Planning commission weighs variance request for misplaced car dealership

SOMERSET, Pa. – The fate of a Somerset Township used car dealership could rest on a county decision next month.

The issue arose after Terry’s Auto Sales owner Brad McCoy built his North Center Avenue building more than 15 feet closer to an adjacent property than Somerset County officials permitted during the original planning process.

McCoy has operated his small business for more than a year without an occupancy permit while the legal dispute has lingered.

In a hearing late last week, McCoy and his Allegheny County attorney, David Moran, spent more than two hours outlining McCoy’s request for a variance to settle the issue.

That included calling on a project engineer, who said he believed the dealership had the option to relocate the building, and McCoy, who said he invested $875,000 to build his dealership.

“And it would basically have to be demolished (to be in compliance),” he said.

That’s because the building, as built, could not be relocated or adapted to be situated as previously approved, he said.

McCoy said he’s been told it would cost at least $1 million now to replace the building.

Somerset County Planning Commission members William Lehman and Ray Kelly asked how a structure approved for one location ended up built elsewhere – despite a process designed to ensure property setbacks are followed.

The 6,000-square-foot structure was drawn up to be 25 feet from a neighboring Sheetz store to the north, which is compliant with the county’s land development laws, Planning Director Chadd Sines said.

But McCoy said during the early stages of the building process, he became concerned he wouldn’t be able to gain ownership of an adjacent property to the south, and it compelled him to rethink the placement of his dealership.

Another factor was a drainage pipe that ended near the spot where his building’s front doorway was set to be installed, he said.

Moran pointed to the fact that the auto dealership’s plans also showed a 10-foot setback line – and even though the structure was not outlined against that line, McCoy and his engineer, Kevin Yoder, both said they believed they had the right to relocate the building within those two areas.

Planning commissioners said that wasn’t the case.

Sines said due to the property’s size, it is classified as a “major” land development, adding that 10-foot setbacks – such as those for residential properties – don’t apply.

And Lehman said it was just as troubling that the move occurred without a professional survey of the new boundary lines McCoy drew up.

As it turned out, one item relied on as a boundary marker was a metal wrench spiked into the ground – and it wasn’t placed on a property line, Somerset County’s hired surveyor told the board.

“He caused his own hardship,” said Kelly, a longtime architect. “Any job I’ve ever worked on, if I change the plans, I go back (to the planning agency with oversight) and I resubmit the drawings.”

McCoy said any misstep wasn’t meant to intentionally disregard the county’s rules.

“If anybody said anything to me, I would have checked into it,” McCoy told the board.

The planning commission expressed skepticism that McCoy’s arguments met the requirements necessary to grant him a variance.

But Moran cited prior case law that he said indicated he could request a variance based on a “vested right” at this point in the process.

He said McCoy hired professionals, including Yoder, to navigate the planning process and relied on their guidance. And a denial now – with his structure already complete and operational – would cause a substantial loss of funds that could have been avoided if his experts or the county communicated better, Moran said.

He also provided an email from representatives from the closest adjacent property, the Sheetz store, indicating they had no issues with the variance request.

The planning commission agreed to look into the cases Moran cited before making a decision.

The hearing is set to resume June 13.