Category: Development
Piccolo Trattoria Plans Expansion With Outdoor Seating
UPDATE: On April 7, 2022, the Newtown Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) approved Piccolo's application with the condition that it must remain "outdoor seating." In other words, the outdoor area cannot morph into de facto permanent seating. The trees (bradford pears) will be removed and replaced with other native trees. ZHB members did not think that parking would be an issue on that side of the Newtown Shopping Center parking lot.
Piccolo Trattoria is currently operating a restaurant use in a 4,146 sq.ft. tenant space located at 32-34 West Road in the Newtown Shopping Center. At the March 15, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, the owner (Fahmi Elabed) – represented by Joseph Blackburn, Partner with Wisler Pearlstine, LLP –presented a plan for proposed construction of a 2,212 sq.ft. covered outdoor dining area with 112 seats (see figures below).
This is just the first step that is required seeking variances for this conditional use, which needs to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors at its March 23, 2022, meeting and ultimately approved (or denied) the Zoning Hearing Board on April 7, 2022.
The outdoor seating area will be connected to the 2,000 sq.ft. adjacent tenant space of 30 West Road (former "Dogs & Cats Rule" pet store) where Piccolo Trattoria has received permission from the landlord to expand it's current operation (which expansion will be the subject of a separate, subsequent, conditional use application).
What Variances Are Required?
Mr. Elabed recognized that in order to remain viable in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, restaurants effectively require an outdoor seating component/option. In order to do this Piccolo Trattoria requires a variance to permit a 59.87% impervious coverage ratio. It should be noted that this represents a mere 0.22% increase over what is presently permitted. Also required is a variance to permit the property owner to continue to maintain 953 parking spaces, of which 169 will remain "held in reserve", whereas the patio addition would otherwise require the construction of an additional 15 parking spaces.
The members of the Planning Commission asked several questions mostly concerned with parking spaces and the removal and relocation of two trees (see Site Plan). The applicant noted that there has always been more than adequate parking at the location of Piccolo Trattoria. This nevertheless could be a sticking point given the increased number of potential customers due to the expansion of the restaurant plus patio seating. While the 2,212 sq.ft. patio could seat 112 additional customers, the application did not indicate how many additional seats would be available in the planned 2,000 sq.ft. expansion.
One Commission member asked if the trees could remain in place. Mr. DuMack, however, indicated that this would be problematic – perhaps because the trees would interfere with the patio covering.
Read More...Posted on 17 Mar 2022, 01:59 - Category: Development
Supervisors Approve Toll Bros Settlement Agreement
The latest Toll Bros plan to build 45 single-family homes on approximately 158 acres of the All Saints Cemetery property located along Twining Bridge Road near its intersection with Durham Road (S.R. 413) was sent to over 1,800 nearby residents in a January 20, 2022, letter. This plan was part of a settlement agreement with Toll after it appealed a 2020 decision by the township that denied a conditional use application.
Toll Bros Presentation
At the February 23, 2022, BOS public meeting, Gregg Adelman, Principal of Kaplin|Stewart Attorneys, presented an overview of a new plan. See the video clip from the BOS meeting below:
The settlement plan and agreement provide for the following:
- Access to the development from the existing signalized intersection at North Drive rather than 2 accesses onto Twining Bridge Road, an option vehemently opposed by Twining Bridge Road residents early on in the process and the main reason for the township’s denial of the aforementioned conditional use application;
- Dedication of 99 acres of open space that can be used by the Township as it sees fit, including permanently prohibiting development of that acreage;
- Location of the proposed homes further away from existing residences on the bend of Twining Bridge Road, a concern that was stated by those residents early on in the process;
- A mile-long multi-use trail along Twining Bridge Road and Durham Road usable by the public: and
- Additional buffering along Twining Bridge Road and Durham Road.
BOS Comments
Several BOS members had comments/questions after the presentation and before voting on the agreement. Mr. Fisher was concerned about rainwater runoff along Twining Bridge Rd, which is an ongoing issue. Ms. Snyder asked about the planting of trees. Mr. Mack focused on the trail and safety of pedestrians crossing Twining Bridge Rd and Durham Rd.
Mr. Calabro focused on making a case about how much money this would bring to the township and suggested that this would mean less need to raise taxes in the future. Several residents, however, did not agree with his reasoning.
See the video clip from the BOS meeting below:
Resident Comments
Several residents made comments and not all of them were negative. [Other residents submitted comments by email to Toll regarding this plan prior to the meeting.] See the video clip from the BOS meeting below:
Joesph McAtee said he preferred living next to a farm but he thought the settlement plan was a good compromise. He also thought that new development may impact taxes in the short term, but thought Mr. Calabro did not take increased expenses – such as school resources – into account.
Bradley Cooper had a lot to say about how Newtown has changed due to the greed of developers and over-building. He misses the farms and the open space. He also complained about justifying this development because of "making a buck."
Mr. Andrew Neville also was critical of the "making a buck" justification that Supervisor Calabro mentioned. He felt that the BOS was "leading the witness...as to what he should be saying."
Mr. Greg Czarnota said that although he was not a fan of Toll Bros, he thought this was a good settlement agreement. "108 [actually 99] acres for free!", said Mr. Czarnota. "We can rent it to farmers. We could do lots of things with it!", he said. One idea expressed by another resident was a senior center.
But Mr. Czarnota also said: "That's land that won't be built on." However, another resident asked: Will the land be deed restricted so that future supervisors can't build on it?
After Mr. Adelman’s presentation and after comments/questions from BOS members and the public, the BOS approved the settlement agreement unanimously.
Read More...Posted on 27 Feb 2022, 14:18 - Category: Development
Wawa's Preliminary Land Development Plan
Provco Pineville (Wawa) submitted preliminary plans in December 2021 for a Wawa at the corner of Silver Lake Rd. & the Newtown Bypass. The township have accepted the application as administratively complete, and is processing the application for distribution to its consultants for review.
NOTE: The Newtown Planning Commission is scheduled to review the plan at its February 15, 2022, public meeting at 7:30 PM. This is an in-person meeting located at the township complex at 100 Municipal Drive, Newtown.
Note: This plan does NOT include signage, which was a contentious issue at the ZHB hearings (read "Newtown Township Versus Wawa: Round 1, Signage" and "Newtown Township Versus Wawa: Round 2, Signage Part Deux"). The ZHB denied variances that Wawa requested, but Wawa can still appeal this decision, which seems likely as no signage plan has yet been submitted. The ZHB Solicitor admitted that “the applicant made the argument that they don’t believe that the [sign] variances are required."
It is likely, IMHO, that Provco will build the Wawa as currently permitted, but will continue to pursue the signage issue/ZHB decision in court.
NOTE: Provco still has its "Substantive Validity Challenge" to the zoning ordinance pending, which was filed prior to the addition of the gas station/convenience store provisions (read "Municipal Cure May Not Prevent Developer From Putting a Wawa on the Bypass in Newtown Township").
Also included is an updated Transportation Impact Study (TIS), which was last revised on November 23, 2021.
Read More...Posted on 08 Feb 2022, 01:14 - Category: Development
Arcadia's Third HOP Application. Will It Be the Charm?
| UPDATE (February 25, 2022) |
|---|
| The third time was NOT the charm! PennDOT returned Arcadia's 3rd Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) application, which was required before the U-turn option would be permitted at Mill Pond Rd and Buck Rd allowing residents to access the Bypass.PennDOT is seeking responses to additional comments it has, including asking for plans for the area to be dedicated to PennDOT as right-of-way. I am not a traffic engineer, but that is essentially what the township traffic engineer confirmed. Download PennDOT's Response to Arcadia and see the comments for yourself. |
Arcadia at Newtown Holdings, LP, (Arcadia Holdings) has been approved to develop a 60-unit single-family home residential community (known as the “Wynmere-Karr Residential Development”), located on the southwest corner of the intersection of the Newtown Bypass (S.R. 0332) and Buck Road (S.R. 0532) in Newtown Township.
But there are sticking points related to traffic safety concerns. How are future residents of the development going to safely access Buck Road and the Bypass? Will the access to and from the development be safe?
The Controversial U-Turn
As part of a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between Arcadia Holdings and Newtown Township an Access Evaluation Process (AEP) was performed by McMahon Associates, Inc., the developer's traffic engineers. This study considered four access options, but only one option – a controversial U-turn at Mill Pond Road – was the only option pre-approved by PennDOT. The U-turn is controversial because many residents – and the Township – feel it would be unsafe. [For background, read “Controversy Regarding Proposed Arcadia Newtown U-Turn Option”]
In 2021, Arcadia filed two Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) applications to PennDOT to approve the U-turn option. On October 29, 2021, PennDOT returned the second application for further revisions. [See PennDOT’s Response Letter]
Arcadia recently filed a third HOP application in response to comments from PennDOT and Newtown Township. Below, I present selected comments and responses from McMahon Associates. Perhaps the third time’s the charm!
Comments Submitted By the Newtown Planning Commission
PennDOT required written evidence, prior to the issuance of a permit, that Newtown Township has had the opportunity to comment on the developer’s HOP plans. As I pointed out to PennDOT via email on November 24, 2021, the Newtown Township Planning Commission (NTPC) did not have an opportunity to comment specifically on neither the first nor the second the HOP application as required by PennDOT (see insert below).
| My Email to PennDOT |
|---|
| Dear Mr. Hanney [PennDOT's Philadelphia Region Traffic Services Senior Manager Francis Hanney]:
Re: Arcadia’s Highway Occupancy Application #148702 PennDOT’s October 29, 2021, Response Letter says: “The Department requires written evidence, prior to the issuance of a permit, that Newtown Township is aware of the project and has had the opportunity to comment. Provide written evidence (e.g. municipal engineering review, council or planning commission meeting minutes, executed TE-160, etc.), which is less than one year old, to satisfy this requirement.” On November 15, 2021, Arcadia submitted a response to PennDOT in which it said: “A copy of the latest Township review letter is included with this submission. Additionally, the email address for the Township Manager (Micah Lewis) has been added in EPS as Additional Email Address 2.” This was offered by Arcadia as evidence that the Twp has reviewed the application. The letter Arcadia is referring to is from RVE dated May 25, 2021, which is months BEFORE Arcadia submitted its HOP plan. Also, that letter does NOT mention “Highway”, “HOP”, “PennDOT”, “Traffic”, or “U-turn.” Therefore, in my opinion this letter does NOT satisfy PennDOT’s request. In any case, PennDOT should be aware that the Newtown BOS at last night's public meeting directed the Newtown Planning Commission to review the Arcadia HOP application with the hope that comments from the PC would be submitted to PennDOT to consider. |
PennDOT agreed with me: “The letter submitted in the second application cycle pre-dates the current HOP plans,” said PennDOT in response to Arcadia’s second HOP application. “In addition, comments from the Newtown Planning Commission's review of the HOP application must also be submitted for the Department's consideration.”
Consequently, the NTPC reviewed the 2nd HOP application at its January 4, 2022, public meeting. The NTPC subsequently provided the BOS with its comments (see insert below). These comments and others from the Township Engineer were submitted to PennDOT as part of the third HOP application.
| NTPC Comments |
|---|
| These comments were submitted to the BOS on January 12, 2022.
Arcadia Land Holdings Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) Application Review: This meeting was to review the highway occupancy permit in a public setting by the Planning Commission to satisfy PennDOT requirements as evidence of community awareness of the HOP. We began, for the benefit of our newly appointed members, by reviewing briefly the history of this property and the settlement plan now in place. Eric Carlson, Arcadia VP, reviewed the four options for access to the site:
Mr. Carlson said that PennDOT rejected all but the U-turn as having severe safety concerns including weaving and merging concerns. Mr. Carlson and our traffic engineer Derrick Kennedy reviewed planned roadway improvements and traffic lights and signage to control the intersection to improve safety for the U-turn. Included in the improvements are medians and a “pork chop” at the entrance to permit right out, only. There would be an option to turn left from Buck Road to enter. The plan also proposes improved striping and changes to the traffic signals to allow U-turns only when timed and the addition of a second right turn lane at the Bypass to move traffic through the Buck Road/Bypass intersection. As per the settlement agreement, construction traffic would be prohibited on Mill Pond Road, as would through truck traffic after completion of construction. Only passenger vehicles would be permitted to make the U-turn. The Planning Commission members had a great many concerns about safety in all directions, especially at peak AM and PM hours when traffic tends to back up in all directions. The addition of sixty new homes will add to an already congested situation. The members did not look favorably on this plan. There are concerns that drivers may become impatient if there are delays and fail to wait for the signal for a U-turn. Because the entrance to the site is so close to the Bypass, Commission members also had concerns about cars attempting a left turn into the site and cars exiting the site as traffic proceeds from the Bypass to Buck Road at higher speeds. PennDOT had indicated favoring a new access through open space directly to Mill Pond Road but this has already been prohibited by the settlement agreement. Two residents were in attendance and expressed concerns about safety. They also expressed concern that the agreement to not create an access directly to Mill Pond road might somehow be renegotiated. |
What Vehicles Are Allowed to Make the U-Turn?
The township engineer commented that the “design vehicle” for the U-turn movement on southbound Buck Road at Mill Pond Road is shown as an SUV (see figure below). The engineer requested a larger design vehicle be used to evaluate the U-turn. “The applicant should identify available right of way on the northeast corner of the intersection and quantify the impact associated with a larger single unit truck.” That is, would a truck have enough room to make the U-turn?
The response from McMahon Associates: “The proposed design is consistent with Settlement Agreement and the selected alternative from the access evaluation process with PennDOT and the Township, which includes accommodating a passenger vehicle U-turn movement at Mill Pond Road. The intersection has been designed to accommodate a full-size SUV U-turn movement as shown on the HOP plans. The U-turn movement was never intended to accommodate single unit trucks. The movement is proposed to be signed ‘Trucks’ and ‘No U-Turn’ accordingly.” [See “Responses to Twp HOP Review 2022-01-27”]
In other words, according to the developer, trucks are not allowed to make the U-turn. The only option they have would be to make a right on Mill Pond Road, drive through to Newtown-Richboro Rd, and make another right turn there and proceed to the Bypass. The only problem is that according to the Settlement Agreement referred to by McMahon Associates, through truck traffic is PROHIBITED on Mill Pond Road. This was a major issue for residents and I’m sure when all this is completed, residents will be complaining about through truck traffic on Mill Pond Road. And guess what? It will be very difficult for the township to enforce the No Through Truck Traffic plan.
Safe Access To and From the Site
Newtown Planning Commission members also had concerns about cars attempting a left turn into the site and cars exiting the site as traffic proceeds from the Bypass to Buck Road at higher speeds.
The Newtown Engineer also had concerns: “Further clarification of the operational characteristics of this movement are requested. Is this intended to be a legal movement, or emergency access only? As a double left turn lane design, there are operational concerns with allowing left turns into the service road at this location.”
The response from McMahon Associates: The proposed design is consistent with Settlement Agreement and the selected alternative from the access evaluation process with PennDOT and the Township, which includes accommodating a legal left-turn ingress movement from Buck Road into the proposed site access. [See “Responses to Cycle 8 Comments 2022-01-27”]
Read More...Posted on 01 Feb 2022, 01:34 - Category: Development
Newtown ZHB Issues Official Provco/Wawa Decision
The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) issued its official written decision regarding the Application of Provco Pineville Acquisitions, LLC to build a Wawa super store at the intersection of the Newtown Bypass and Lower Silver Lake Road in Newtown.
The decision grants the applicant’s request for a special exception to operate a Motor Vehicle Fueling and Convenience Store, but denies the applicant’s requests for all variances (number of fueling stations and sign relief). The ZHB voted 3-2 on September 20, 2021, to deny the variances (read “Breaking News: Wawa's Request for Zoning Variances Denied!”).
All parties have 30 days from November 4, 2021 to file an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from the Decision. I fully expect Provco to do so.
“Findings of Fact”
There will be one (1) charging station but it will be utilized by two (2) parking spaces.
At the April 21, 2020, meeting of the Newtown Planning Commission, it was suggested among other things that the maximum number of gas pumps should be eight with allowances for an additional four electric charging stations.
The canopy would be a rectangular roof structure that will have a peaked roof and would appear as an A-frame from the northeast and southwest sides.
[Source: March 17, 2021, Zoning Hearing Board Application]
A high-speed diesel fueling station (for large tractor-trailer trucks) will not be located on the Subject Property.
Members of the Planning Commission and BOS expressed concern that such fueling stations would attract more large truck traffic on the Bypass.
Security cameras that can be accessed by the Township police will be installed. There was concern that a 24-hour business like this would attract criminals.
NOTE: Although the NTPC recommended and 18-hour operation limit, the final E-30 Gas Station-Convenience Store Ordinance does not limit the hours of operation. It states merely “Lighting shall be dimmed to 50% no later than one hour past the close of business unless the use is a 24-hour per day operation.” But it also states “The Board of Supervisors may limit the hours of operation if a residential use is located within 750 feet of the subject property line.”
from the proposed Wawa property line.
“24 hour lights are really out of place here, and would have a negative impact on wildlife as well.” – Comment form a respondent to my Wawa survey.
In regards to a drainage facility to be provided to dispose of the surface runoff, the Applicant has reserved a proposed storm water management facility in the southern corner, which is the lowest point of the property and the ideal place for the location of a storm water management facility.
“Question is again they are lowering the ground level to area with no sewers in place that will flood the area out as well as put running water towards the homes that don’t have any drainage and septic and wells. What about the street pollution that cars will bring to that area and then runs off to the homes next to wawa ! Something has to be done to protect the property’s next to wawa.” – Comment from Gary Fabiano on FB.
“Environmental damage to the lake and surrounding area. The water run off and trash will enter the lake. Fish and wildlife are abundant in the area. In the summer, the lake is green and struggles with oxygen balance. The Wawa will worsen the condition.” – Comment form a respondent to my Wawa survey.
The visibility of the wall sign from the Bypass would be obstructed, considering that an individual has to see through the canopy roof and all the columns in order to see the wall sign.
It was suggested by the Newtown solicitor that having the wall sign visible from the Bypass would eliminate the need for other signage facing the Bypass.
There is a ten (10') foot embankment at the Bypass line of the Subject Property and the Applicant is planning to cut that embankment to approximately four (4') to five (5') feet high. The berm has to be cut down in order to provide visibility and to make sure that a driveway can be connected.
“What about the homes near the wawa ? Reducing the berm !! Geez we hear the cars on the bypass already the homes are from the 60s here way before the bypass so now more traffic by are homes the smell of gas possibly of a spill in are wells and creeks and also more traffic noise?” – Comment from Gary Fabiano on FB.
The Applicant is going to remove some trees from the preservation area because they are cutting down the berm and there will be vegetation and landscaping that will be provided in its place.
Meanwhile, the street view shown in the plan looks like there is no berm at all!
The striped area on Ex. A-6 is intended to be a future driveway to connect to, in the event there is ever future development on the opposite side of the PECO property.
At the March 15, 2021, Newtown Board of Supervisors Work Session, representatives of Lotus Park Senior Living LLC, presented a "sketch plan" for a Lotus Park Senior Living facility adjacent to the site of a proposed Wawa (see image below). This use is not a permitted use in the OR - Office Research Zoning District.
Selected Testimony from Wawa Project Engineer
Michael Redel, a real estate project engineer employed by Wawa, made these points in his testimony (listen to his testimony: “Newtown Township Versus Wawa: Round 1, Signage”).
No drive-in windows are being proposed for the sale of convenience items.
Wawa hires employees from the local area.
There will be no signage on the canopy itself and the pumps themselves will be branded as Wawa. The pumps are located within 1,000 feet of the Newtown Bypass.
Wawa is not planning any signage offsite, such as a sign on Interstate Route 95 (I-95) or Interstate Route 295 (I-295) that might direct people to the site.
The only time when Wawa would have temporary banners placed on the property would be during the first thirty (30) days because Wawa typically fly banners that read "now open" or "welcome" during that time period.
Selected Testimony from Wawa Traffic Engineer
Matthew Hammond, Executive Vice President of Traffic Planning and Design (TPD), who was qualified as an expert in both signage and traffic, offered the following testimony tidbits (listen to his testimony: “Newtown Township Versus Wawa: Round 2, Signage Part Deux”).
The "cone of vision" that TPD looks at when looking at where a sign is located, is essentially the cone of your vision without taking your eyes off of the road in order for you not to have to turn your head one direction or another when traveling down the roadway on a roadway.
A traffic impact study was conducted by TPD in August 2018.
This Transportation Impact Study concludes "...all study area intersections will satisfy Penn DOT ILOS Standards, with the exception of the ILOS at the intersection of Newtown Bypass (S.R. 0332) and Lower Silver Lake Road/Newtown-Yardley Road, which will degrade from ILOS C to ILOS D, during the weekday A.M. peak hour. It is TPD's [traffic engineers hired by Wawa who did the study] opinion that ILOS D is acceptable in urban areas and further improvements would be infeasible at the intersection [emphasis added]."
The research provided by the ITE says that twenty-four (24°) percent of the traffic that will enter and exit this use is new to the roadway network, so if there are one hundred (100) vehicles generated during the A.M. peak hour, twenty-four (24) of the vehicles will be added to the roadway network are new.
A crosswalk would be provided along the entire frontage of Lower Silver Lake Road but no applications would be sent to PennDOT in order to put any type of crosswalk on the Newtown Bypass.
Some residents contend that children on bikes will cross the Bypass in order to get to the Wawa and that this is an unacceptable danger to the health and well-being of residents.
Selected Testimony from the Township’s Consultant
David Babbitt, who was qualified as an expert in land planning and zoning, offered the following testimony tidbits (listen to his testimony: “Newtown Twp vs Wawa: Round 3, Newtown's Expert Testifies”).
Of the twenty (20) Wawas in Bucks County, fourteen (14) have only six (6) fuel pumps. Three (3) out of the twenty (20) have more than six (6) pumps and the final three were too new to appear on Google Maps.
If a sign is designed to be legible and visible from the Bypass, it would be prohibited.
To be oriented toward the Bypass, even if it is not perfectly parallel, means that [a sign] is designed to be visible and legible from the Bypass. There are two signs in the application, namely, the monument sign along the Bypass and the wall sign, that are facing the Bypass and would be prohibited. See, however, testimony above regarding the wall sign not being visible.
If there was no monument sign along the Bypass, someone who is driving along the Bypass and turns their head 90 degrees to see what is on the site will know that the site is a Wawa. There are more SUV s, pickup trucks, and more larger trucks where people are sitting up higher and their eye level is the same elevation of the height of the berm. [See street rendering above.]
EMCs or electronic message center signs, include signs that utilize technology not listed in the definition provided by the JMZO and shall include similar technology, which may be developed in the future.
It is the JMZO, not the limitations of the site, that determine the number of fuel dispensers. There is a rational basis for limiting the number of fuel dispensers on a site less than five (5) acres to six (6) fuel dispensers, which would be that larger properties can accommodate more development and smaller properties can accommodate less development. A fuel dispenser is an example of more development because more fuel dispensers on a site would be a more intensive development than the same site with fewer fuel dispensers.
The ZHB Decision
Gas Pumps
The Board denied the Applicant's request for a variance from Section 501(B)(2) of the JMZO to permit eight (8) gasoline pumps where only six (6) pumps are permitted on a lot of four acres.
The request for two (2) additional gas pumps is solely for the convenience of Wawa, which is a criterion that does not support the grant of a variance.
Adding an additional gasoline pump to the permitted 6 pumps would actually be an increase of 14.28% in the number of gasoline pumps on the Subject Property, far from a de minimis difference.
Wall Sign
The Board denied the Applicant's request for a variance from Section 1103.C.4 to permit the north-facing wall sign to face onto the Newtown Bypass. The JMZO provision of prohibiting signs within 1,000 feet of the Bypass from facing onto the Bypass was enacted to protect both traffic safety along the Bypass and aesthetics.
…if the sign is oriented to be visible and legible from the Bypass, the sign would "face onto" the Bypass. The Board therefore found that the Applicant did not satisfy their burden for a variance request from the terms of Section 1103.C.4 because this request would alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the Subject Property is located, since it runs contrary to the JMZO's intention of keeping signs off of the Bypass.
Message Centers Displaying Fuel Prices
The Board denied the Applicant's request for a variance from the terms of Sections 1103(D)(3) regarding illumination of signs.
The Applicant asserted that variances would not be needed, arguing that the freestanding monument signs that include fuel price modules are not electronic message centers. However, the proposed electronically controlled scrolling fuel price elements would be classified as "Electronic Message Centers" under Section 1101.A of the JMZO.
These proposed signs would be considered EMCs that would be prohibited under the JMZO because the proposed fuel prices are "portions of signs" that display scrolling images and static images that are capable of change or alteration by electronic means.
Monument Signs
The Applicant sought these variances to allow more, larger, and taller signs than are otherwise permitted for retail uses in Newtown Township. The Board denied the Applicant's request for a variance.
While the specific E-30 use had not yet been created, the Applicant was aware of the existing sign provisions when proposing a Wawa located on the Subject Property.
Furthermore, the Board found that Applicant fail in meeting its burden because these signs variances would alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the Subject Property is located, considering that there are few if any signs along the Newtown Bypass in the area of the Subject Property and the addition of signs run counter to the JMZO's intention of keeping signs off the Newtown Bypass.
Read More...Posted on 06 Nov 2021, 10:01 - Category: Development
Connect With Us