FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

 

ZONING WORKSHOP

October 31, 2005

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m.

 

ROLL CALL

Present were Supervisors Edward Balsavage, Larry Lambert, John Shambaugh, Donald Lerew, and Naomi Decker.  Also present were Dominic Picarelli from KPI, Christina Fackler from Planning Principles, Solicitor Edward Schorpp, and Secretary Nancy Zentmeyer.  Visitors included:  Peggie Williams, Rodney Decker, Bob Eichelberger, and Dave Young.

 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Chairman Balsavage noted that Solicitor Schorpp had met with the consultants last week to review his comments on the Zoning Ordinance and it is noted that there are twelve (12) outstanding issues that need to be review for Board action.  It was indicated that approximately 90% of the issues in the Solicitor’s memorandum are items that need to be clarified and not policy matters.  There is also clerical work that needs to be cleaned up.

 

Today’s meeting is to decide what the Supervisors and Committee wants to see in the final draft ordinance.   No formal Board action will be taken on this final draft ordinance.

 

MIKE SUNDAY

At this time Supervisor Decker indicated that she would like to address and discuss the continuing issues with the dumping of ash at Mr. Sunday’s property.  It is noted that on October 26th and 27th deliveries once again started at Mr. Sunday’s property.

 

Motion:           Supervisor Decker stated that she would like to make a motion to impose a cease and desist order in accordance with Ordinance 9-1985.  Seconded by Supervisor Shambaugh.  Discussion ensued as follows:   Solicitor Schorpp noted that under Ordinance 9-1985 the property owner must apply for a permit to the Township for the depositing of ash and that the property owner is in violation for not getting the permit from the Township.  It was noted that the process began in April.    It was also noted that YCCD also has a problem this.  Also there was discussed on the grading and stormwater issues and that a land development plan that needs to be submitted.  It was indicated that York County Solid Waste is under the impression that Mr. Sunday had been given local approval.

 

It was noted that it should be impressed upon that a plan does need to be submitted to the Township.  York County Solid Waste had all approvals and the DEP report does recommend that all Township ordinances be enforced that do not fall under DEP.   It was suggested that the Township Solicitor send a letter to Mr. Sunday that he complies with the ordinance and also indicate the violation of that ordinance.

 

Supervisor Shambaugh noted that a time frame be given to correct this problem.

 

Supervisor Decker indicated the urgency of this matter and that it could effect the wells of the surrounding properties and also the health of those property owners.  Chairman Balsavage and Vice Chairman Lambert opposed.  There was discussion that Mr. Sunday be put on notice.

 

Motion:           Chairman Balsavage made a motion that Mr. Sunday be notified of the violations of Ordinance 9-1985 and that he complies with the ordinance and that a request is made to cease anymore hauling until he satisfies within 30 days.  Seconded by Supervisor Lerew.   Vice Chairman Lambert noted that a time limit of 30-days may not be enough time to comply with the whole ordinance.  Motion:  Chairman Balsavage amended his motion that Mr. Sunday submits an application within a 30-day time limit.  Supervisor Decker questioned about future hauling.  Seconded by Supervisor Lerew.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Supervisor Decker indicated that York County Solid Waste has no record of test pits to the ground water.  There was discussion on test digging, according to Appendix A of the General Permit (DEP) which should be in compliance. 

 

Motion:           Supervisor Decker made a motion that York County Solid Waste be contacted and that one or more Supervisors should witness the digging of the test pits.  There was no second to this motion, therefore the motion failed.

 

Motion:           Supervisor Shambaugh made a motion that Solicitor Schorpp sends a letter to DEP requesting that they enforce the permit and that the permit conditions are not being met.  Seconded by Chairman Balsavage.  The motion carried unanimously. 

 

 

ZONING ORDINANCE

It was noted that the legal issues are a work in progress.  Chairman Balsavage noted that these 12 items are policy issues and should be given direction.

 

The following 12 items are issues for the Board of Supervisors to make.  The reason for this meeting is to get a consensus with no action to be taken.

 

1.         Should municipal buildings be exempt?  (currently they are not exempt).  Solicitor Schorpp stated that he is familiar with other zoning ordinances and properties owned by municipalities, water/sewer authorities, playgrounds and fire companies should be determined appropriate.  After discussion it was noted that these uses should be conform and not be exempt.

 

2.         How many townhouses can be connected?  (currently limited to 8).  There was discussion regarding Section 413, Cluster Developments and the chart on page 4-10 and in multi-family definitions it defines 8 units.  It was suggested that eight (8) units should remain.

 

Chairman Balsavage noted that #3 and #10 would be discussed at the end.

 

4.         Should setbacks apply to porches, etc. (we exempt them now).  There was discussion on Section 303, Setback Modifications, page 3-3.  It was suggested that these uses should comply and to include decks, patios, add-ons etc. also.

 

5.         Should rooftop structures be considered as part of building height? (currently they are).  There was discussion on Section 304, Height Limit Exceptions on page 3-3.  It was noted that currently between 35’ (residential) – 50’ (commercial) are allowed, depending on which zoning district.  The Board of Supervisors cannot grant waivers on this requirement, it has to go to the Zoning Hearing Board.  There was discussion on Section 202, Open Space Zone, page 2-7.     It was decided under Section 304.A.1 to omit water towers, smokestacks, windmills, flagpoles, school gymnasiums, school auditoriums or other similar structures and under Section 304.A.2 omit water storage tanks.

 

6.         Do you want to allow sidewalk signs within street ROW’s?  (currently they are).  Discussion ensued regarding sandwich boards that sit on sidewalks as advertisement.  Is there a liability issue and what about a  minimum of 4’ passageway.  Also discussed were political signs. It was noted that no sidewalk signs should be placed in the ROW.

 

7.         Should signs be turned off when the business is closed in the MU and I Districts?  (currently they are).  It was indicated that this advertisement for those businesses.  Discussion ensued on whether or not a business is beside a residential home and should there be a time limit.  After discussion is was noted that the signs should be kept on.

 

8.         Can any sign be allowed in street ROW’s?  (currently PennDOT and nonprofit orgs. allowed).  There was discussion on temporary signs in ROW with the exemption of Township signs (i.e. street name signs, etc.) and PennDOT to be allowed.  Add temporary signs but with a limited time period.  Chairman Balsavage noted that a provision be added that temporary signs cannot block sight distance.

 

9.         Do any of the sign sizes need to be changed?  Section 313, Signs – Table 2 on page 3-22 was discussed.  The maximum square footage should be increased to 6’ with 2’x 3’ per side for non-residential uses.  In Table 2 the following changes were made:  Freestanding Sign, maximum area s.f. should be increased from 3’ to 6’; Building Signs, maximum total area of all building signs on lot s.f. should be increased from 2’ to 4’; and Total of All Signs, maximum total area of all signs on lot should be increased from 2’ to 10’.

 

11.       Should “flag lots” be allowed?  (currently they are).  Section 424, Flag-Lot Residences (page 4-14) was discussed.  It is stated that in the SALDO a private ROW allows two properties.  There was discussion on whether or not these types of lot should be allowed.  It was decided that flag-lots should not be allowed and Section 424 should be eliminated from the ordinance.

 

12.       Will “granny flats” allow non-related persons to occupy the accessory building?  (currently they do).  Section 427 addressed this issue.  Maximum occupancy would be limited to two.  There was discussion on what would constitute a granny flat, such as an apartment over a garage or an addition to an existing dwelling.  It was stated that it could be limited to a one-bedroom unit and also would this be considered an investment property.  It was noted that it would have to conform to the setback requirements.  This use is in the Open Space district and could be added to Residential.  It was noted that this should be allowed but in the Residential district it should be a Conditional Use.

 

10.       Decision on the Interchange Overlay Area.  There was discussion on this being a legal issue and eminent domain with the state coming in and taking land.  It was noted that this is to help protect a landowner from building in that area or to build at their own risk.  The decision was to omit the Interchange Overlay Area.

 

3.         Density of 4-acres, minimum lot size of 2-acres.   Solicitor Schorpp indicated that no PA Appellate Court decision has upheld the 4-acres lot minimum requirement.  Discussion ensued.

 

Solicitor Schorpp indicated that there was also discussion on cell towers and what the policy should be, and also to look into farming operations, warehousing, and truck terminals.

 

It was suggested that cell towers come under a separate ordinance then include with the zoning ordinance.  Mr. Picarelli indicated that he has samples of cell tower ordinances.  It was decided that cell towers should be included with the zoning ordinance.

There was discussion on what the time line is now for the zoning ordinance since it will have to go back to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.  It was noted that this ordinance will be going into next year before being adopted.

 

DAVID YOUNG LETTER

Mr. Young was present and is requesting that his property, at the corners of Route 15, Capitol Hill Road, and Franklin Church Road, be zoned MU so this property will continue to be used as a commercial use even if the business is sold and another use goes in.   Mr. Young was informed that his property will be grandfathered in and if sold and another use is to go in, that applicant would have to get a variance.  Mr. Young indicated that his property is across Route 15 from property proposed to be zoned MU.

 

Mr. Picarelli stated that it would be best to wait for the comments from County and from the Township Planning Commission.  A revised final draft will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission members and YCPC.

 

ADJOURNMENT

Motion:           Supervisor Shambaugh made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:29 p.m.  Seconded by Chairman Balsavage.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Nancy E. Zentmeyer

Secretary