I totally get where you're coming from.

I would consult an attorney ASAP and find out what your options are.

Start calling 1st thing in the morning!!!!

pudgeder, This is the first pubic meeting. The builder doesn't even own the property yet. There is apparently some other people organizing town hall meetings. I'm out of town presently and will be returning home tomorrow. There should be a letter in my mailbox about the people organizing. I'm hoping someone in the area is a lawyer. I don't even know how the builder was permitted to file the variance. Only the owner can file according to PA MPC.

years ago we had a similar problem--All the neighbors organized and went to the meetings. We had one spokesman and in the end we won..

sal 60 Hanzlik, yes,we do need to organize. Thank you. You give me hope that we can beat this.

You may have to raise money to pay for an attorney and to get impact studies showing negatives to this development. (Maybe traffic studies? Impact on schools?) Expect a long battle...even years. DH and I started a citizens committee to fight over-development near our home many years ago. Getting press coverage will raise awareness; media loves 'a fight'. Then you have to follow through with appeals to residents to sign petitions and for funds to fight the developer. (Suggest donations of $100 per family or you'll get useless amounts. Explain that you need to hire experts to go up against a developer's deep pockets.) Form committees and elect a spokesperson who can handle public speaking. Good luck!

Zoning can change and it does as a town's 'needs' grow and change. We learned that the hard way when suddenly farm land that was set to be future single family subdivision homes turned into an outdoor Amphitheatre. We chose to sell and move on before our home's value took the hit.

We didn't have a lawyer. I think a large group of people did it for us. We had all single family homes and what they were going to build would have changed our neighborhood too much.

As we saw on the recent ADU thread there’s only so much sympathy to be found here for people wishing to preserve the look and feel of their neighborhoods. But I, for one, wish you luck fighting these town homes.

https://www.houzz.com/discussions/6212464/adu-popularity-makes-me-nervous

In my neighbourhood there's a lovely large bungalow on a gorgeous lot, with a city trail next to the lot.

A developer bought the house and lot, and applied to change the zone to a multi-unit. He could currently build 2 semis for instance, but he applied to allow 26 townhouses. 42 trees are going to removed. Everyone is heartsick over this.

We moved from an area with open space behind the house for miles. Long story short, no way to keep people out if it takes any effort on the cities part. We moved deep into an area with houses already built around us on 2.51 min. acre lots. Knowing if there was open space...it could "change". But what we didn't allow for...a housing development that said they were building single family homes on 5 acre lots are NOW seeking to change that...to a hotel, condos and smaller lots. So instead of 250 homes....now it's 1750. We're ALL on well water and we have to prove the well won't accommodate that many straws. But.....the city has already approved them for the water. If our well runs dry, it's @ 300', the next aquifer is 1000'. A lot of lawyers live here. They're involved. Town meetings are going on. Just don't know....

Jasdip, I have been doing some research. Of course the laws are different state to state, but it is hard to get zoning changed. This builder is trying a use variance. Which amounts to a zoning change. You might want to look up spot zoning. It is illegal in my state.

Developers, of course, make a lot of money with these projects. When they are done, I presume that the city or town benefits from the total increase in property taxes received. Some years ago the homeowners in the residential subdivision I lived in at the time tried to fight a variance wanting an allowance for a commercial establishment and lost, and the city during the fight as much as said that the additional funds it would receive from the commercial venture would be welcome.

This is not to say that you can't win, and certainly you should try, but money is a compelling argument.

Worse case, you say you also own property on the other side of the road, how close would these new buldings be to your home? Would planting trees on the other side help with the privacy issue?

Will this road now be the only way in and out of the new development. Thinking you should be prepared for all angles in case they win. Can another entrance be possible?

My neighborhood has changed from small homes to homes three times the size. We are lucky in that no one can build in our backyard.

Quite a few neighbors did protest exactly how a new build would effect them and the plans were changed. So for example an upstairs terrace woukd not face directly into a neighbors‘s window. So while we can’t stop the building, sometimes we can keep a view, or privacy issue if possible.

This is very disheartening, especially when you’ve done your research before buying. It seems no one is safe.

A luxury condo just went up in our town close to my neighborhood. While there aren’t homes around them, they will certainly effect traffic flow onto a main road. It will be interesting to see if anything will be done as far as additional traffic lights.

Organize, show up, be vocal with your concerns. We had some success in matters like this before. Good luck!

Property rights are not unilateral. Existing homeowners have rights and the current and prospective owners of the bare land have rights too. Of course building new structures affects (not ”effects”) the neighbors. The job of zoning laws and local government is to find reasonable compromises of the competing interests.

These issues bring out sentiments not unlike what the knuckleheads who continue to gripe about mask rules say , thinking their rights overrule the rights of others. Nope.

prospective owners of the bare land have rights too.

Thank you for bringing this up, Elmer. And I hope the conversation finally shifts to acknowledge this important fact.

eld6161, Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was driving home from camp and I don't have the ability to drive and type. Although some people think they do. lol

Yes, we could plant screening in the bit of land on the other side of the road, but it would take years for the trees to grow for privacy. We use it for extra parking if we have a party. We can fit about 10 cars there. We also let the neighbor at the end of the private road use it for parking if the ground is dry for when they have a party since he owns only a little strip on the other side of the road. The road is only one lane wide.

Presently I don't know how far they are going to sit back.

The new road built in the plan will be the only way out of the plan. The township does not allow plans to connect to other areas.

The red rectangle is my home. The property lines aren't exactly lined up correctly. The orange is the private road.

If it's a liberal township looking to expand the tax base wanting more money to expand social programs it may be a problem for your group. Also watch for signs of one or more taking bribes (common with these sort of people) and directly ask the board if any has a relationship or agreement with developer of any kind and watch to see who squirms in his chair.

These issues bring out sentiments not unlike what the knuckleheads who continue to force mask rules on people , thinking their rights overrule the rights of others including land owners. Nope.

kevin9408, Actually we have a very good tax base due to the airport is in our township and industrial parks on the airport property. Also the land zoned for industrial because of the airport. Our tax rates has not gone up in over 30 years. Yes, I have read about the bribes, of not only the zoning board, but the leaders of any group opposing the variance. I have been digging through the local codes, the comprehensive plan and the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code all night. I'm confidant I've found the ammo that is needed. Per the MPC the only one who can apply for a variance is the owner of the property. The owner did not apply for the variance. The builders LLC did. Making it illegal. What they should of applied for was a Tentative approval. Yea, sound like sounds like there is something fishy if the board let them file a variance. I guess they were hoping that nobody look at the legality of the variance There are other conditions not met , but I'm not going to go into all the boring details.

Does your community have a "master plan" for future development and zoning? If so, does the proposed development agree with it? If not, that is another peg to hang your argument on.

Unfortunately, in my locale, city/county government (both political parties) are deep into developers' pockets and the developers get what they want 99% of the time. There have been several politicians implicated in bribery cases involving contractors and developers, but the politicians apparently are made of teflon... their political party supports them, and they get re-elected easily.

We currently have a situation where an existing development is accessed by a divided road; a developer has purchased the land in between the two lanes (I am still not sure how this was possible but I guess the land was never ceded to the city) and wants to build condos on it. To accommodate this, the city has proposed (for "needed safety upgrades" LOL) to take out one side of the divided road, combining the traffic onto a 2-way street, and also take some of homeowner's frontage by eminent domain to make room for the lane. Note they won't take any of the developer's property to accommodate the developer's desire.

There was a time when the land on which the houses where people now live was once bare. Describe it as a field or whatever. One or more persons were aggrieved when construction was proposed. No matter whether the houses were built at the same time or if the land had been subdivided, zoned and sold as residential building sites, some were unhappy. Had those voices of concern prevailed at the time, the land where OP now lives would have remained a field.

Whose voices should be heard?

Why automatically assume that the business or businesses wishing to build at this location are dishonest or have nefarious motivations? Are all businesses dishonest? Are all elected officials and other government workers corrupt? Or is it that some are and some aren't? How would one know one kind from another?

How many people do you know who have jobs with companies with no activity and or that lose money?

raee_gw zone 5b-6a Ohio, yea, the township has a master plan. They have one also just for housing plans. They have to follow the state's MPC basic rules. Excuse my French, but that really sucked what that builder did. I am shocked that they got away with it. Money talks. Our master plan wouldn't let you have an entrance to a major road. The only major road I drive in Ohio is rt 11 to Geneva on the Lake. I can't imagine having a housing plan entrance off of it.

"there is plenty of other open property that is zoned for townhouses in our township"

This is the NIMBY sentiment - let them build the project elsewhere, where it affects others and not me. Okay but not in my backyard.

Another approach, not infrequently used when someone wants to create a buffer from neighbors or protect a view, is to buy the land themselves. Would it be feasible for the OP and neighbors to buy this plot of land? Then, THEIR right of ownership would give THEM the choice to leave it as is. If you're concerned that "money talks" (which it does sometimes and not other times), let your money talk.

Update. Went to the board meeting tonight. A lot of people showed up against the variance. Only one for the variance and that was the co-owner of the property. The board didn't even have to discuss it between themselves. The variance was denied unanimously by the board after everyone was done commenting. Yea!!! I have a feeling this isn't the last we will hear from this builder though.

I hope that you all can fight this! We have townhouses (really just large apartment units) that got built right in the middle of a subdivision right behind our house. It was here when we bought but that land should never have been built with apartment/townhouses. It is supposed to be single family housing only! I'm sure someone's palms were greased in that deal! The apartments are such a nuisance to everyone in our area. You have to cut through subdivision streets just to get to them. Then they became section 8...UGH! Just the other day we heard lots of yelling and fighting and the next thing you know the cops are there...

“This is the NIMBY sentiment - let them build the project elsewhere, where it affects others and not me. Okay but not in my backyard.”

I disagree. The OP did not suggest to file for a variance on other land, but rather pointed out that there is existing land already zoned for townhouses. Of course these things are subject to change, but if zoning is not at least an attempt to control land use then why bother at all? Would you be open to any and all development next to either of your houses?

arkansas girl, I have seen that happen in other areas. When the TH/appart are spanking brand new every one wants them. Then as they get old and need updates/repairs the owners move out for brand new and new owners move in looking for cheap housing. Then the landlords move in. Then the slumlords move in after that.. It is a downhill spiral.

Thankfully we had the township and state's codes on our side.

You've seen price and value declines after the passage of some time for fairly priced, newly built homes? Other than with widespread housing crashes, I'm gonna say that's either in very unusual circumstances or, more likely, a tale of baloney.

Can you cite some actual examples?