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 He said Helm then informed him by phone that the permit had been revoked, because he [Helm] had made a mistake, and the structure was not in compliance.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.
