ShareThis Page

Council leary of new request

| Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013, 9:21 p.m.

Another exception to Baldwin Borough codes is needed to allow the addition of “morning rooms” on the final homes being built in the Breckenridge Highlands plan.

Yet, the site's past, filled with many variance requests and even a court case, led borough officials to closely examine the latest request, they said.

“I think we should ask a lot of questions on this just because of the past history of the site,” council Vice President Michael Stelmasczyk said.

Baldwin Borough Council held a public hearing Tuesday to consider a request from Ryan Homes to modify the front building line setback of Breckenridge Highlands from 20 feet to 15 feet.

The Breckenridge housing complex was approved by Baldwin officials in 2004 as a planned residential development to be built in two phases, solicitor Stanley Lederman said. Phase II was granted final approval in 2005.

The property is owned by the Holly Hill Development Corp., and Ryan Homes was contracted to build and sale homes on the site, Lederman said.

The request would shift about five single-family, condominium-style homes on Towervue Drive closer to the front street to allow for “morning rooms” to be built in the rear.

Baldwin Borough's planning commission on Dec. 10 recommend that council deny the request.

A public hearing, then, must be held to determine if council will uphold the planning commissions decision or go along with the request, Lederman said.

Amanda Anderle, a sales manager with Ryan Homes, said the request is based on a market need — which is now for bigger homes. Adding the morning rooms would increase the square footage of the homes and therefore tax revenue, she said.

“Which we thought, of course, would be a good thing,” she said.

Borough engineer Larry Souleret said his concerns were the distance the “morning rooms” would be from the rear slope in the back of the homes and how this would affect parking in driveways in the front of the homes.

Council members stressed that this isn't the first request for a change to borough policy that they've received for the site.

“We keep making exceptions,” said Councilman John “Butch” Ferris, noting that any decision council makes for this property has to be consistent with those in the rest of the borough.

Representatives from Breckenridge also gave a different explanation for a request they made within the last two years that at that time they said was to allow a townhouse that already was built in a different location than it was slated for.

John Bollinger, drafter for Lawrence R. Elliot Surveying, said there was no surveying error, as previously stated. Instead, the building was moved due to a grading issue.

“That's not what we were told,” Stelmasczyk said. “I believe that we weren't told the truth. As a person sitting here, I don't think people telling me something that's not true.”

Borough council has 45 days to make a decision on the issue.

Stelmasczyk requested they present officials with an estimate of how much it would cost the developer to keep the homes in the same place and change the grading on the rear property to allow for the construction of the morning rooms.

Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.