Category: Development
Newtown Gate Residents Versus Doggy Dayz K9 Resort
UPDATE (29 Mar 2021): Doggy Dayz will be withdrawing their application to the ZHB.
“We Love Dogs,” Says Newtown Gate Board President, But Not 120 of Them Less Than 600 Feet From Us!
Here we go again! Residents again have organized to oppose a dog kennel in Newtown. Recall that in 2018 residents opposed giving zoning variances to the Sit.Stay kennel claiming that the kennel, and noise from its dogs, would “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.” The residents lost that case. [Read "When It Comes to Zoning Variances for the Sit. Stay. Kennel, Some Residents Will Not Let Sleeping Dogs Lie".]
This time, Newtown Gate residents have organized a campaign opposing the application of Doggy Dayz to set up an indoor “K9 Resorts Luxury Pet Hotel” at 8 Pheasant Run (at the intersection with Terry Drive) in the LI (Light Industrial) district of Newtown Township (see aerial view above).
The application came up for review for a second time last night (February 16, 2021) before the Newtown Planning Commission (PC). This time, Mr. Fred Kurtz, president of the Newtown Gate Homeowners Association and several residents attended the meeting. The residents – including the Master Board of Newtown Gate – sent letters opposing the application to all PC members as well as to all Newtown Supervisors and members of the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB)..
“We have many concerns regarding the continuous seven day a week operation of a dog kennel with outdoor dog runs located less than 600 feet with direct line of site from our community's boundaries,” said Mr. Kurtz in the Master Board letter [link]. Two major concerns are summarized below.
Too Little Space
“This application requests that up to 120 dogs be permitted which would require 25 acres to house the number of dogs that are intended. The applicant in their presentation argued that those requirements were because traditionally kennels were outside of city boundaries in rural areas. There is a reason for that- nobody wants 120 dogs barking in their backyard! Having an appropriate amount of space maintains the peace by creating adequate separation from neighbors.”
Mr. Kurtz noted that “the applicant quotes the parcel size of 3.2 acres which materially misrepresents the space allowed for the dogs. They are including space which belong to other businesses, including parking areas and outdoor spaces dedicated to those other businesses.”
Too Much Noise
The main complaint, however, is the noise of barking dogs when they are let outside to play and exercise. The play area is only 551 feet from the Newtown Gate boundary (see aerial image).
“Dogs bark at levels reaching 110 decibels, and multiple dogs barking during regular ‘play time’ would result in a sustained daily violation of Newtown Township sound ordinances,” claimed Mr. Kurtz. § 2-201 - Unlawful to Disturb the Peace. (Ord. 89-0-220, 9/7/1989, § 1) was cited:
“No person shall allow any dog or other domestic animal owned by him or under his control, or any nondomesticated animal confined on that person's premises, to make any loud or harsh noise or disturbance, by barking or otherwise, which shall interfere with or deprive the peace, quiet, rest, comfort, repose, health or sleep of any person within the Township. The Township declares that permitting such behavior by any animal shall constitute a nuisance.”
It should be noted, however, that Township supervisors opted to cut several sections from local code governing “excessive and unnecessary” noise, including from animals or birds making continuous noise longer than 15 minutes if it is deemed to have “annoyed” people. Officials described the section as “subjective” and difficult to enforce, in that dogs often would stop barking between the time they got a call and arrived on the scene.
“Clearly,” said Mr. Kurtz, “[the noise of barking dogs] would disturb the ‘peace, quiet, rest, [and] comfort’ of our residents, particularly those closest to the business, and therefore granting a variance to the applicant would be in violation of the basic rights of residents in our community.”
Not only that, the noise might be detrimental to the business of Baylinks Golf located next door to the proposed kennel site in the same building. “Not only were they wholly unaware of this proposed application,” claimed Mr. Kurtz, “but they were also very much not in favor of it.” Mr. Kurtz pointed out that “people are expected not to even talk when someone begins their backswing, a courtesy even strangers who play there extend to each other.”
Not in Our Back Yard!
Mr. Kurtz urged the applicant to find an alternate location, “perhaps on the other side of the office park where there are no residents close by. We support your desire to locate a business in the community, but not as proposed and certainly not at the expense of our residents.”
You can listen to all of Mr. Kurtz’s comments as well as the response form the Doggy Dayz lawyer in the following 9-minute audio clip excerpt from the Planning Commission meeting.
In the end it was decided that representatives of Newtown Gate and Doggy Dayz would meet separately to see if they could hash out their differences before the application goes before the Board of Supervisors and the ZHB. The PC members indicated it would be a good idea for Doggy Dayz to do a study of the noise at one of their other locations to see if there is a problem. This would be at their expense just as was the case with the traffic study that was submitted.
Time To Redefine the LI Zone
This is NOT a new use – it’s an application for multiple variances to allow this specific use, which is not likely to be sought again by another applicant. The township cannot continue to willy-nilly grant variances to enable different very specific businesses to occupy space in the Newtown Commons/LI district area. What we need is to completely redefine the LI zone – which encompasses the Business Commons – to allow “by right” different businesses than are currently not allowed now – especially high-paying businesses with multiple employees. Industrial use simply is not going to cut it in this day and age.
There has been much discussion about how to do this by the Newtown Economic Development Committee (EDC). In fact, the EDC recently submitted some suggestions to the Board of Supervisors for rezoning the district to allow amenities such as the K9 Resort, restaurants, etc. Download the EDC memo for more details.
Read More...Posted on 17 Feb 2021, 14:57 - Category: Development
Will Newtown Help Residents Fight Arcadia III?
At the January 13, 2021, Newtown Board of Supervisors Meeting, Mike Gallagher, former Supervisor, current Bucks County Deputy Chief Information Officer, and resident of Newtown Crossing, said that the Eagle Ridge HOA had a better chance of winning its appeal against Arcadia III than does Newtown. Consequently, said Mr. Gallagher, it would make sense for Newtown to help with their case, which is distinct from the "Mandamus" case filed against Newtown by the developer.
Recall that Newtown recently failed to approve a settlement agreement with the developer to settle its "mandamus" case along with other court challenges made by the developer. The judge in that case “deemed approved” Arcadia's proposed 76-home community even though supervisors were unanimous in denying the project (see story below). The Eagle Ridge Community Association filed a separate Notice of Appeal from the asserted deemed approval.
According to Eagle Ridge resident Eric Scott Gold, some residents of Eagle Ridge and other nearby communities, including Newtown Crossing Community Association, Crowne Pointe Community, Liberty Square, are interested in setting up a fund to help finance the legal battle.
Mr. Gallagher and other residents wanted to know if Newtown Township was willing to help residents fight the case in some way, including helping pay the legal fees. The Supervisors agreed they need more information before they could decide and will arrange an executive session with residents and their lawyer in the near future to discuss the options.
Listen to the following short audio clip of the discussion. The entire video archive of the meeting is available here.
Read More...Posted on 14 Jan 2021, 13:08 - Category: Development
Newtown BOS Rejects Chick-fil-A/Old Navy Settlement Agreement
At it's January 13, 2021, public meeting, the Newtown Board of Supervisors (BOS) voted 3-2 against agreeing to a settlement with Newtown Bucks Association (NBA) regarding Chick-fil-A and a "retail pad" in the Newtown Shopping Center.
NBA intended to make certain traffic/circulation improvements as related to the existing Chick-fil-A restaurant in the Shopping Center, together with a proposed pad that would be used for additional retail space (i.e., proposed Old Navy site).
The agreement would have granted several variances, including allowing additional impervious surface for the retail space, which was the main reason the Zoning Hearing Board originally voted against the application (read "So what's the status of the proposed Old Navy at the Newtown Shopping Center?").The BOS, however, seemed mostly concerned about the plan to "improve" traffic related to Chick-fil-A.
This following audio clip from the meeting mainly focuses in on that discussion. View the video archive of the entire BOS meeting here.
Read More...
Posted on 14 Jan 2021, 01:30 - Category: Development
Newtown Area Comprehensive Plan Survey
The Newtown Area Jointure (the joint municipal zoning consortium comprising Newtown Township, Upper Makefield Township, and Wrightstown Township) would like your help in determining future planning needs for your community.
The Jointure is beginning the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, which was last updated in 2009. The Comprehensive Plan is the Jointure's primary land use policy document that sets goals and objectives, and a vision for future development and growth. The Comprehensive Plan sets the foundation for land development standards, including subdivision and zoning laws. The plan is periodically reviewed in order to make sure it reflects the most current needs and views of the community.
At the June 2019 meeting of the JZC, Lisa Wolff, Senior Planner at the Bucks County Planning Commission (BCPC), presented a proposal to update the Newtown Area Joint Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2009 (listen to her presentation below). [Download the proposal here.]
See 2009 Newtown Area Joint Comprehensive Plan
The Jointure would like to hear the views of as many residents as possible, and is committed to ensuring the community plays an active role in developing the policies that will help shape the development in the Jointure for the next ten years and beyond.
Questions include:
- Why did you choose to live in your township?
- What are the best characteristics of your community?
- What do you consider to be the most important problems facing your community?
- Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the residential development within your community?
- Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the commercial development within your community?
Read More...
Posted on 09 Jul 2020, 01:34 - Category: Development
It's Strike Two for 27 Townhomes on Durham Road!
At the November 13, 2019, Newtown Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting, Durham Partners Group, LLC, submitted a Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) application for twenty seven townhomes and associated dimensional variances on the property located at 413 Durham Road in the PS-2 (Professional Service) Zoning District. The BOS heard from the applicant's professionals that the proposed townhouse use is much lower impact from a traffic and development standpoint than a permitted medical office building.
Strike One!
After extensive questioning by Supervisors, the BOS voted 4-1 to send the Township Solicitor to the December 5, 2019, ZHB meeting to oppose the developer's request for 7 variances (for more details, read "Newtown Supervisors Oppose Plan To Build 27 Townhouses" in the Newtown Patch). Supervisor Kyle Davis cast the lone "nay" vote.
According to resident Mike Horbal in a private comment to me, "this is a classic example of 'overdevelopment' or, worse, 'land grab.' This use is not permitted as a use by right, a conditional use, OR a special exception in the PS-2 district," said Horbal.
In comments before the BOS, Mr. Horbal noted that without any variances, only one single family home would be allowed at this location. He said "to propose twenty seven townhomes on a 5-acre property makes very little sense except for the developer." Mr. Horbal said that if the town is really against overdevelopment this would be a "perfect example" to oppose. "Don't come to town," said Mr. Horbal, "if you can't propose a project that meets the requirements of the zoning regulations."
Resident Joyann Charlton echoed Mr. Horbal's comments and implored the BOS to take a position against the development. Ms. Charlton mentioned the strain on already overcrowded schools and busing.
View the following video of the Q&A and comments from the BOS and residents:
Strike Two!
Heath Dumack, the engineer hired by the developer, appeared before the Newtown Planning Commission at its November 19, 2019, public meeting "as a courtesy."
Mr. Dumack responded to questions by the members of the Commission and commented that "You're being much nicer than the reception I received last Wednesday" (he was referring to the reception by the Board of Supervisors).
But the "niceties" did not last long. PC member Paul Cohen said "I don't want to be too impolite about it, but this is crazy! This is just a blatant effort to squeeze as much as possible out of this. To come in and propose - where there's supposed to be one home - twenty-seven is... incredibly bold."
Listen to the discussion at the PC:
Strike Three?
The next step for Durham Partners Group is to appear before the Zoning Hearing Board. Will the third time be the charm or will it be strike three and "yer out!"? With the Township Solicitor there to oppose awarding variances for this plan (see below), it is my hope that the ZHB denies the application.
Would it have been possible to save the township some money and just send a letter to the ZHB? I don't think so. It is my experience that developers will never give up and they are willing to spend the money on lawyers. You can't fight that with a letter!
Read More...Posted on 20 Nov 2019, 01:57 - Category: Development
Connect With Us