Partners appeal car lot decision
WAYNESBURG – Two Waynesburg businessmen whose plan to establish a used car lot on vacant property at the corner of High and Richhill streets was rejected by the borough’s zoning hearing board have filed an appeal in Greene County Court.
Richard and Ross Kalsey seek to appeal a March 4 decision by the Waynesburg Zoning Hearing Board denying them variances to open a used car lot at 238 W. High St.
The Kalseys had proposed no new construction at the site, according to the board’s written opinion and order.
They planned to use their existing office building for Kalsey Insurance Agency, adjoining the proposed lot, as the office for the used car lot. They also proposed using their existing off-street parking and making only minor alterations to the two lots where the car lot would be established.
The property is zoned B-1, and a used car lot is a permitted use in that zone. At the zoning hearing March 4, the board determined variances would be needed for minimum lot area and for off-street parking.
The ordinance requires a lot size for a used car lot of 32,670 square feet. Kalsey’s plan indicated a lot of only 23,120 square feet.
Details regarding the number of parking spaces were not provided in the applicants’ plan, according to the written opinion. Options for parking were discussed at the hearing but no conclusions were reached which satisfied the board, it said.
The written opinion noted the board had also denied a request by the previous owner of the two lots, the Bedilion family, to use the property for a used car lot.
Though the applicants argued the size of the property prohibits them from developing it in conformity with the zoning ordinances, other uses can be made of the property without the need for variances, the written opinion stated.
In addition, it said, the proposed use would create additional congestion at a busy intersection and result in a hazard by inviting passing motorists to view the cars in the lot.
In asking the court to reverse the board’s decision, the Kalseys claim the board had allowed evidence to be introduced at the hearing that was irrelevant and immaterial and involved hearsay, speculation and unsubstantiated facts.
They further claimed the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the zoning ordinance given its unique and peculiar physical conditions and that this “unnecessary hardship” was not created by the them.