BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
ZONING WORKSHOP
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order
at
ROLL CALL
Present were Supervisors Larry Lambert, John Shambaugh, Naomi Decker and Gary Brown. Also present were Dominic Picarelli from KPI Technology, Tina Fackler from Planning Principles, Township Solicitor Edward Schorpp, Zoning Committee Members Wayne Kober and Bob Eichelberger, and Secretary Nancy Zentmeyer. Visitors are on the attached sign-in sheet.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. Picarelli handed out packets of samples of Zoning Hearing Board applications from other municipalities for informational purposes only. Also handed out were the responses from both the public hearing comments and the public hearing written comments. It was noted that after the transcript is received it will be reviewed to see if there are any differences. There was also a response memorandum to the York County Planning Commission which can be placed on either KPI or the Township’s letterhead.
Ms. Fackler noted that in the comments from the public hearing and the written comments there is some duplication. The public hearing comments were reviewed as follows:
1. Recommends that there should be more special exceptions and less conditional uses.
The limit on special exceptions is until the BOS has a better understanding of the zoning ordinance and feels more comfortable with the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB)
2. Recommends a thorough review of the YCPC comments.
This ordinance has been submitted 3 times and believes there has been a thorough review. Ms. Fackler noted that there is an official response that will be sent to YCPC.
Mr. Miller from
3. Recommends having more “industrial” type uses in the Industrial Zone and less “commercial” type uses.
Because the Comprehensive Plan allows for minimal
space for the Industrial Zone and
4. Recommend changing the non-conforming section of the ordinance (returning to the original written document).
The Planning Commission and BOS has the same concerns and it is noted that this matter will be amended immediately following the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Lambert noted that Solicitor Schorpp should proceed with the amendments in order to get them adopted. There was discussion regarding the MPC and what the process the Township has to follow in order to adopt the amendments. It was noted that the amendments need to go to YCPC for the 45-day review period, the advertisements and the public hearing, but it is only on the sections that are being amended and not on the entire ordinance. Mr. Robert Yerger, 176 Spring Drive, Dillsburg questioned the time period between the Zoning Ordinance being adopted and the amendments being adopted. Solicitor Schorpp went into detail explaining zoning and that if the properties in question could be brought into compliance, at some point, then they should. It is not the intent of this ordinance to have property owners, at their expense, change their properties back to how they were previously. Also discussed was the existing properties being “grandfathered”.
5. Recommends changing the definition for “kennel”.
YCPC did comment on this definition and found it to be acceptable. It has never been an issue during any of the zoning workshops that have been held. Supervisor Decker noted that the definition did not exclude family pets or animals kept for pleasure. In the County’s comments they addressed what is acceptable by the State, which indicates 25 animals. The Township does have a kennel ordinance. Zoning addresses where you can have kennels in the Township.
6. Recommends the garage/yard sale section be eliminated (excluding the removal of signs within 48 hours)
This is a new issue and was never brought to the consultants’ attention prior to the Public Hearing. They are willing to make the changes to this section; however this should be done as an amendment because it is not felt to be substantial enough to not adopt the Zoning Ordinance. It was noted that there is a concern regarding the size of the sign. It was suggested to amend the number of signs and/or the size of the sign. After a review of Section 301.F.4, Garage/Yard Sales” it was noted that #3 and #4 should be deleted. In #3 it states no import or stocking of inventory and Solicitor Schorpp noted that the Township does not want to see yard sales turning into a business. In Section 313.E.4, Garage/Yard Sale Signs” it should be noted that an “s” be added to the word sign in the description.
7. Recommends have the “Cluster Development” section to be modified.
The speaker did not make any suggestions on what they want to see changed, but disagreed with allowing many houses in a small area of land.
8. Believes Zoning is infringing on the land rights of the residents and recommends that the ordinance should be less restrictive.
This ordinance has been written to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance is flexible and will provide the Township a means to maintain its rural nature.
9. Recommends there should be more Smart Growth principals added to the ordinance.
Adding Smart Growth principles could cause confusion to the Planning Commission and BOS. These can be added later once the Township has a better understanding of zoning and all the processes.
10. Recommend not adopting the ordinance then amending it.
This is a BOS issue. The ordinance can be adopted then amended because the amendments proposed are not substantial enough to restart the process. There was a concern of the amendments not happening.
11. Concerns that the Zoning Hearing Board are not elected officials.
This issue has no action. There needs to be education about the tasks of the ZHB. The MPC provides the procedures for the ZHB.
12. Concerns that the ordinance can be challenged.
The speaker did not give a section in which they were concerned about, but this could happen.
13. Residential and Mixed Use Zones have a ten foot setback; this does not allow for future street widening.
These zones were given these setbacks because the lot will be smaller then those in Open Space. The smaller the minimum lot the smaller the setback should be. It was noted that it is 10’ from the right-of-way or cartway as noted in the SALDO. It was noted to look at this at a later time.
14. Concerns over public sewer being allowed in the Open Space Zone.
It was noted if a developer does choose to utilize the cluster development option then they must provide for public services for that development. The maintenance of the services will be the responsibility of the developer or an HOA not the Townships.
The meeting took a short break at
The meeting reconvened at
15. Recommends having a lower density in the Residential Zone.
This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and also if the density is lower then all the land in the Residential Zone could be developed quicker than anticipated and this could lead to more of the Open Space Zone for residential developments.
16. Concerned that the schools could be overpopulated.
This is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopting the Zoning Ordinance would not cause an overpopulation of the school system.
17. Concerned that the Residential Zone will be expanded in the future.
The Comprehensive Plan has been generally followed and accounted for future population growth in the Residential Zone. Expanding this zone would be an issue for the BOS to decide in the future when the Residential Zone has been developed to its maximum potential.
18. It is believed this will lead to regional zoning. Speaker does not want regional zoning.
This is an issue for the BOS but the consultants have never been informed to consider regional zoning for the future. All the other municipalities would have to be involved and the Township would have to agree to this.
19. Recommends utilizing transfer of development rights. (TDR)
This could cause confusion to the Planning Commission and BOS. A TDR program would need additional research by the Township to address which lands are best for developing and which are best to be preserved. Also the program will need to have the solicitor involved greatly to ensure all agreements are legally binding. This would be a BOS decision.
20. Concerned that this ordinance could cause sprawl throughout the Township.
This ordinance will allow for easier development in the Residential Zone to minimize sprawl throughout the Township. It was noted that sprawl would occur without zoning. Residents need to be further educated on the principles of zoning.
21. Recommends having a mailer sent to the homes of the residents of the Township as part of the advertisement process.
This is an issue for the BOS and was a general comment.
22. Recommends having zoning in
The speaker did not have specific issues with the proposed ordinance. The Township held approximately 20 public workshops/meetings and believe the ordinance is to the satisfaction of the Township.
23. Recommends disguising cell towers.
This is a BOS issue. A cell tower being disguised may not be aesthetically pleasing to all people.
24. Concern that no members of the Planning Commission were present at the Public Hearing.
No response.
25. Recommend that the Township takes more time to ensure the ordinance is in the best interest of the Township.
The Township has taken more than enough time to ensure the ordinance is in the best interest of the Township.
26. The Commercial Livestock Operation section is unclear.
This section was intentionally written with minimal restrictions because the Township wanted flexibility where it pertains to farms and farm related businesses.
27. Concerned with the distinction between “trailer court” and “trailer camp”.
A trailer camp is not intended for permanent residence but will provide utilities for customers to stay for a period of time. A trailer court is intended for customers to stay for a limited time and will not provide any means of services, sewer disposal etc. It was noted that trailer court or trailer camp is not defined in the ordinance. These will be added in the definitions with the amendments.
Ms. Fackler stated that they will now review the public hearing written comments as follows:
Comments #1 and #2 have already been discussed.
3. Recommends having the “Cluster Development” section to be modified.
1) No requirements for replacement testing.
It was noted that this is in the SALDO.
2) Concerned that the Township will be liable if package systems fail.
There is currently no public sewer in the Open Space Zone, however, if a developer does choose to utilize the cluster development option then they must provide for public services for that development. The maintenance of the services will be the responsibility of the developer or an HOP but not the Townships.
3) Concerned that the Township will be liable if a well does not supply sufficient amount of water to the development.
Maintenance of the services will be the responsibility of the developer or an HOA and not the Townships.
4) Concerned that the Township will need to provide sewer and water to an Open Space area, would this defeat the purpose of the Open Space zone.
Currently there are no public services proposed in this zone. If the Township decides to accommodate a development with these services then the Zoning Ordinance should consider amending the Ordinance (map) and adding that particular section to its Residential Zone.
5) Concerned that the Cluster Development is subjective and can be considered discriminatory towards developers.
It is believed that this ordinance is not discriminatory. Developers who utilize the Cluster Development option are allowed to build in a manner that will preserve more contiguous open space for the Township while reducing the financial cost of the developers.
6) Concerned that a qualified expert must identify vistas, determining vistas is subjective.
This is a BOS issue and it is the understanding that the Township is in the preliminary stages of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments #4, 5, 6 and 7 have already been discussed.
8. Recommends updating the SALDO (following the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance)
This is a BOS issue and it is the understanding that the Township is intending to update the SALDO following the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Picarelli indicated that once the transcript is received he will review it to make sure there are no other comments or amendments that need to be addressed.
There was discussion that the ordinance be passed as written and the Supervisors will authorize the process begin with the amendments. The draft amendments should be forward to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for review. This ordinance is needed as a tool for future developments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Zentmeyer
Township Secretary