi implement thep  welfare; and  chapter.  purposes ofthis  38. Variances may be granted only in exceptional circumstances, with an  303 proving such circumstances being a heavy one. E.g. Township. of Washington V. Washington applicant's burden of 304 Zoning Hearing. Board, 365. A.2d 691 (Pa. Commw. 1976). Applicants failed toi meet such burden Township 308 the variance is not granted, and that the grant of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the 309 interest. E.g., Valley View Civic. Association V. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 public 311 V. Pittsburgh. Zoning Bd. 14mustimemt,554Pa.2 39.4.35,71AMAX74T0990 312 from the Decision of the Clay Township Zoning Hearing Board, 77 Lanc. L.R. 53, 56 316 to thej property itself do not constitute unnecessary hardship. E.g., Chrin V. Zoning Borough of Nazareth, 127 Pa. Commw. Ct. 279,5614 1A.24833(1989).  305 in this case in several manners as further described int this Decision.  ofproof  39. An applicant for a variance bears thel burden ofproving that unnecessary hardship will result if V. Zoning Hearing Boardofthe ClpyWilkes-Barre, 543A.2d1282(Pa. Commw. 1988); Hertzberg 1983);  (Pa. 53P.S. (2000); Board Hearing ofthe  40. Pennsylvania courts have long held that circumstances unique to the user ofaj property and not 41. Unnecessary! hardshipjustifying the grant ofa variance can be shown when denial ofa variance  320 would render thej property practically useless. Economic andj personal considerations in and oft themselves 321 are: insufficient to constitute! hardship. McNally V.. Bonner, 165 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 186, 645A.2d287, 322 289(1994)(citations omitted). See also Evans V. Zoning Hearing Board oft the Borough 326 to allow ar reasonable use ofl land. Ast the Commonwealth Court stated long ago in Marple Gardens, granted Inc. V. 327 Board ofZoning Adjustmento tofMarple Township, 81 Pa. Commw. Ct.4 436,303 A24239,242(1973),; 328 testi is not whether the desired use oft the property by its owner is the more desirable or even the best "[T]he use." 43. A variance, if granted, must be the minimum that will afford relief and will 331 modificationofthe: ordinance. E.g., Rogers VS. Zoning Hearing. Boardo of East Pikeland represent 922, 924 (Pa. Commw. 1987); MPCS9102(a)(5); Zoning Ordinance S 184-65(D)(4). 335 hearing, the Applicant'sa above variancei requests should! be and arel hereby denied because, inter alia, he has 336 not: met his heavy burden ofj proof for said variances in at least the following respects:  723  323 A.2d 686 (Pa. Commw. 1999).  ofSpring City,  324 325 329 330 332 333 334 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349  42. Variances arei not granted to allow thel highest and! best use ofland. Instead, variances are  the least Townhip,520A.2d  44. Based upon the foregoing facts, legal principles, testimony, and other evidence presented at the  A. The Applicant failed to adequately prove that there are unique physical circumstances peculiar tok hisl Property thatresultsi in' umnecessayhariahip'asi isneededu under zoning law. The only discernable "unneçessary hardships" expressed the applicable appeared tol be (1) the original Basement kitchen and bathroom somehow constitutes an hardship necessary that prevents him from using the dwelling for multi-unit apartment rentals, or (2), it would be too costly to renovate the Property to add a commercial or industrial use in order to comply with the ZO. But the Applicant provided no specific evidence to confirm his subjective opinion about excessive renovation costs. And the Board disagrees and cannot imagine how the Basement kitchen and bathroom couldeven create an unnecessary hardship or how such prevents him from using his multiple apartments, particularly since he already is doing sO with his 3 apartments. Moreover, economic and personal considerations in and oft themselves are insufficient to  by Applicant  for dwelling  -6-    350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 394 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411  constitute an "unnecessary hardship" caused unique physical circumstances or conditions of the Property including, without limitation, irregularity, shallowness ofl lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other narrowness, conditions or B. Tot the extent the Applicant has actually suffered an otherwise! hardship" under applicable zoning law, such hardship appears legally to bej proper unnecessary and to the user oft the Property and not to the Property itself. The Applicant failed to adequately prove that because of some circumstances or conditions ofthe Property, there isi no possibility that thej unique physical can developed in strict conformity with thej provisions ofthe ZO andt that the authorization property be a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the contrary, the Property can be and has been reasonably used in the Property. To the apartment building, andi it also could be used for other uses permitted past the for ZO a three unit ass special exceptions, or as conditional uses, all without the needi for variances by asi outright, D. The Applicant failed to adequately prove that the variances, if authorized, will adversely alter thee essential character ofther neighborhood or districti in which thel not isl located. Yes, the Applicant made bald statements to that effect, but he still needed Property  by  peculiar to the Property.  physical  personal unique  of requested  by the Applicant.  support same with some evidence. He didn't.  to  E. While the desired variances may make the Property more desirable to the result in al better or best use oft thel Property, those are not the tests for F. The Applicant failed to adequately prove that the variances, ifauthorized, will the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification represent possible of the regulation ini issue. Again, no evidence of such was 45. ZOCh.3 380,Attachment. 2, Table of PemtitadUie-Primariyw Nonresidential.  Applicant, traditional or granting  variances. And  presented. Districts,Notel,  382 provides in relevant part as follows:  1. Within the) RPJ District, this use shall be limited to within buildings that existed at thet time of adoption of this chapter. Minor additions shall allowed to an existing building for handicapped accessibility and be emergency access. See minimum floor area requirements for in $380-55. Apartments shall only be allowed in a building dwellings that also includes an: allowed principal commercinorimrimiomt use.  added)  (emphasis  46. The Borough conceded that despite the above requirement, the Applicant need not 393 commercial ori industrial use in the Property dwelling with the 3 apartments, because thel known! provide this Property confirms that such commercial ori industrial use: requirement) has not previously beeni history for 395 ore enforced for this particular Property. Accordingly, the. Board believes itist reasonable nott to enforce imposed  a the all  396 above requirement in this particular case due to such concession.  47. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the Board affirms the ZOF's Violation Notice in  respects and denies Applicant's variance requests as more fully described herein.  MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH! ZONING   HEARING BOARD Lindsay VickieUsciak Xmkaw W. David Sykes -7-    412 416 417 418 419 434 425 426 427 430 431 PERSONS SERVED: 432 Applicant: 433 Christian Madera 434 3301 North George Street 435 Millersville, PA17551 436 437 Applicant's Attorney: 438 Sheila V.O'Rourke, Esquire 439 Gibbel Kraybill & Hess, LLP 440 29331 Lititz Pike, POB: 5349 441 Lancaster, PA 17606 442 443 Other Parties: 444 Millersville Borough 445 1001 Municipal Drive 446 Millersville, PA17551 447 448 Millersville. Borough' 's Solicitor: 449 Josele Cleary, Esquire 450 Morgan Hallgren Crosswell & Kane, P.C. 451 7001 NI Duke Street 452 Lancaster, PAI 17602 454 DATED: December 22, 2022  413 DATED AND FILED DECEMBER 22, 2022, after public notice and hearing duly commenced on 414 November17,2022 and continuedi untill December: 22, 2022solelyf forpurposes sofvotingu upont this] Decision.  APPEALS DEADLINE  420 ALL APPEALS OF THIS DECISION MUST BE FILED WITH THE LANCASTER COUNTY 421 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LANCASTER COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA, WITHIN THIRTY  422 (30) DAYSOFTHE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS DECISION.  PROOF OF SERVICE  428 The undersigned hereby certifies that the Date of Service ofthis] Decision is onl December 22, 2022, andi ity wass served 429 upon thej persons att their respective addresses and in the manners as follows [applicable boxes are checked):  METHOD OF SERVICE: Hand delivery Hand delivery  Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail  Hand delivery Hand delivery  Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail k  453 455  Greg Sahd,  Boro. Mgr.