Sunday, November 2, 2014

Residents await zoning decision on 13th Street property


Residents who crowded last Wednesday's Zoning Hearing Board meeting will have to wait a little longer for a decision on a partially constructed building they are contesting. The structure, a large pole building/garage at 631 South 13th Street, has raised the ire of neighbors due to its size and appearance, which some say is out of character for the low-density, residential neighborhood and does not meet zoning requirements. The property was recently purchased by Vincent Fiorella, a resident of Manor Township. The board will announce its decision on December 3, having postponed its scheduled November 26 meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday. At the request of Fiorella's counsel, the board allowed extra time for attorneys to submit briefs, and set a deadline of November 12.

Fiorella told the zoning board he had originally been looking for a residential property with the specific requirement of abundant garage space or enough area to build a garage with sufficient space. Fiorella testified that realtor Jeff Seibert identified the 13th Street property as suitable for his intended purpose of constructing a large pole building for storing and working on personal vehicles, including washing cars. (He also told the board that friends might be on the property, doing oil changes on their vehicles.) According to Fiorella, Seibert then phoned Zoning and Planning Officer Jeffrey Helm, who subsequently deemed the planned structure to be compliant with borough ordinances. Based on Helm's assertion, Fiorella contracted to buy the property, taking possession in June or July of this year. [Records obtained online show a date of May 16, 2014.] Fiorella testified that he also planned to rehab the residential portion of the property - a small, one-unit dwelling - for possible use by his father and brother.

Fiorella said he then contracted with Extreme Pole Buildings to build the structure, contingent on receiving a building permit, which was subsequently issued. He said he believed he was "absolutely 100%" in full compliance with the borough's requirements, having submitted plans to the borough and after receiving a report indicating he could proceed to build.

According to Fiorella, he learned in mid-September - when the building was 85% complete - that the permit was about to be revoked.  He said Helm then informed him by phone that the permit had been revoked, because he [Helm] had made a mistake, and the structure was not in compliance. Fiorella said he subsequently received a letter of September 25, ordering him to stop work. He then received another letter, dated September 26, informing him that the permit was being revoked, because the structure exceeded the 1,000-square-foot limit imposed by borough ordinance.

Fiorella told the board he owes the contractor $27,500 for the structural part of the building and had already paid $21,000 when building materials were delivered. Currently, the planned concrete floor has not been installed. According to Fiorella, he had torn down an existing 20' x 24' brick garage with an estimated value of $10,000 to allow construction of the new 72' x 40' building. He said he also owes thousands of dollars for equipment rentals. He stated that all these costs are unrecoverable. Fiorella said the contractor informed him it would cost an additional $12,000 to convert the existing building to meet the borough's 1,000-square-foot limit. Fiorella stated that downsizing would prevent him from proceeding with his intended purpose.

Fiorella's attorney, Mark Roberts, said his client is appealing revocation of the the permit, and is not requesting a variance, as previously applied for by Fiorella on Helm's recommendation.

Several residents stated their objections to the structure. Tom Lindenberger, who lives next to Fiorella's property, testified that the house on the property is about 1,400 square feet, and the garage is double that. He said there is nothing similar to the large structure in the neighborhood. He said glare from the structure prevents him from opening his blinds when the sun is overhead.

Jill Nagy, Lindenberger's attorney, said Fiorella's zoning application does not include notice of friends working on cars and doing oil changes. She said the documentation submitted was a schematic only. Nagy cited a disclaimer on the zoning application stating that any work affecting existing ordinances must be in compliance with those ordinances, major work is subject to inspection, and new structures require a certificate of occupancy upon completion. Further, any misrepresentation of the proposed work is cause for withdrawal of the permit, and work done beyond the scope of the permit is cause for a civil action. She explained that the disclaimer describes circumstances when a withdrawal of the permit can occur and cited Fiorella's testimony that third parties may be on the property.

Resident Mark Eisenberger testified that the zoning is low-density residential. He cited the need to counterbalance with the potential effect on all the residents there.  He also said that within the zoning ordinance are stipulations that the zoning board is supposed to be protecting the integrity of the neighborhood, and that the building is going to detract from the neighborhood and property values. "People are here because they love Columbia," he said. "We don't need more reasons to push them out."

Zoning and Planning Officer Jeffrey Helm and Borough Manager Samuel Sulkosky represented the borough but did not choose to actively participate. All parties have the right to file an appeal to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas after the board announces its decision.

28 comments:

  1. The more i hear about this, the more the higher ups get what they want!! Its all BULL SH.....t!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. it's unacceptable. totally. when is this madness going to stop??? the Boro and the Zoning officer MUST make this right. and then demand compliance with the Zoning Officer. this is horrifying. unsightly. wrong on so many levels. and must be corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seibert is on the EDC. So do those who think the EDC is good for the boro still think this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I for one never did, they are in it for themselves.

      Delete
  4. I'm not sure how the "higher ups" will get what they want or benefit from this specific issue. Could commenter elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If a "mistake" like this can happen then what if the permit I have signed, in order to proceed with work at my home, is later revoked? Am I simply out of luck or rather out of money? I do not understand how the borough can sign something and later, if they must revoke it, have no financial responsibility. Can any of us trust that when we apply for a permit it will not be revoked later down the road? I have nothing against the code officers, but they must know the codes!!!! It's their job. The residents should not have to hire their own attorney or spend their own time researching codes prior to applying for a permit. That's what our tax money pays the code officers to do.
    Something is very wrong here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We had a significantly smaller, twelve hundred dollar project done at our house and we were required to submit a drawing prior to receiving the permit. How can such a huge project not grab the borough's attention. It should be downsized or removed, but the borough should pay for it, because it is clearly their mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  7. a realtor is NOT A ZONING OFFICER NOR HAS THE CORRECT INFORMATION.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a horrible situation for all involved. Jeff Helm should lose his job over this "mistake." Does the Boro have insurance that will cover the payout they will likely be required to make to Mr. Fiorella?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Agreed, but the bottom line is the code officer signed the permit and he is the person hired to know the codes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If i sign something to harm you, and someone shoots you, is that ok because i sign something and mad a mistake. Do i get punished for tis or a slap on the wrist!!!!!!

      Delete
  10. I think that there is a disclaimer, not that I understand all the legal points, but does that relieve the borough of any financial liability?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The realtor is not hired by the borough to know the codes and approve permits. I doubt that the realtor could be held responsible in any way, however misleading he may have been.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The little clique that runs this town. Seibert calls Helms to approve permit, which gets him commision. I don't have a vendetta against Seibert, I've just seen the same few gain from Columbia too often. He's just one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 100% agreed..........soooooo saaaad....!!

      Delete
  13. I won't presume to know the mind of the zoning board, but if the structure is not in compliance - as suggested by the revocation of the permit - then it almost certainly needs to be modified or torn down. I don't know if Mr. Fiorella will be able to recover any of his costs, because I don't know if it's possible to sue the borough.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about all of the people that used their "political connections" to build houses and buildings all over Columbia over the past 100 years ? Do you think for a minute that the structures all over town were anywhere close to "compliant" when they were built ? You yourself are probably living in a structure that was built out of compliance which you wouldn't even have if people like you insisted on "compliance" before it was built. Do you even begin to realize how many Indians were forced out of their T-Pees so that your for-fathers could build the brick mansions that you are living in ? So what if one little modern structure is a few feet over the line ! Who is it hurting ? Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it wasn't . Jeff Helm has done more for this town then anyone will ever know, so for better or for worse, just so let it be, let the Political chips fall where they fall this time, and move on to a better day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That's why codes were enacted, to prevent buildings from being erected that decrease property values and create an eyesore. Perhaps 100 years ago anything was acceptable, but that was then not now. My parents live in west hempfield and several decades ago a man put a trailer on the vacant lot next door. Over the years, barns and sheds were added, none of which were maintained. The roof has since caved in on the barn. This property has decreased the value of their home significantly. This is what happens when there are no rules. People that work hard to build and maintain a property are screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's not a "better day" for someone losing thousands of dollars in property value.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Boro Manager and Zoning Enforcement Officer "CHOSE" not to speak.? really. or were they banned because its such a screw up!

    ReplyDelete
  18. some realtors choose to tell prospective buyers exactly what they want to hear just to make a sale. this is NOT his first rodeo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! He is part of the self serving, narcissistic group that pretty much runs this town and are slum lords. Look at how their rental properties are loaded with code violations.

      Delete
  19. I have given this situation quite a bit of thought and my question is this, if Mr. Fiorelli wants a large garage to work on vehicles, why on earth pick a high tax borough? Why not a piece of vacant land in a township with lower taxes and flexible zoning? Something doesn't make sense here. He has invested about 130,000. dollars to purchase a house that he is not living in, to demolish a garage he doesn't want, and invest another 27,000. dollars to build a new garage, all in a high tax borough. Either this guy is crazy or he has something else up his sleeve.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Even if the realtor told Fiorelli that, the buck stops with Jeff Helm, or it should have. The borough pays him to know and enforce the codes. Sorry Jeff, everyone makes mistakes, but this one is a whopper.

    ReplyDelete
  21. As a boro code officer, you are tasked to uphold the municipalities codes. Typically, these can reach into the 1000's making it virtually impossible to expect anyone to know them all in entireity. Which is why a codes officer must review EACH individual permit application to make sure of completeness and code compliance. Some applications are more complex than others, nonetheless ALL hold the same importance. In a town like Columbia, even with the recent "uptick" of renovation/construction activity. how many applications come through the Codes Department Office per week that Mr Helm must review? I really don't believe it is that many. Add that to the fact that the Boro hires a 3rd party company to do inspections, Isee no reason why Mr Helm would EVER be inundated and or ovewhelmed to the point of a oversight review error on an application. Secondly, with the number of codes to be upheld at over 1000, there are however a few that EVERY Code Officer sees on a daily and or weekly basis and should then be inately keen about....fence requests, siding, replacement windows, electrical service, pools, SHEDS, roofing, decks, GARAGES, patios, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. When one of these most commonly applied for permits come across the desk, you would think that a Code Officer would be able to see and proposed square foot of building that IMMEDIATELY would trigger a RED FLAG, couple with the residential location. I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories and such, but this case does lend oneself into strongly believing that there was "outside parties" involved that may have swayed or influenced this particular application approval. Either way, it was a HUGE mistake and must be corrected as such. I have NO DOUBT that the Variance Board and their legal counsel will review this to the fullest extent and IF a violation exists or they find that it fails to meet the written and adopted code, they will revoke the permit and seek to have the structure removed and or modified to meet code. Unfortunately for Mr Fiorelli who in fact did recieve a permit for ths structure. He will just have to seek legal recourse. If not, what does this say for upholding the Codes and Laws of the Borough? What does this do to the integrity of the Variance Board? It would make them all a paper shell that picks and chooses when to inact and uphold codes that were adopted to protect and maintain the people of Columbia. The Borough is no different than any other employer in the fact that if an employee majkes a huge mistake, they should be reprimanded. I anxiously m waiting to see the BIG picture here....will the Boro cave into the pressure and politics of some or will they do what they are tasked and have the ultimate right to do? As in any other legal course, the ramifications could open up pandoras box for those who were refused permits for equal, more or even less in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  22. well said! Amen to that,

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.