West Hempfield Township Planning Commission
Minutes of November 18, 2010
The regular meeting of the West Hempfield Township Planning Commission was held at the Township Municipal Office, 3401 Marietta Avenue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, November 18, 2010. Vice Chairman John Rodman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Board members Dan Nonnemacher and Alice Yoder were present. Also in attendance were Edward C. Hinkle, Zoning Officer; Mark Lauriello, Township Engineer; Ron Youtz, Township Manager and Mary Gildea, Recording Secretary.
I. Minutes
Members reviewed the minutes of the October 21, 2010 meeting.
Motion: A motion was made by Mrs. Yoder, seconded by Mr. Nonnemacher, to approve the minutes of October 21, 2010. Carried 3-0.
II. Communications
There were none.
III. Briefing Items
Mitchell S. Weaver
Final Subdivision Plan
4418 Fairview Road – Rural Residential Zone
Mr. Hinkle explained that Mr. Weaver is requesting to subdivide his parcel of 8 acres located across the road from Fairview Park. Currently there is a duplex on the property with a small lot on one side and the remainder of the property on the other side. Mr. Weaver would like to split the land into two big parcels.
IV. Agenda Items
A. D. Daniel Rutledge
Conditional Use – Section 707.2.B – 2nd driveway
1610 Stony Battery Road – R2 Zone
Mr. Rutledge and Marie Myers, same address, stated that their attorney, Jill E. Nagy, could not be present tonight. They explained the situation at the property located on the corner of Stony Battery Road and Sandstone Drive. Mr. Rutledge put an addition on his house and had obtained the zoning and construction permits for the addition and a deck. Ms. Myers said Mr. Rutledge was unaware of needing a permit for new driveway construction, and the driveway contractor did not inform him of this requirement. She said that this was an oversight on their part but was not done intentionally.
The original driveway was installed in 1961 when Stony Battery Road was only two lanes. They presented pictures showing how this driveway exits onto the now heavily-traveled Stony Battery Road. To back out of that driveway is difficult, especially if the driver is heading north on Stony Battery Road. To do so, he or she must cross three lanes of traffic to access the northbound lane. The second driveway exits onto Sandstone Drive which is safer in Mr. Rutledge’s opinion. This driveway leads right up to the new addition. Mr. Rutledge reiterated that he has handicap status and said this new driveway is one step up to his house, rather than the six steps up on the Stony Battery Road side. His plan eventually is to extend the new driveway around the house to have access to all the entryways into the house.
Mr. Rutledge said he needs to retain the Stony Battery Road driveway so he can access the garage, which he uses for storage. If Mr. Rutledge is required to remove the driveway on Stony Battery Road and keep the driveway on Sandstone, then he has no way to get into the garage. He cannot connect the Sandstone driveway to the garage or install a turnaround due to the slope of the land. He installed the driveway in this location because if it were installed on the south side of his property it would be too close to the next property.
Township Engineer Mark Lauriello said that this is a unique situation. Normally the Township Board of Supervisors is strict on granting permission to add a second driveway on a property. The only time they have allowed a second driveway was when the driveway proposed had a frontage over 150 feet, was on the same street as the first driveway, and there were severe topographic conditions to necessitate the second driveway. Mr. Lauriello stated that the Township probably would not approve Mr. Rutledge’s request for a second driveway, other than the fact that the driveway has already been built.
Mr. Rutledge reported that in the Township there are several properties within three miles of his house with two driveways. Mr. Hinkle pointed out these driveways were installed before the present zoning regulations went into effect. However, Mr. Rutledge said in all fairness he feels he is entitled to have a second driveway based on other properties with the same.
In September 2010 the Zoning Hearing Board ruled that Mr. Rutledge did not require a variance for the Sandstone driveway since the applicant met the 150 foot frontage requirement. Mr. Nonnemacher asked, “What is the definition of ‘severe topography’? Is it a difference of 10 to 12 feet? That condition is not present here, so why is this case considered to have ‘severe topography’?” Mr. Lauriello said “severe topography” is very subjective and not a defined term in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Nonnemacher then read from Attorney Nagy’s document, which cited verbatim the Township Zoning Ordinance on what is considered to be “severe topographic conditions”: “Therefore each case should be considered individually as to impact to the property owner and should be interpreted in a manner that benefits the applicant.” Mr. Nonnemacher asked if this wording was correct and Mr. Lauriello said it was, and if there is a discrepancy in an ordinance, case law says the matter is always interpreted in favor of the applicant.
Mrs. Yoder asked why Mr. Rutledge would want to keep the driveway on Stony Battery Road if it is so dangerous. Ms. Myers said they cannot close off this driveway because it is their only access to the garage and that a turnaround, roundabout or hammerhead cannot be constructed due to the slope of the property. Mr. Rutledge added that constructing a turnaround would mean having to make a right turn on about an 8% grade which is “not cool,” especially in bad weather.
Because a Conditional Use Hearing on this matter is scheduled for December 7, 2010, the Rutledge matter cannot be tabled. Mark Lauriello summarized the Board’s options: do they consider the ordinance based on precedent and strict interpretation, or do they grant the applicant relief because the driveway has already been built. If this driveway were not yet built, it probably would not be approved.
Motion: Mr. Nonnemacher made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rodman, to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the Conditional Use Request Section 707.2.B for D. Daniel Rutledge to construct a second driveway on his residential lot at 1610 Stony Battery Road, with these conditions:
1. Construct the already current second driveway at his resident lot, realizing that the Zoning Officer has agreed that Mr. Rutledge has 150 feet of frontage on Sandstone Drive.
2. There may be severe topography issues in the front yard for construction of a turnaround, but in conjunction with that, the second driveway is already constructed and for safety reasons it would seem prudent to leave it in.
Mr. Nonnemacher and Mr. Rodman voted yes; Mrs. Yoder voted no. Motion did not carry because there were only three members of the Planning Commission present and the applicant needs three votes for the motion to pass.
The Planning Commission’s vote of 2-1 will be made known to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rodman recommended that prior to appearing before the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Rutledge and Ms. Myers take pictures of the property from the vantage point of the Hempfield United Methodist Church parking lot across Stony Battery Road to show the slope to the front of their house.
B. Lewis and Kelly Harpster
Special Exception 701.21.E – more than 3 adult pets
606 Stony Battery Road – Rural Ag Zone
Mrs. Harpster explained that she and her husband have lived at this address for 17 years and have never had a problem regarding the number of dogs on the property. They originally began as a rescue sanctuary for potbelly pigs (current population: 15) and in time opened a rescue sanctuary for chihuahuas (current population: 51). Their operation is strictly a rescue one with no breeding or selling. The facility was inspected by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and was found to be in excellent condition. The Harpsters were granted a kennel license even though theirs is not a kennel operation. They will be inspected twice a year by the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement.
Ed Hinkle reported that they have too many dogs on the property per the zoning ordinance, but that they can ask for a special exception to have more than three adult dogs.
No neighbors were present at the meeting, there has never been a complaint against the Harpsters, and they were unaware that they were not in compliance with the Township’s Zoning Ordinance.
Motion: A motion was made by Mrs. Yoder, seconded by Mr. Nonnemacher, to recommend that the Zoning Hearing Board approve Special Exception Request Section 701.21.E for Lewis and Kelly Harpster to house 51 rescued dogs on their property at 606 Stony Battery Road, with the condition they not take in any additional pets until the current dog population drops to fewer than three. Carried 3-0.
C. Daniel S. Flosser
Special Exception Section 705.C – Substitution of a Non-Conforming Use
3992 Locust Grove Road – C1 Zone
Mr. Flosser and Jeff Seibert of Associates Real Estate Company presented their situation. Mr. Flosser is purchasing the R.P. Williams property at the corner of Locust Grove Road and Columbia Avenue. He is asking for a substitution of one non-conforming use for another non-conforming use. The property has been in existence since the 1950s, where the Williams brothers originally operated a formica fabrication shop and later a Toro lawn mower franchise doing sales and repairs.
Mr. Flosser would like to operate a car and motorcycle sales shop and a motorcycle repair business on the property. Instead of lawn mowers, licensed vehicles for sale would be on display at the front of the property. There are currently three driveways on the property, but the third driveway will be blocked. There is no need for paving since the stone lot that is overgrown with weeds will be reclaimed. The tractor trailer currently parked on the property will be removed. Flosser will bring in stone to fill some holes in the driveways and will create a walkway between the building and the parking lot.
Mr. Nonnemacher said that doing any spray painting on the site will require DEP permitting. Mr. Flosser said his business is not a body shop, just a “shoot and spray” bumper and dent repair shop. Flosser, who has 15 years experience in the business, would like to expand to a three-man operation within four to five years. Any enlargement of the business and/or building will require Flosser to go before the Zoning Hearing Board.
Motion: A motion was made by Mrs. Yoder, seconded by Mr. Nonnemacher, to recommend that the Zoning Hearing Board approve Special Exception Request Section 705.C for Daniel S. Flosser to substitute his automobile and motorcycle sales use at 3992 Locust Grove Road for the existing use, with these conditions:
1. The driveway closest to Locust Grove Road and Columbia Avenue is closed to public use.
2. The outdoor display of vehicles for sale is limited to a maximum of 15.
Carried 3-0. Mark Lauriello recommended that prior to appearing before the Zoning Hearing Board, Mr. Flosser obtain a parcel map from the Lancaster County GIS site and then denote on a two-scale map what areas he will be using for sales displays.
D. David P. Gill
Weis Markets
Special Exception – Extend Store Hours
1400 Stony Battery Road – C2 Zone
Mr. Gill, Director of Architecture for Weis Markets, is seeking a modification of the original land development plan to extend the operating hours of Weis Market at 1400 Stony Battery Road. He gave a brief background on this store’s hours, which have been expanded twice since the store first opened in 1993. Weis is requesting to be open every day from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., which will simplify and standardized the hours the store is open. Six Weis Markets within the area are open from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Other supermarkets and food stores in this area are open either 24 hours a day (such as Giant and Turkey Hill) or from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. The extended hours request also pertains to the gas station operation at the Stony Battery Road location. Truck delivery hours (9 a.m. to 2 p.m.) will remain unchanged.
Mr. Nonnemacher asked how long will it be until Weis comes to the Township and requests to be open 24 hours. Mr. Gill said at this time Weis is not planning to be a 24-hour operation, but in the future should there be a change in consumer shopping habits, the possibility exists that Weis would request to be open around the clock.
Motion: Mrs. Yoder made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nonnemacher, to recommend that the Zoning Hearing Board modify the originally approved store hours for Weis Markets at 1400 Stony Battery Road (Cases 556, 690, 756) to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Carried 3-0.
V. The next regular meeting will be held on December 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
VI. Adjournment
Vice Chairman Rodman asked if there were any more comments or business. Being none he called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Motion: A motion was made by Mrs. Yoder, seconded by Mr. Nonnemacher, to adjourn the meeting. Carried 3-0.
Vice Chairman Rodman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Yoder
Secretary
Site Map
