MINUTES OFTHE July 15,2024  HANOVER BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING  Chairman Bond convened the meeting of the Hanover Borough Zoning Hearing Board at 6:00 PM on Monday. July 15, 2024 in the Hanover Municipal Building, 44 Frederick St, Attendance: In attendance were. Zoning Hearing Board Members Bond, Funk and Shirk; Staffl Members Secretary. Felix, Administrative Assistant Graham-Herrick and ChiefCode Enforcement/Zoning Officer Miller; Zoning Solicitor Senft; Stenographer Deb Zepp; Borough Solicitor Shultis and Attorney Williams were present on behalf of Hanover Approval of Minutes: It was moved by Mr. Funk, seconded by Mr. Shirk to approve the minutes of the Zoning Hearing Board Meeting held on June 17, 2024. Motion carried. Solicitor Senft apologized for not being able to attend last month due to a family emergency. He summarized the items on tonight's agenda. All are welcome to make public comment, limited to 2 minutes of comment, and all wishing to testify must be sworn in. Public comment is a comment session and not a question and answer session. Only those whol have been given party status may ask questions. Attorney Kurt Williams  Hanover, PA, as advertised.  Borough.  has party status for the Moul Avenue application.  Ifanyone would like to have party status, they must first request to do SO. Solicitor Senft asked all citizens who may want to testify, to stand and be sworn in. 236 Poplar Street - Variance request from area and bulk requirements Secretary Felix read the following Statement of the Secretary:  A Variance application was submitted on June 24, 2024 by Home City Ice Company, 238 Poplar Street, Hanover, PA 17331 for the property located at 236 Poplar Street, Hanover, PA 17331. The applicant is requesting a Variance for relief from Section 140-304(d) per Article III, Section 140-304 (area and bulk requirements) of the Hanover Borough. Zoning Ordinance. The property is located A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, July 15, 2024 at 6:00. PM and was  in the (M). Manufacturing Zoning District.  properly advertised on June 30, 2024 and July 7, 2024.    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough Zoning Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page2  Property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have also received notification by mail forwarded from this office on June 26, 2024. Proper postingo of  the property giving notification ofhearing has been certified.  Signed Dorothy C. Felix, Secretary, Zoning Hearing Board."  Mr. Neil Andrew Stein, Esquire was present as Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Chris Attorney Stein stated that Home City Ice has filed to subdivide the property into two (2) lots. The smaller lot is 0.151 acres. The Iarge industrial lot consists of 2.285 acres. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Thei ice company is ai non-conforming use, and the purpose is to sell the smaller residential lot and separate it from the ice company. Mr. Riggle was questioned by Attorney Stein and it was determined that he was qualified Attorney Stein noted that the property is located in the (M) Manufacturing district;  Riggle, PE will be the only person testifying.  to testify.  residential homes are not permitted in this district.  When questioned by Attorney Stein, Mr. Riggle testified as follows: The entire lot is 2.4 acres containing the existing residence. The residence should be separated from the Manufacturing lot. Lot size is consistent with other properties in the area. Minimum relief is being requested to utilize the property. When questioned by Attorney Senft, Mr. Riggle answered as follows:  The: residence is currently vacant.  The Manufacturing facility is operational at this time.  Thej proposedsubdivision will: not take away any parking from the Manufacturing  facility.  There is no available off-street parking for the residential lot.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing Board  July: 15, 2024 Page3  Mr. Riggle does not believe that there is enough lot area available to create a  parking area for the residence.  Zoning Officerl Miller noted that the Planning Commission was concerned if the applicant was willing to stipulate that an easement should be established for ingress and egress to Mr. Rigglestated that the applicant would be willing to accept this potential easement. Zoning Officer Miller added that thel Planning Commission was concerned that there was no formal off street parking for the residence. An easement should be granted for a driveway to a potential parking area from Poplar Street at the rear of the property.  the lot.  Attorney Senft noted that the residence faces Poplar Street.  Mr. Riggle noted that there is currently no easement and no off-street parking. Currently on-street parking is utilized by the residential (single dwelling) property. There are two (2) means ofi ingress and egress: Chestnut Street and Poplar Street. There are: no proposed Chairman Bond asked if, by having the easement granted, the applicant will be able to create a parking area. Mr. Riggle stated he thought a small parking area could be created There was discussion on the ability to provide parking. if an easement were to be  changes to the building or operations.  in the rear of the building.  constructed.  Senft asked for public comment, and there wasi none.  6:30PM: The Zoning Board members and Solicitor Senft temporarily exited the meeting 6:35 PM: The. Zoning Board and Solicitor Senft returned, and the meeting resumed. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Riggle if they were willing to create one parking space on the It was moved by Mr. Funk, seconded by Mr. Shirk to approve the request for a variance tos subdivide the two (2) Iots contingent upon the creation of one parking space with an  to an executive session.  residential lot, and Mr. Riggle answered affirmatively.  easement for an access driveway to the residence. Motion carried.    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough Zoning Hearing Board 225Moul Avenue - Special Exception and Variance Secretary Felix read the following Statement of the Secretary:  July 15, 2024 Page4  A Special Exception application was submitted on April 25, 2024 by Bon-Ton Builders, 1060 Baltimore Street, Hanover, PA 17331 for the property located at 225 Moul Avenue, Hanover, PA 17331 (parcel no. 67000DD0049). The applicant is requesting consideration ofa Special Exception for a Single Family Attached Dwelling (Rowhouse), per Article III, Section 140-302(A), 140-302(B) and 140- 905(D) of the Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance; and a Variance application for the reliefoft the requirements for tree removal per Article III, Section 140-611 ofthe Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in the R-5 (High A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, July 15, 2024 at 6:00 PM and was Property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have also received notification by mail forwarded from this office on June 26, 2024. Proper posting of  Density) Residential Zoning District.  properly advertised on June 30, 2024 and july 7,2024.  the property giving notification ofh hearing has been certified.  Signed Dorothy C. Felix, Secretary, Zoning Hearing Board."  Applicant Tony Forbes, from Bon-Ton Builders was present along with Applicant's Counsel Peter T. Ruth, Esquire, Kevin Barnes, CPESC, GHI Engineering, Chris Swab, Traffic Resource Gorup, and Matthew Wright, Wright Environmental and Land Services, Attorney Ruth noted that the lot consists of 5.3 acres presently used as a single family two (2) story vacant residence. The applicant requested to develop the property asarow  LLC.  house use.  Attorney Ruth described exhibits to be entered into the hearing:  Exhibit A: Zoning Application Exhibit B: Narrative Exhibit C: Site Plan  Exhibit D: Site Plan Color Schematic Exhibit E: Traffic Impact Study Exhibit F: Tree Survey/Evaluation    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Pages  Attorney Ruthr noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to: remove 60% oft thet trees and tol be ablet to remove thet trees thate exceed 30: inches in diameter. The ordinance: allows Attorney Ruth clarified that the applicant is not seeking approval of the plan itself, all they are requesting at this point is to allow the row house use and the tree removals. If approval is granted for the 45 total units, 41 would consist of single family attached or row. house, 1 two-unit would be a single family semi-detached dwelling, a use permitted by right; and there would be one two (2) family dwelling or duplex, which is already an Attorney Ruth questioned applicant Tony R. Forbes and he responded as follows: Bon' Ton Builders owns 225 Moul Ave which they purchased in April 2023. The present use is a single family house with a pool that are in poor shape. There is one driveway on Moul Avenue constructed tol Boroughrequirements. Thea applicant would be willing to replace trees removed under the direction oft the  for 40% tree removal and no trees removed over 30 inches in diameter.  Other issues will be addressed during thel land development process.  allowed use.  The intent is to construct 45 units if approved. There will be al homeowners association (HOA).  Shade Tree Commission.  Mr. Funk asked if the applicant was aware of the trees on the property upon purchasing it and if he knew of the regulations regarding tree removal. Mr. Forbes answered Attorney Kurt Williams questioned Mr. Forbes. He reminded him that a variance can't be granted unless it is proven that the property cannot be used for any of the allowed  affirmatively.  uses in the R-5 zone. Mr. Forbes testified as follows:  The current use: is residential and the property is in poor condition. Itw would be very expensive to rehabilitate thel house, but it could be done. Ini its present condition, the property could still be used as a residence. Mr. Forbes stated that it is financially impossible to rehabilitate the property for someone to live there. The house could also be demolished and a new residence Attorney Williams asked Mr. Forbes about the other allowed uses listed in the ordinance, and Mr. Forbes answered affirmatively that thej property could be used  constructed.  Thej property could be improved with other types of housing. for a number of the other uses as listed in the ordinance.    Minutes of the Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page6  Attorney Williams asked how many homes could be built if the applicant complied with the ordinance for tree removal. Mr. Forbes stated that he did not  know.  Attorney Ruth pointed out that all of the proposed uses listed in the ordinance would also require tree removal. Attorney Ruth clarified that the variance is not for the use but When questioned by Attorney Ruth, Mr. Kevin M. Barnes, GHI answered as follows: Mr. Barnes is qualified to testify as engineer for the proposed project. Mr. Barnes is assisting with the applicant's proposed site plan. Subdivision and Land Subdivision Ordinance (SALDO).  for the removal of trees.  Mr. Barnes is familiar with the Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance and the Ina addition, two (2) -(2) unit residences are planned and permitted by right. The row. house use would comply with all Borough zoning regulations. There are no conflicts with other regulations or State and Federal laws. The proposed use: is consistent with the Borough Comprehensive Plan Mr. Barnes agrees with the conclusions described in the TRG traffic study. Ift the access road is private, the HOA would control regulations. There are adequate water and sewer services in the area for: row houses. There is no anticipated impact on fire, police or emergency services. There are: no anticipated significant impacts on neighboring properties. There should be a harmonious relationship with neighboring properties.  41 Row House units are proposed.  There are no anticipated public safety hazards. There are no anticipated odors or lighting issues. 40% of trees can be removed without replacement. Not trees larger than 30: inches may be: removed.  Inc order for there to be a reasonable development of property trees must be Thej presence of thel large amount of trees creates an undue hardship. The projected use will not alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood  removed.  with the removal of trees.  There will be maximum replacement of trees on site. Itis not reasonable to build without significant removal of trees. Mr. Barnes will meet with the Shade Tree Commission on proposed tree plantings in the Borough to cover thei replacement of those trees removed on site. Solicitor Senft questioned Mr. Barnes if he foresees any problem with ingress and egress  for a large fire truck.    Minutes of thel Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Pagez  Mr. Barnes replied that he would meet any requirements the Borough would request. Zoning Officer Miller asked what the proposed cartway width would be. Mr. Barnes replied that currently the cartway is proposed at 30 feet but could be  discussed as part of the land development process.  Mr. Funk questioned Mr. Barnes on the need for tree removal. Mr. Barnes noted that if Mr. Funk stated that the applicant knew the trees were there, and did not understand  the large trees were saved, a street would not be able tol be installed.  why a plan was not developed to preserve the trees. There was discussion on removal and replacement of trees.  Attorney Ruth stated that the amount of trees donated will more than make up for the Mr. Barnes clarified that a qualified tree expert will develop the plan for the tree removals and replacement under thel land development process. Replacement trees will be donated to the Borough Shade Tree Commission to be planted in public areas for the Mr. Shirk asked why they didn't pursue duplexes instead of the row houses.  loss of the trees tol be removed.  enjoyment of all.  Attorney Williams questioned Mr. Barnes as follows:  Mr. Barnes agreed that the bulk and area requirements are a critical part of the Attorney Williams referenced Exhibit C. The SALDO: requires recreational facilities, this is an active adult proposed 55+ community. Where are the proposed recreational facilities located on the plan? Barnes suggested a fee Attorney Williams stated that there are no provisions in the ordinance for "fees inl lieu of" recreational areas. Mr. Barnes stated that he will discuss the proposed recreational areas with Mr. Forbes during the land development process. The  approval of a special exception.  option in lieu of the creation of recreational facilities.  focus tonight is on the use and tree removal.    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page 8  Attorney Williams referenced Exhibit C, and noted the applicant states thati ini the site data table the proposed lot coverage is less than 80%. Mr. Barnes agreed. Attorney Williams questioned if streets need tol be widened in order to enlarge the cul-de-sac, if that would increase the impervious coverage. Mr. Barnes replied affirmatively overall, but not on each individual lot. Attorney Williams noted that table 1 in the SALDO requires minor streets to have a right-of-way of 60 feet. Mr. Barnes clarified that if there is a right-of-way of5 50 feet, then the cartway is 30' on the proposed plan. Attorney Ruth stated that There was discussion on the proposed cul-de-sac and street width. Wider streets would increase the impervious surface. Attorney Williams questioned how the increase in impervious surface by widening the cartway would allow the total impervious surface to remain under 80%. Mr. Barnes stated his intention to have Williams questioned Mr. Barnes on cul-de-sac regulations ini the SALDO. Attorney Ruth protested that discussion of the SALDO is not relevant at a zoning  the applicant intends to follow all SALDO: regulations.  the impervious coverage remain under 80%.  hearing.  Attorney Ruth noted that ift the number of units are decreased then that is addressed as Attorney Ruth stated that the SALDO and all Borough ordinances will be adhered to. Attorney Williams stated thati if the bulk and area requirements are not: met, then that is az Zoning Hearing Board issue. He noted that there is a claim of financial hardship reflected in the application as the reason for the proposed variance. Attorney Williams and Mr. Barnes discussed emergency access to the cul-de-sac and requirements of the SALDO. Mr. Barnes stated the applicant would comply with all Attorney Williams and Mr. Barnes discussed the requirements of tree preservation and Attorney Williams noted that the Zoning Hearing Board must approve the minimum variance necessary to afford relief, and if number of tree removals cannot be shown,  part of the land development process.  SALDOr regulations.  removal in relation to density and financial return.  then the Zoning Hearing Board cannot approve the variance.    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Pageg  Attorney Senft asked Attorney Ruth to elaborate on the tree removals.. Attorney Ruth stated that all trees that are removed will either be replaced on the lot or elsewhere in Attorney Senft pointed out that thel Board has to work with thej proposed plan. Attorney Ruth stated that no: relief is being sought for emergency access. The applicant would be willing to provide the recreational use and guarantee compliance with all Attorney Williams noted that the street width, cul-de-sac and the proposed plan cannot be relied upon as an accurate depiction if the applicant is stating that the plan was  the Borough.  regulations.  developed according to the SALDOand all zoning regulations.  Attorney Williams asked if the pond size was decreased on Exhibit C. Mr. Barnes stated that the size of thej pond was decreased to meet the number of units and the street requirements. Mr. Barnes testified that a 75-80% reduction in pond size is shown on Attorney Williams questioned Mr. Barnes on stormwater provisions. Mr. Barnes testified that stormwater regulations will be accommodated on each lot. Two (2) stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will be on each lot.  Exhibit C.  There was discussion on HOA guidelines.  8:00PM: Solicitor Senft recessed the public hearing for a brief break.  8:08 PM: The meeting resumed.  Attorney Ruth introduced Mr. Chris Schwab with Transportation Research Group, Inc. (TRG) who conducted the Traffic Impact study for 45 units on the intersecting streets nearest the property and questioned Mr. Schwab on the proposed traffic increases that the development would create. Mr. Schwab testified that the overall results of the study indicate that the proposed development would not create additional detrimental traffic impact on the nearby streets and would still operate at acceptable levels. The numbers are based on an age restricted community which would be lower than without the age restriction for the proposed development. He added that even without the age restriction, that traffic would still not be significantly impacted. Attorney Williams questioned Mr. Schwab on the traffic study in relation to the  SALDO's reference to "acceptable level of service."    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page 10  Attorney Ruth called Matthew Wright, owner and principal to Wright Environmental and Land Services, to testify. Mr. Wright stated that he has completed tree surveys in excess of several hundred, and was considered a credible witness. He evaluated all of the trees on the site, and noted thati it is one of the most densely wooded areas in the Borough. Each tree over four (4) inches in diameter was evaluated, 343 in total. The type of trees was predominantly Norway Spruce that were used as a screen from the other neighboring properties, and all were scored individually. Dead trees amounted to approximately 12. There were 210 trees in good condition, and 133 trees were. listed in poor condition. He noted that trees adjacent to one another if removed would closely impact each other. Of the 61 trees in excess of 30 inches, five (5) trees were in good condition and one (1) in poor condition. Scoring was based on International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards but adapted for a rapid evaluation on this site. Mr. Wright stated that any grading within the critical root zone would impact tree  health.  Attorney Senft asked why the evaluation process was "speeded up" and was not stringently completed reflecting all ISA standards. Mr. Wright stated that would take Attorney Senft asked what was done to make the process more rapid and why. Mr. Wright answered that more intricate standards would be utilized for a more in depth Mr. Senft asked if Mr. Wright knew the percentage of the 343 trees that need to be removed. Mr. Wright stated that he cannot elaborate on the trees in relation to the Mr. Funk asked if it was possible toj protect the five (5) thirty (30)-inch trees. Mr. Wright stated that yes, if not more than 1/3 of the root systems of each tree were impacted. Attorney Williams noted that Mr. Wright testified that he is not a certified arborist, but that he worked with an arborist on this project. Mr. Wright stated that he is a qualified forestry professional in Maryland and has a bachelor's degree in biology from Towson State University. He offered to provide the tree evaluation scoring for reference if Attorney Williams questioned why he did the evaluation SO quickly. Mr. Wright stated that he believes that the evaluation was complete and thatitwould reflect similar results  several weeks to complete.  evaluation.  proposed development, only the condition of the trees.  required.  ofan more in-depth evaluation.    Minutes ofthe Hanover Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page 11  Attorney Williams asked Mr. Wright if removing 40% of the trees has a positive effect. Mr. Wright stated it depends on the location of the trees and what conditions. Mr. Wright testified that the site could not be developed without impacting the critical root zone of the 30" trees. The 30" trees are ai minimum of4 40 feet from the house so if the house was demolished and rebuilt it would still impact the root systems of the 30" trees. Mr. Wright pointed out that the location of the 30" trees are shown on the plan for the Board. Attorney Williams suggested that another home could be built farther back on the Solicitor Senft asked Mr. Wright to elaborate on the scoring scale and perimeters he used There was discussion on the methodology utilized in the expedited tree evaluation. Attorney Ruth noted that the exhibits were entered into the record, and the applicant  lot away from the trees. for the evaluation.  rests.  Exhibit A: Zoning Application Exhibit B: Narrative Exhibit C: Site Plan  Exhibit D: Site. Plan Color Schematic Exhibit E: Traffic Impact Study Exhibit F: Tree Survey/Evaluation ExhibitG: Existing Tree Survey/Evaluation Plan  Attorney Williams added Exhibit G to the exhibits, Existing Tree Survey & Evaluation Zoning Officer /ChiefCodes Officer Miller was sworn inl by Stenographer Zepp tot testify. Attorney Williams questioned Zoning & Codes Officer Miller on the tree  Plan.  survey/evaluation and he replied as follows:  The exhibits contain a tree survey and evaluation report. Thel Borough received them in hard copy and electronic.  Mr. Miller and the Borough engineer studied and conducted a site visit of the tree Mr. Miller and the Borough Engineer took the zoning survey and tree evaluation Attorney Williams asked Mr. Miller to elaborate on thel locations oft trees in relation  survey.  and merged them together to make Exhibit G. to the proposed housing project.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning. Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page 12  Attorney Ruth asked Mr. Miller what the results of the site visit were and if the trees Mr. Miller replied that in his opinion and the Borough Engineer's opinion the proposed  along the outer boundaries of the proposed project would be impacted.  development would impact those trees.  Attorney Williams moved that Exhibit GI be included into the exhibits.  Attorney Senft asked for public comment:  StevieLittle,703H Hemlock Court: Mrs. Little stated thats she: resides less than 200 feet away from the proposed development and has an interest in the overall character of thet town. She feels that the development will not have a "minimal" impact to the town. Some of the houses are planned tol be directly adjacent tot the neighbors' backyards. The loss of the trees and the pond will be very impactful to the area. The property could be used in a Kathryn Gent, 867 Blossom Drive: Ms. Gent stated her objection for the removal of the trees which will directly impact their privacy.She: feels that if the trees are: removed then they should be replaced on this property. The pond is al large concern for those who live Cassie Timcheck, 706 Hemlock Court: Ms. Timcheck was not in support of the tree removals or removing thej pond. She asked the Board to deny the variance. Sharon Henley, 700 Grant Drive: Ms. Henley expressed her concerns about the negative Rona Posner, 181 Moul Avenue: Ms. Posner noted that the house is a pre-civil war mansion. When that gets torn down, shei is concerned about the environmental impact of the demolition and thei impact of the 45 units on traffic with only one entrance as well as Attorney Ruth emphasized that the applicant/property owner has the right to remove. trees and pond with no development. The only reason the variance for tree removal is needed is because: it is a new proposed development. The project conforms to all Borough regulations except 611 of the Zoning Ordinance. Strict conformance to the ordinance is  better way. She asked the Zoning Board to deny the application.  there, and it should be incorporated into the plan.  environmental impact of thej proposed project.  the negative impact on emergency management.  not possible.    Minutes of the Hanover. Borough. Zoning. Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page13  Attorney Williams stated that the applicant did not prove that the property cannot be used in conformance with the ordinance. The property can be used in another way and Attorney Senft stated that the Board would be accepting if Ruth and Williams would. like Attorney Senft clarified that Chairman Bond will not be able to attend the August 9:38 PM: The Zoning Board and Solicitor Senft exited thei meeting toa ane executive: session. 9:52] PM: The Zoning Board and Solicitor Senft returned, and the meeting resumed. Solicitor Senft stated that the hearing was a very good example of how a public hearing  not have the need for a variance for tree: removal.  to submit al brief.  meeting, soi if there is a briefing it should be moved to September.  should be conducted, and he commended all on a productive meeting.  HANOVER ZONING HEARING BOARD  INI RE:  BON TON BUILDERS, INC.  VARIANCE/SPECIALEXCEPTION  FINDINGS OFFACT  1.) Applicant is Bon Ton Builders, Inc.  2.) The Property in question is located at 225 Moul Avenue and is situated in an R-5 Zoning District. Applicant is current owner of the Property, having  purchased the same in 2023.  3.) The application requests a special exception for a development of 41 single family attached dwelling units (Rowhouse) under Article III, Section 140- 302(B) of the Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). 4.) The application also requests a variance with respect to the tree removal limitations set forth in Article III, Section 140-611 of the Ordinance. The application does not specify how many trees Applicant wishes to remove, but during the course of the hearing Applicant's counsel represented that the number of trees to be removed would be dictated by the land development plan and mightconceivably include the removal of all of the 343 living trees on  the Property.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page 14  5.) The Property currently consists of 5.3 acres and a single family home. Applicant proposes to construct one two-unit single family semi-detached dwelling (Twin), one two-family detached dwelling (Duplex) and the 41-unit  Rowhouse.  6.) Under Section 140-302(B), the Twin and Duplex uses are permitted by right in the R-5 District. A Rowhouse is permitted only by Special Exception in the R-  51 District.  7.) Al hearing on the application was held on July 15, 2024.  8.) The Applicant presented several witnesses, including Tony Forbes, President of Bon Ton Builders, Inc.; Kevin Barnes, an engineer with Group Hanover, Inc; Christopher Schwab, an engineer with Transportation Resource Group, Inc.; and Matthew Wright, the owner of Wright Environmental & Land Services, LLC. The Applicant also presented several exhibits to the Board, which were  admitted into the: record.  9.) The Board also received testimony from Christopher Miller, the Borough's Chief Code Enforcement Officer/Zoning Officer and one exhibit from the Borough which was submitted into the record. Several individuals also presented testimony during the public comment portion of the hearing. 10.) Mr. Forbes confirmed the Applicant's proposed plans to develop the Property for one Twin dwelling unit, one Duplex dwelling unit, and 41 Rowhouse dwelling units. Mr. Forbes acknowledged that the Applicant was aware that the Property was heavily wooded when it was purchased and also that the Applicant had completed due diligence as to the Property's viability for  development prior to the purchase.  11.) When questioned by the Borough's counsel, Mr. Forbes acknowledged that there were several potential uses for the Property which were permitted by right in the R-5 zone, including the prior use as a single family home; the demolition of the current residence and replacement with another single family home; Twin dwellings; Duplex dwellings; a Group Home; or a public park or recreational facility. Several conditional uses are also available, including a  halfway house, a church or a short-term rental.  12.) Mr. Forbes presented no financial analysis or other testimony which would have allowed the Board to conclude that the Property could not be developed ina a manner which wasi inc conformity with the use requirements set forth in the    Minutes ofthel Hanover Borough. Zoning. Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page 15  Zoning Ordinance, or which would not require a variance with respect to the  tree removal requirements of Section 611.  13.) Mr. Barnes was questioned about each of the Borough's criteria for granting a Special Exception, and he expressed his opinion that the proposed development met each of the criteria. He qualified his testimony on the basis that the development plan submitted as Exhibit C was illustrative in nature and was not meant for the Board's consideration as an actual development plan. He stated that any plan submitted to the County planning commission would be in compliance with the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, and that he understood the need to return to the Zoning Hearing Board for a variance if the Applicant's plan did not comply with applicable  requirements of the zoning ordinance.  14.) Mr. Barnes acknowledged that since the Plan presented was illustrative, he could not advise the Board how many trees would need to be removed from the Property. He also admitted that he would be unable to confirm the exact location or dimensions of the street(s), or the number or location of the residential units. He confirmed the Plan might need tol be changed in order to comply with cartway requirements set forth in the SALDO and/or the  maximum density requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.  15.) Mr. Barnes testified that the proposed development would likely result in a 75 percent reduction of the size of the pond presently existing on the Property. 16.) Mr. Schwab testified that he had completed a traffic study with respect to the proposed use and that there would be no significant impact tot the intersections  which were reviewed as part of the study.  17.) Mr. Wright testified concerning the evaluation of the trees located on the Property whichl he anda ac co-worker. had conducted. He testified that therewere 343 trees on the Property which were four inches or more in diameter. They consisted of Norway spruce trees and various types of landscape trees. Mr. Wright'sanalysis indicated that 210 trees were: in good condition and 133 were  in poor condition.  18.) Mr. Wright also testified that there were six trees on the Property which exceeded 30: inches in diameter, of which five were: in good condition. 19.) Mr. Wright testified that his evaluation gave a score for each tree. Norway spruces which exceeded 7.5 points were rated good and those under 7.5j points    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning. Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page 16  were rated poor. Landscape trees which exceeded 10 points were rated good  and those under 10 points were rated poor.  20.) Mr. Wrighta tacknowledged that he didn'tuse certaincriteria which are typically recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), in order to  speed up the evaluation process.  21.) Mr. Wrightf tfurther admitted that hel had been instructed to place trees into two categories (good or poor) when typical ISA protocol calls for four categories  (excellent, good, fair or poor).  22.) While the Ordinance does not make any distinction between "good" and "poor" trees, the Board is concerned that Mr. Wright's departure from standard ISA criteria led toamisleading evaluation. Inreviewing Mr. Wright's report within the context of a standard rating system, it appears that only four of the landscape trees would have received a "poor" rating of 1-5, and 21 Norway spruces would have received a rating of 5 or less.1 Regardless, the "simplification" of the criteria seemed designed to create ai misimpression that 130 trees were in poor condition, when the accurate number may have been in the range of 25 (approximately seven percent of the trees on the Property). 23.) Several neighboring Property owners spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. They expressed a variety of concerns, including traffic congestion and the ability of emergency personnel to access the Property. They also discussed thes negative impact oft tree removal and the reduction of thes size  of thej pond on the preservation of existing wildlife.  CONCLUSIONS OFLAW  1.) Article IX, Section 140-905(D) discusses the criteria for approval of a Special  Exception and states as follows:  D. Criteria for Approval. To approve a Special Exception, the Zoning Hearing  Board shall find the proposal meets all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal conforms toall of the applicable Zoning Districtregulations and Specific Use regulations.  Since the maximum score: for Norway spruces is 15, it is arguable that a score of 3/4 or less would be appropriate to eam a "poor" grade. Several oft the 21 spruçes received ar rating of5, which may appropriately  characterize them as being in* "fair" condition.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page 17  2.  The proposal conforms toall the applicable standards for site improvements and performance, and other regulations ofthis The proposal also conforms to the following Special Exception  Chapter. criteria: a.  3.  Other Laxus. It shall not be in conflict with other Borough ordinances or state or federal lazos 01 regulations that the Zoning Hearing Board has clear Comprehensive Plan. It shall be generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Traffic. It shall not result in or significantly add toa serious traffic hazard or serious traffic congestion, and shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Safety. It shall not create a significant public safety hazard, including. fires, toxic or explosive Neighborhood. It will not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood with detrimental noise, dust, odor, vibration, light, hours ofo operation, or other disturbance or interruption. Design. It will involue adequate site design methods and shall be sited, oriented and landscaped to produce a armonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties and be consistent with the environment oft the neighborhood.  knowledge of.  b. C.  proposed Special Exception.  d.  hazards.  e.  f  2.) Applicant has not met its burden of proof for a special exception. The testimony presented at the hearing concerning the special exception was sO nebulous and speculative that the Board could not conclude that the granting ofas special exception would be appropriate in this case. More specifically, Mr. Barnes was unable to testify with any certainty as to the number of units, the street width, the maximum density or the exact street locations. Without more    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning. Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page 18  concrete information with respect to the specific plans for development, the Board was unable to conclude that the Applicant had met the standards set forth in Special Exception Criteria C (organizing vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion) or F (the Plan "will involve adequate site design methods and shall be sited, oriented and landscaped to produce a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties and be consistent with the environment of the  neighborhood").  3.) Article IX, Section 140-907(C) Grant of Variances, states as follows:  The Zoning Hearing Board may grant a variance only if it makes the following (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness; or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular Property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the Property is located. (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions there is no possibility that the Property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and authorization ofaz variance is therefore (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the Property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent Property, (5) That the variance, ifauthorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation (6) In granting any variance, the Board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it may deem necessary toi implement the purposes of this chapter. I  findings, where relevant:  necessary to enable the reasonable use of Property.  nor be detrimental to the public welfare.  in issue.  4.) Article IX, Section 140-611 Tree Removal, states as follows:    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page19  The following requirements and considerations relate to the control oft tree removal on all Property proposed for new development within the BoroughofHanouer. A. Up to 40 percent of trees may be removed for any development with no tree B. Up to 60 percent of trees may be removed for any development with tree 1. One inch caliper of new tree shall be planted for every 4 inch caliper ofexisting 2. The species replacement ofo deciduous tree shall be a choice ofoaks, maples, honey locust, beech, or ornamental fruit or shade trees. Each tree shall be no less than 1.5inch 3. The species replacement ofevergreen tree shall be a choice ofwhite pine, Colorado spruce, Norway spruce, or hemlock ofno less than 8 to 10 feet in height. C.A site plan showing all trees over 4 inch caliper is required for submittal to the Planning Commission as part of the review procedure. The site plan shall designate D.I Replacement of trees cannot be used to1 meet other landscape requirements for street E.All trees over 30 inches in diameter shall be preserved and all trees zohich are 16 feet beyond any proposed improvement to existing facilities (building, driveway,  replacement required.  replacement required as follows:  tree removed.  caliper.  trees for removal and location of replacement trees.  trees and buffer planting.  detention facilities, etc.) shall be saved.  (Emphasis added).  5.) Applicant has failed to carry its burden for a variance to Section 140-611, as it did not establish that thel Property cannot be developed in conformity with the Ordinance. The Board notes that Mr. Forbes acknowledged that there are several uses which are permitted by right in the R-5 District. While the Board appreciates that a 41-unit Rowhouse, a Twin and a Duplex might present a more economically profitable result for the Applicant, there was no financial analysis or other evidence presented that would have allowed the Board to conclude that the Property could not be developed in a manner which complied with the Ordinance. The Board notes that a single family home, whichisap permitted use in the R-51 District, is currently located on thel Property, demonstrating that thel Property can be used in conformity with the Ordinance.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing. Board  July 15, 2024 Page 20  6.) Applicant has further failed to carry its burden for a variance to Section 140- 611, due to its inability to establish that the variance it requested would "represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue." In this case, the Applicant's witnesses uniformly admitted that they didn't know what percentage of trees would need tol be removed in order to develop thel Property, nor could they testify as to how many of the 30-inch trees would need to be removed. The Borougischaracterization oft the Applicanti requestinga "blank check" to remove as many trees as it deemed necessary (and possibly all of  them) to complete development was an apt description.  7.) Finally, the Applicant has failed to establish that the requested variance would "not alter the essential character of the neighborhood : nor be detrimental to the public welfare." The Board has concluded that the preservation of trees and the protection of existing wildlife serves the public welfare and that the development as proposed by the Applicant is contrary to those interests. Further, the removal of trees and the substantial draining of the pond would alter the character of the neighborhood, as demonstrated by the testimony of  several residents.  DECISION  For the reasons set forth above, the Hanover Borough Zoning Hearing Board, by a vote of 3-0, denies the Applicant's request for a special exception permitting the development of a4 41-unit rowhouse dwelling unit and denies the. Applicant'srequest for a variance as to the limitations on tree removal at 225 Moul Avenue, Hanover,  Pennsylvania. ATTEST:  ZONING HEARING BOARD /s/Gary Bond GARY BOND CHAIRMAN s/Spencer Shirk SPENCER SHIRK /s/Matthewo Funk MATTHEW FUNK  /s/Dorothy C. Felix ZONING BOARD SECRETARY  Date    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing Board  July 15, 2024 Page 21  Itwas moved by Mr. Funk, seconded by Mr. Shirk to deny the application for a Special Exception and Variance submitted on April 25,20241 by Bon-Ton Builders, 10601 Baltimore Street, Hanover, PA 17331 for the property located at 225 Moul Avenue, Hanover, PA 17331 for a Special Exception for a Single Family Attached Dwelling (Rowhouse), per Articlel III, Section 140.02A/,140.3020) and 140-905(D) of thel Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance; and to deny the Variance application: for the relief oft the requirements for tree removal per ArticleIII, Section140-611 of the Hanover Borough. Zoning Ordinance, based on the aforesaid Findings of Fact, Conclusions ofLaw and Decision. Motion carried. Itv was moved by Mr. Funk, seconded by Mr. Shirk to adjourn the hearing at 9:54 PM.  Motion carried.  K7e Dorothy C. Felix, Secretary Zoning Hearing Board