After nearly six hours of testimony spread across two days, the Seven Fields Zoning Hearing Board denied a variance request by a developer seeking to build a car wash.

The unanimous decision, handed down shortly before 9 p.m. Tuesday, denied Hutton's proposal to build a ModWash car wash closer to the property line than is allowed by right under borough ordinances, but it does not preempt the developer from otherwise constructing the site.

Dusty Elias Kirk, a Reed Smith attorney representing Hutton, said the developer was “disappointed” in the decision, but noted they “respect the decision of the zoning board on behalf of Seven Fields.”

Hutton's variance request sought a change to the front property line setback, shortening it from 35 feet to 19 feet, and a similar request for the back line, changing that from a 25-foot setback to a 19-foot distance. Under the state Municipalities Planning Code, setbacks apply to “structures.”

The developer proposed to build pavement, one payment kiosk and 10 vacuum booms in the area between the ordinary and requested setbacks.

Seven Fields contested this request, arguing the company solely sought the variance such that the building could fit with its business model. The MPC states variances should only be granted in cases of “undue hardship.”

George Alexandris, vice president of development at Hutton, appeared to agree with the borough's position in his testimony after borough solicitor Megan Turnbull asked if it is impossible to operate a car wash without 20 free vacuum spaces.

“You can operate a car wash without any vacuums,” Alexandris said. “That is not what a customer pays for when they come to a ModWash. When a customer comes to a ModWash, they're expecting to be (able to) go to a vacuum and comfortably get to the vacuum spaces, have enough spaces to service the amount of patrons that are expected at a location like this. It is what's optimal for the customer experience.”

Alexandris noted, however, a business difference between ModWash and an “open bay” car wash, such as one at a gas station. He argued “you have to have vacuums to be part of the business” of an express tunnel car wash, a term he used to describe ModWash.

He additionally posited the setback variance would not be necessary in other municipalities. Alexandris said while Seven Fields considered the vacuum booms and payment kiosk to be “structures,” that was not a decision reached in other areas where ModWash has locations.

“Most jurisdictions where we have building setbacks would not look at these items that we're talking about as structures,” he said. “We're very respectful of the fact that that was the decision, but it's important to point out that that is not a very common interpretation of what a 'structure' is.”

One issue raised by residents at the February hearing was over the potential noise from the car wash, particularly given the proximity of residential developments to the parcel.The developer returned with an evaluation of the noises, in which an acoustical engineer recommended the installation of blower silencers and sound barriers, something Alexandris said he would agree to implement. With the implementation of both, the evaluation noted, the sound level at residences east of the car wash would reach 64 decibels, and the noise across Route 228 would reach 59 decibels.That, however, did not ease some residents' qualms.Kim Grasso, a Seven Fields resident, presented a petition with roughly 550 signatures of those opposed to the development, partly due to noise and partly to concerns over traffic impacts. Rich Bowers raised his concerns over the multiple vacuums that would be running, saying the decibel level would increase as noise is additive. Nicole Corsi argued the car wash would negatively affect nearby residents.“Having this car wash would take away from the community feel and take away from the joys and pleasures of being outdoors due to the noise, lights and traffic this would bring to our community,” Corsi said.In her closing statement, Kirk stated some residents' concerns were more well-suited for a planning commission meeting, rather than the quasi-judicial zoning hearing board, and argued the developer had asked for minimal variances necessary to develop the site.“They have provided a noise study, a traffic study,” she said. “They've agreed that they will put landscaping barriers. They've done everything possible to provide for the safety, public welfare and reducing any impact that this would have on the community.”