Mahoning Township supervisors split in approving recommendations by the Mahoning Township Planning Commission with regard to a project by H&H Development, but in the end agreed to grant an extension until June 30, 2013 and a waiver for a flag lot, but denied an access lane for the lot.

The subdivision proposal is along Hemlock Drive. The developer is Nawal Hadeed. It was first proposed in 2004.

A typographical error originally led to a motion to extend the development agreement by 90 days, which was approved unanimously by the board, but secretary Natalie Haggerty, when reviewing the request due to a question on one of the later motions, realized the request was only until June 30.

The motion to revise the extension also carried 5-0.

The first waiver for the H&H development project was to approve a flag lot for the subdivision. While there was little discussion before the 4-1 vote to approve the flag lot, Supervisor Bruce Steigerwalt explained why he opposed the motion.

"The reason I voted no is because the ordinance clearly states you cannot have a flag lot if you have more than double the frontage on a lot (than the depth)," he said, "but the Planning Commission felt differently."

According to Haggerty, the minutes of the last commission meeting indicated the recommendation for the flag lot was approved on a split 3-2 vote.

The second waiver was to grant an access lane for the flag lot that would serve the three lots with access in the subdivision. This waiver was unanimously rejected by the board.

Steigerwalt said according to the ordinance an access lane had to be 25 feet wide, it must serve one lot and it should be contained entirely within the lot. Also a member of the Planning Commission, Steigerwalt said the commission supported the shared driveway even though he did not.

Chairman John Wieczorek asked if there was room for all three lots to have individual driveways, pointing out one lot seemed almost blocked from the highway by a detention pond.

Steigerwalt said the difficult part would be knowing where to place the driveway since the property has not been purchased yet and no one would know where the eventual owner would put the house. He said he voted against the access lane because he did not want someone in the future to return to the board and complain because the other owners of the lots did not live up to their mutual agreement to maintain the lot.

Supervisor Frank Ruch asked if the requirement for the owners to jointly maintain the lane be placed on the plan so it is noted. Solicitor Tom Nanovic said the board could add that note to the plans if they chose to do so.

At one point Ruch asked Wieczorek if he would be willing to amend his motion to include that notation on the plans, but later they decided since there was another meeting after the June Planning Commission meeting and before the extension to see what the commission decides with the revised plans. The motion to allow the joint access lane failed on a 0-5 vote without the notation.