• Notes on the transcription
• Source
• Board President’s Report

Notes on the transcription

This document was transcribed from a live recording of the public school board meeting of 15 March, 2010. I have corrected obvious errors in speech, such as stammering or saying “um,” except where it was not obvious what the speaker was trying to say. —Tom Moertel

Please report errors to standards@mlao.org.

Source

Live audio recording (MP3, 2.9 MB)

Board President’s Report

ED KUBIT: One of the criteria for the ongoing high school design project was to avoid or minimize any zoning issues, while still being able to meet the educational and programmatic goals of the school district. The plan that was approved by the board accomplished these goals.

The municipality determined that the approved design submitted by the school district contained two non-conforming structures or uses that did not meet the zoning code. The non-conformities were not an issue when the current building was built but rather relate to subsequent changes in the zoning ordinance. It is the school district’s position that it is entitled to the approval of these two non-conformities as a matter of right because in each instance that element of the design actually makes the property more conforming than it is right now.

The municipality, however, took the position that a variance is required. The first of these relates to lot coverage, which means the percentage of the total property that is covered by buildings, parking lots, roadways, and other non-permeable surfaces. The second was the number of parking spaces.

The zoning ordinance calls for no more than 50 percent lot coverage. Currently, our lot is in excess of that figure, at 54.57 percent. Again, however, this is a permitted prior non-conformity, since the ordinance was not in effect when the building was built. In the new design, we improve lot coverage by slightly reducing the lot coverage to 54.43 percent.

As to parking, we currently have 502 spaces on the site. We were advised by the municipality that 528 spaces are necessary. Under the new design, the number of spaces has increased from 502 to 505. It is important to note that our parking study confirmed that, on a typical school day, there are approximately 40 parking spaces available on school property. In addition, students are entitled to park on the Commissioners Lot and at Dixon Field, although those spaces are rarely used. We also confirmed that, on a typical day, there was no illegal parking on adjacent streets.

Although the new design improves both of these non-conformities, on March 11, 2010, the Mt. Lebanon Zoning Hearing Board denied both variances. Without zoning approvals, the high school project cannot proceed.

We are disappointed with the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board. The new design in no way alters the character of the neighborhood, but rather provides for a dramatically improved, safer, and more-accessible high school, including improvements in both lot coverage and parking spaces.

We feel that the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision is incorrect.

We are currently reviewing all of our opinions to determine a course of action that is in the best interests of our students and the community. One possible option is an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.

Thank you.