This article was funded by LebTown donors as part of our Civic Impact Reporting Project.
The proposed development of four retail businesses in North Londonderry Township, including an Aldi, Chipotle, Taco Bell, and Wawa, ran into a roadblock Wednesday at a zoning hearing board meeting.
The township’s zoning hearing board unanimously denied four variance requests for a retail development that would see construction of up to eight retail businesses on the south side of U.S. Route 422, approximately across the highway from an existing Walmart. Delta Plumbing/HVAC sits directly across from the proposed location, according to a township official.
Zoning hearing board solicitor Amy Leonard said the applicant failed to prove that existing zoning ordinances are causing a hardship for the planned project that would be located in a highway commercial zone district within the township.
“The North Londonderry Zoning Hearing Board very carefully considers all of the variance criteria. And there is case law that is very specific about a hardship,” Leonard said. “And it says, ‘A landowner’s desire to increase profitability or maximize development potential does not establish hardship even under the relaxed dimensional variance standard.’ The board’s decision tonight reflects that.”
Her statement followed an approximate 1.5-hour question-and-answer session with the applicant, the board, and the public, and a 55-minute executive session that preceded the separate denial votes on each variance request.
On Thursday, Leonard emailed LebTown a list of existing case law involving similar matters. One portion of that email states: “Where no hardship is shown, or where the asserted hardship amounts to a landowner’s desire to increase profitability or maximize development potential, the unnecessary hardship criterion required to obtain a variance is not satisfied even under the relaxed standard set forth in Hertzberg.”
Applicant MSP Palmyra LLC petitioned the board for the following variance relief:
- Variance from minimum lot acre of one acre. (Taco Bell provides 0.97 acres. Chipotle has only 0.64 acres.)
- Variance from minimum lot width of 200 feet. (Taco Bell has 188 feet. Chipotle has 129 feet.)
- Variance from building side setback of 30 feet. (Chipotle has only 19 feet.)
- Variance from the maximum sign area of 60 square feet. (Signs on both Taco Bell and Wawa sites are estimated to be at 100 square feet of sign area).
A fifth variance was discussed concerning placement of dumpsters but not acted upon by the board.
It was noted during the hearing by Leonard and confirmed by the applicants that the design plans call for signage reaching up to 220 square feet for one sign and 266 square feet for the other.
It was stated that MSP Palmyra LLC is the equitable owner of a 23.21-acre property, and wishes to construct eight free-standing retail businesses over 8.05 acres. Current land owner is Eastern Land Resources.
An Aldi grocery store at the western end and a Wawa convenience store at the eastern side would anchor the retail center, according to Nick Urbanowicz, permits coordinator for MSP Palmyra LLC.
“We are proposing five distinct commercial blocks with national tenants. We’re proposing two access points under the site. There are shared utilities that will be there as well,” Urbanowicz said. “And then just a little brief history about the unique characteristics of the site as well. Killinger Creek runs along here. There’s two utility easements with the high tension wires that run along the west side and the south side of the property as well as a waterline utility easement as well. All of those are taken into account when we were originally designing the site.”
A fifth tenant has been identified, leaving only three proposed sites to be filled, but that company was not revealed at the meeting since the contract has not been finalized.
Sarah Ritsema, project manager with Widmer Engineering, presented the variance requests, noting that PennDOT was requiring one entrance directly across from another business, which she said was causing a hardship for the project.
“Once PennDOT said, ‘You must align your driveway,’ we lost all the area between these areas,” Ritsema said. “And so, yes. We were saying that the discussion with PennDOT did create an extra hardship.”
Leonard asked Ritsema if the hardship is trying to place eight retail businesses on an area only suited to accommodate six or possibly seven tenants.
“I’m going to say that when we were designing this we had to fit that many tenants in order to make this an economic proposal to your company,” Ritsema said while looking at Urbanowicz.
She also noted movement of a driveway caused problems and that the driveway could not be moved any further back because of an extra electric line that her company did not know exists. “So again, several constraints,” she said in answering Leonard’s question.
Leonard countered that the reason for the applicants filing the petition is primarily for economic reasons.
“You said in your petition, I mean, it’s actually in here several times, the size of the property requires a certain amount of development to be economically feasible. And that’s your primary argument for seeking these variances, isn’t it?” Leonard said.
“Yeah, that is fair. I would say that and also the constraint that she was saying before, that we were fine with meeting criteria before PennDOT required us to shift the driveway,” Urbanowicz said, with Leonard responding again that the zoning criteria would still be met without as many tenants.
Township solicitor Andrew Morrow asked a number of questions and suggested reducing the size of some of these proposed tenant spaces since they greatly exceed the minimal requirements as a way to avoid filing for the zoning variances.
Following a Q&A between Morrow and the applicants, he stated the township was deferring to the zoning hearing board for a final decision.
Zoning hearing board member Deborah Buckfelder asked various questions about who would be responsible for property maintenance and upkeep, onsite traffic flow, and parking.
After the votes had been taken, Leonard noted she will issue a written decision within 45 days of the board’s verbal decision and earlier said that the applicants will be able to appeal within that time period.
After the meeting adjourned, Urbanowicz told LebTown that he was disappointed with the decision, and did not know if the company would appeal within that 45-day window.
He added, however, that he believed they had “hit a temporary roadblock and needed to go back to the drawing board and see if there’s anything we can create to still keep this site viable.”
Questions about this story? Suggestions for a future LebTown article? Reach our newsroom using this contact form and we’ll do our best to get back to you.
Keep local news strong.
Cancel anytime.
Monthly Subscription
🌟 Annual Subscription
- Still no paywall!
- Fewer ads
- Exclusive events and emails
- All monthly benefits
- Most popular option
- Make a bigger impact
Already a member? Log in here to hide these messages
Our community deserves strong local news. LebTown delivers in-depth coverage that helps you navigate daily life—from school board decisions to public safety to local business openings. Join our supporters with a monthly or annual membership, or make a one-time contribution. Cancel anytime.
