Zoning board will hear subdivision plan again
The Ligonier Zoning Hearing Board will have to issue another decision on whether it favors allowing an East Main Street property to be subdivided into two lots.
The plan calls for one lot to be smaller than what is required by the borough zoning ordinance.
The zoning board approved the variance in July. New Jersey resident William Hoover, acting on behalf of property owner Ruth Conrad, asked to divide the lot, which contains a single-family home and a duplex.
The ordinance requires that each parcel have at least 4,000 square feet of land in the village residential district. That meant that Hoover needed 12,000 square feet or seek the variance.
Hoover claimed the 10,500-square-foot property at 318 E. Main St. would not sell unless it was divided and sold as two separate parcels.
Conrad, Hoover's aunt and her husband built the structures in 1965. They rented out the duplex and lived in the home for several decades, according to Hoover.
Hoover said in July that during the few weeks the property had been on the market, no one was interested in owning both buildings.
After the board decided to waive the size requirement on one of the parcels, Ligonier Borough Council voted 6-1 to challenge the decision in Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court.
Council members said they feared allowing the variance would set an unfavorable precedent.
Both sides entered a consent decree because the property had not been posted by Zoning Officer Chick Cicconi.
That means the issue will return to the board when it meets at 7 p.m. on Jan. 28 at town hall.
Jewels Phraner is a reporter for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-850-1218 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.