Newtown Twp. Zoning Decision On DeLuca Plan Coming July 6; Next Wawa Hearing June 27

A relatively small project has created a fairly big stir in Newtown Township.

DeLuca Construction’s proposal to subdivide a 3.1-acre parcel at 70 Twining Bridge Road into two lots, demolish three old and vacant buildings and put up two new single-family homes drew more than 20 people out to Thursday night’s township zoning hearing board meeting, where variances for the project were being considered.

After a two-hour hearing, ZHB Chairman Paul Cohen announced that the matter would be continued at the July 6 meeting, where public comment would be taken and – more than likely – a decision on the variances would be announced.

On another issue from Thursday night’s meeting, zoning hearing board Solicitor Alex Glassman announced that the next ZHB hearing on a Wawa with fuel dispensers proposed for the corner of the Newtown Bypass and Lower Silver Lake Road will be held June 27. It will be the latest in a series of hearings being held on a validity challenge filed by the developer Provco Pinegood Newtown LLC to elements of the joint municipal zoning ordinance that governs zoning for Newtown, Upper Makefield and Wrightstown townships.

On the DeLuca Twining Bridge Road plan, the township supervisors oppose it and authorized solicitor David Sander to attend Thursday night’s ZHB meeting and speak in opposition. A majority of supervisors and several nearby residents feel the buildings might have historical value and that granting the variances would be too big a departure from rules governing the Conservation Management zoning district where the property sits.

Thursday night’s hearing consisted of lengthy testimony from Justin Geonnotti, a civil engineer representing DeLuca, and township Zoning Officer and Building Code Official Mike Italia. During testimony, Sander established that DeLuca could build one new home on the property by right and without the need for zoning variances.

However, Joe Blackburn, the attorney representing DeLuca on the project, repeated again that only one home would not be economically feasible for the company, and Geonnotti added that DeLuca would actually lose money with only one home. It needs to be able to recover the estimated $170,000 cost of demolishing the buildings, remediating asbestos in all three structures, removing underground storage tanks and other clean up, Blackburn and Geonnotti said. The cost could end up being higher than $170,000, Blackburn added.

“So DeLuca is asking the zoning hearing board for relief so it can make a profit?” Sander asked at one point during the hearing. He added during his closing argument: “That’s all economic hardship and is not a justification for variances. DeLuca has not proven a necessary hardship. This would be another step in degrading the CM zoning. Newtown seems to be a target for everyone trying to poke holes in that zoning.”

DeLuca is asking for variances allowing homes on less than three acres, a minimum lot width less than normally permitted under CM and a separation  between buildings less than normally permitted.

Blackburn argued Thursday night, as he had during a previous supervisors’ meeting, that DeLuca’s plan represents a significant improvement for the property. It would rid the land of three buildings, believed to have been constructed around the mid-1800’s, in an “advanced state of dilapidation” and other safety concerns and also would be a greater preservation of open space on a proportional basis than at three nearby large housing developments, Blackburn noted.

In addition, the project would bring a stormwater management system to a property that has none, he stated. On the issue of the three old buildings’ possible historical value, that would be thoroughly examined as part of the township’s review of DeLuca’s demolition permit application but is not a zoning consideration, Blackburn said. He added other issues like stormwater management would be looked at closely as part of the land development process, if the project gets that far.

In the six years the property was for sale, DeLuca was the only one to step up and enter into an agreement to buy the land, Blackburn continued.

Adjacent property owner John McIntyre, who opposes the DeLuca plan, was granted party status, meaning he can question witnesses and has other rights. 

“I already have significant flooding on my property,” he said Thursday night. “This applicant has not proven any hardship because in fact none exists. It just doesn’t sit well with me.”

When Cohen announced the intention to continue the hearing to July 6, Blackburn initially objected, saying that DeLuca’s agreement of sale was soon to expire and it needed a decision that night. However, after conferring with his clients, the attorney agreed to the continuation. At the request of Glassman, Blackburn and Sander will submit legal memos addressing some of the issues in the case, by June 22.

Blackburn urged township officials and residents to consider what will happen if DeLuca’s requested relief is denied. He repeated that DeLuca’s original plan was for a three-lot subdivision until it was changed after talking with neighbors.

“This is not an attempt to maximize profit, but they can’t absorb those kinds of cleanup costs and clean up that dump with just one house,” Blackburn said in his closing argument. “We believe this project will be a boon to the neighborhood. But absent the requested relief, everything will remain status quo and status quo is no good. In another six years, everything will be the same except those buildings will be on the ground (through natural deterioration).”