This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Township Supervisors Deny Beneficial Bank's Request

The bank's representatives asked for permission to sit farther away from the street, but members of the board said that isn't the look they're going for on Sycamore Street.

The Newtown Township Board of Supervisors on Wednesday denied a request that would allow Beneficial Bank a greater setback from Sycamore Street.

The current ordinance states that buildings cannot exceed the maximum allowable front yard setback requirement of 16 feet. The bank's attorney, John VanLuvanee, requested permission to build the bank 39 feet from the street—a 23 foot increase.

During a presentation, VanLuvanee said that the bank can comply with the ordinance, but that the property would lose green space and the ability to shield the future drive-thru.

Find out what's happening in Newtownwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"Allowing the bank to be further back will better shield the cars stacking to use the drive-thru," he explained. "If the bank is placed using the current requirements, the cars in the drive through will be able to be seen [from the view of a walking pedestrian]."

If the bank is built farther away from the street, it would be slightly higher because of the grade it sits on, according to VanLuvanee and Principal Engineer for Bohler Engineering, Adam Benosky. If the bank is built according to the current ordinance requirements, the building will look higher because of perspective, even with the ground being lowered, the men explained.

Find out what's happening in Newtownwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"The visual impact is less," VanLuvanee said of the bank sitting farther away from the street, while showing a comparison of both plans.

Vice Chair Matthew Benchener asked if the building could be pushed back but set at the same elevation, and said that he doesn't think having the bank farther away to better screen it is beneficial.

"I'm not convinced that screening is a benefit," Benchener said.

Supervisor Jerry Schenkman agreed and said that screening can be changed by having different shrubbery and trees. He added that having the building farther from the street goes against the plans for Sycamore Street.

"I'm concerned about the context of this building with our intention of what we want to do on Sycamore Street," Schenkman said.

The intention for that area is to have new development be closer to the sidewalk in order to curate a more walkable environment, Chairman Robert Ciervo added. He said he preferred the plan without the set back because otherwise it would look like a shopping center.

"Which is not what we are going for," he said.

During public comment, Sycamore Street Community Association President Shawn Ward said that the street is 13 years in the making, with the "goal being a town center, not a shopping center."

The request was denied 4-1 with most of the board voicing opinions that the proposal would not fit the ideal aesthetic of new development.

In other business, the board repealed Ordinance 2006-O-6: Sex Offender Resident Restrictions. Solicitor Jeffrey Garton explained that in 2006 "Newtown Township followed a trend" that designated areas where sex offenders could reside.

The ordinance outlined how close a sex offender could live to a park, school, community center or other area where children might frequent. Allegheny County's ordinance, which is very similar to Newtown Township's, was recently found to be unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Garton said.

He added that sex offenders still remain on state registration.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?