Aspinwall Zoning Hearing Board denies variance requests for proposed townhomes at former Methodist church site

An Aspinwall businessman will have to rethink his plans for an old church site after the borough’s zoning hearing board denied variance requests for proposed townhomes.

Amena Properties founder Tony Pompeo Jr. hoped to create five townhomes along the 400 block of Center Avenue, where the Community United Methodist Church once stood.

Declining enrollment led to the church ceasing services in July 2023.

Plans were to subdivide the nearly 0.29-acre parcel into five lots and build townhouses that will sell for more than $1 million each. Three of them would face Center Avenue and two would face Fourth Street.

Each would be about 3,000 square feet, have three bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, an elevator, a sauna and a two-car garage.

The problem, however, was that parts of the plan did not comply with borough codes. Variance approvals were needed to move forward.

Zoning hearing board members voted 3-1 to deny dimensional variance requests on Sept. 25.

Voting to reject were Patti McCaffrey, Beth Murdock and Dan Macek. Robert Carey dissented. Dave Weber and Paul Brach were absent.

“Obviously disappointed,” Pompeo said after the meeting. “I tried squeezing these in as much as I could to make it feasible, but clearly they felt it was too much of a request.”

Approvals sought

Dimension-related requests included front yard setbacks for Center Avenue units. Borough code requires those setbacks to be 20 feet and the plans show 19 feet.

Side yard setbacks along Alley E need to be 5 feet; plans show they are 2 feet.

Rear setbacks along Center Avenue need to be 15 feet; plans show them at 11 feet.

“I liked the plan,” Carey said. “I thought under the zoning law, the variances were minimal and appropriate. I do feel the plan would be a benefit to Aspinwall.”

Board member Patti McCaffrey said she also felt some of the requests were reasonable, but they only needed to find fault in one to reject the proposal.

“I was OK with some of them, but not all of them,” McCaffrey said. “We could have voted on those individually, but ultimately, if you’re saying ‘yes’ to some and ‘no’ to others, it doesn’t matter. Because he can’t do what he wants to do anyway. He needs them all as a whole. … He’s asking for a lot all in one property.

“I have faith that he will work with (building and zoning officer) Ryan Santelli and work through it. He’s shown a willingness to do that and he’s made some adjustments. He just needs to make some more adjustments.”

There was also a usage variance request. The site is in an AR3 zoned area. Single-family and two-family homes are permitted uses in that zone, according to borough code. However, townhouses are not.

The usage variance was granted via 4-0 vote.

Santelli said Pompeo could have proposed a four-story apartment building with up to six units, which is a permitted use in the zoning district and would not need as many variances.

Pompeo’s attorney, Brian Farrington, had presented the board with some plans and argued the townhomes would not be a detriment to the character of the community.

He noted there were several other townhomes nearby that, if built today, would also not meet all zoning requirements and need variances.

“It is virtually impossible to develop this lot in such a way that is economically feasible without these variances,” Farrington said. “My client has done everything in his power to ensure that the setbacks that we’re asking for here, not just the corner setbacks, but all the variances, are the absolute minimum amount of variance that we need to get the square footage, to get the configuration and otherwise develop these lots in an economic fashion.

“It is impossible with the way that the ordinance is set up to develop these with that hardship in strict conformity with the ordinance.”

Planning commissioners voted 7-0 June 15 to push the proposed development onto the zoning hearing board.

Community input

Several residents spoke at the zoning hearing board meeting before the vote.

Resident Kirsten Clemens said only two of the five lots have a porch and she wanted to see more habitable space for people to gather outdoors. She felt the site having 60% of its frontage as driveways to be a detriment to the borough’s architectural character.

Clemens also questioned what the community was getting in exchange for granting the variance requests.

“The priority is not given back to the neighborhood,” she said. “When we have porches, we speak to each other. We look out for each other. We ask favors of each other. We notice if someone’s been gone too long, or if their dog was left outside by accident, to make sure they’re OK.

“There are things that we do where we interact on a daily basis from our porches.”

Resident Gary Britcher said he did not have a problem with the proposed development, citing the borough has row houses, apartments and other properties that make Aspinwall’s character multifaceted.

“I don’t necessarily share everybody else’s feelings about density, character and concerns about yards,” he said. “There are presently other properties in Aspinwall that don’t have any yards. One recently was just done over by the ball field.”

“There is no one character of Aspinwall,” he said.

Councilwoman Lara Voytko did not buy the argument of how conforming to zoning regulations would be a financial detriment to the developer.

“It is not Aspinwall’s purview to help you make a profit,” said Voytko, chair of council’s infrastructure committee. “You knew what you were buying. You had access to the codes. And to have us conform to help you make a profit is a huge ask.”

Resident Scott Zimmerman said that adjusting plans from five townhomes to four should create enough space to eliminate the variance requests.

“It just looks to me like four would fit,” he said.

Pompeo said having four townhomes would not solve all spatial problems and would cause financial hardship. He reiterated those comments after the vote when pondering his next steps.

Pompeo has 30 days from receiving the board’s written action to appeal the decision to Allegheny County Court.

“We’ll go back to the drawing board, obviously,” Pompeo said. “It has been stated that a potential multi-family unit is an option.

“That is probably the first thing I will explore here. I’ll also have to wait for the borough’s official ruling to come out and get a better idea of what their reasoning was. See if there’s any routes we can go.”

Clemens said she was happy with the zoning hearing board’s decision.

“I think it’s the right thing to do,” she said. “Let’s have more development. Townhomes are nice, but give us something in return if you’re going to as for (variances).”

Voytko also called it a fair ruling.