FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZONING WORKSHOP
September 20, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were Supervisors Naomi Decker and John Shambaugh. Also present were Dominic Picarelli from KPI, Christina Fackler from Planning Principles, and Secretary Nancy Zentmeyer. Visitors included: Bob Eichelberger, Gary Brown, Dave Young, Rodney Decker, Mike Sunday, and Ed Campbell.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
A letter has been received from Mr. Sheldon Williams in response to his review of the zoning ordinance and the establishment of setbacks in the “O” Open Space Zone. The “O” zone includes most of the land area in the Township. Mr. Williams indicated that he is concerned about the 4-acre lots, as this could cause a hardship on the smaller existing lots. Supervisor Shambaugh suggested that this letter be discussed. It is noted that to build on a lot soil testing needs to be done and with restrictions on where a septic system can be place this determines where a house can be built. There was discussion on changing the rear setbacks. If the setbacks are to remain as stated in the zoning ordinance a variance would be needed. With a variance a hardship would have to be proven. If there is no plan indicating setbacks then that lot would have to go by the zoning ordinance unless the property owner can produce information to state otherwise.
There was discussion on non-conforming uses, such as an addition to an existing structure that would encroach into the setbacks. Discussion ensued on the setback issue.
Ms. Fackler indicated that whatever the decision is, the Township will need to support and enforce it.
Mr. Campbell suggested the following setback requirements: 30’ rear, 20’ side, and 50’ front. It was noted that the majority of the lots are 4-acre. These are setbacks in Latimore Township as stated by Supervisor Shambaugh and would not create a hardship.
Mr. Picarelli stated that the Township Engineer is reviewing the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the comments were in the “R” Residential Zone and the minimum lot area requirements. These are lots serviced by public sewer and water. There was discussion on the minimum lot width of 50’ with the possibility of increasing to 75’ because of the 10’ side setback. Supervisor Shambaugh suggested that the 10,000 s.f. lots be reduced to 8,000 s.f. and reduce the side setback by 5’. Mr. Picarelli noted that the reason for 10,000 s.f. lots is that is what is in the Comprehensive Plan and it should stay consistent.
Also in the Residential area cluster developments will be permitted, this was omitted in the draft.
Section 301 Accessory Uses under A.1 indicates fences in the Open Space and Residential zones have a height of 10’ in the side and rear yards, but under A.4 Residential zone indicates 6’ in side and rear yards. It was suggested that it should be 10’ and not 6’ if it is within the setbacks.
Section 204, Conversation Overlay Zone - There was discussion on whether or not a homeowners association is needed and it was suggested that there would not be a need to have one if the minimum regulations were being maintained. This could be done by an agreement.
Under this zone some type of agreement should be run by the Township Solicitor to see if this should be a separate ordinance or if there is certain language. Should get some feedback from the Solicitor.
Another issue of concern is the issuing of building permits or land use permits. It was noted that this should be addressed with the statewide building code. Does the Township want to use building permits or land use permits. A zoning permit would be considered the same as a land use permit.
Mr. David Young was present and stated that he owns property at 10 and 12 Capitol Hill Road and where his property begins is where the Mixed Use Zone stops. He would like to see “MU” to continue to the other side of his property. Mr. Young also noted that he is thinking of expanding this business and would this effect him. Mr. Young is also concern is if he decides to sell his business, which is presently a commercial use, that that business could not continue. It was noted that his business use would be grandfathered in and it could still be used as the present use. Discussion ensued properties on Twin Hills Road that there is commercial business and should that be zoned Commercial. Mr. Picarelli indicated that the Township does not want to do spot zoning.
The interchange areas were discussed. Should the areas around the interchange areas be zoned commercial and use the existing boundaries. It was noted that there is probably 20+ years of growth in these areas. It was decided to preserve the interchange areas.
Section 204, Conversation Overlay Zone “CO” again was suggested by Mr. Knoebel that this be broken into two sections: steep slope and floodplain. With using one map to show floodplain overlay and the steep slope. These issues are also in the Subdivision/Land Development ordinance. It is noted that the floodplain and steep slope areas should not be mixed. Mr. Campbell stated that he would like more specifics with the steep slopes at 15%> and the determination of not building on that type of a lot or plateau. It was suggested that there be one floodplain overlay and one steep slope overlay.
Accessory uses were discussed and it was noted that in each zone accessory uses should be under both a conditional use and permitted uses. It was suggested that an accessory use under 400 s.f. would be a permitted use and anything over 400 s.f. would fall under the conditional use.
Items from the Public Meeting held on September 13th were discussed. The issue from the residents along Range End Road that signed the petition, Mr. Eichelberger felt that both sides should be looked at and an answer given. It was noted that KPI would write a letter in response to their comments.
There was concern at the public meeting that some residents feel their property value will go down.
Under Accessory Uses and Structures, Section 301.G (Forestry Operations) was discussed. It was felt that for all timber harvesting were the value of trees, logs, or other timber products removed exceed $1,000.00 was too low, as that would only be between 10 and 15 trees. It was suggested to increase the dollar amount to $5,000.00. It was noted that anything greater than $3,000.00 there is a requirement from York County Conservation District. This section should be reviewed to make adjustments with the following items: consider extend of operation, percentage of trees per acre, intent for larger parcels, and the affects on the smaller areas. Mandates on the forestry business should be looked into.
Mr. Eichelberger indicated that 200’ within the interchange overlay should be increased. It was also noted that PennDOT may require more with the right-of-ways.
Stream buffer areas should be shown on the map and to also be included in the text.
On page 3-6 in reference to Section 308 and 309 Driveway and Access Drive Requirements, it was noted that the Township already has a Driveway Ordinance in place and this ordinance should be checked to make sure there are no conflictions between the two. It was suggested that the Township re-think the issue of private drives. Private drives do not need to be built to Township specifications. Also shared driveways were discussed.
It was noted that the next step in this zoning ordinance process is to finalize the document and start the 45-day review period and to receive the official comments. According to the timeline September 28th starts this review period with the following agencies, boards, etc. to review this document is YCPC, Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and the Township Solicitor. There was discussion on whether or not to have another workshop. It was noted that the Public Hearing be changed to Wednesday, November 16th instead of November 17th at 7:00 p.m. and to be held at the Franklintown Fire Company building. If there are substantial comments a second Public Hearing could be held to address those issues.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy E. Zentmeyer
Township Secretary