Zoning & Subdivision Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday – January 20, 2004 – 7:30 p.m. at the MCRPC Offices
2491 Highland Road – Hermitage, PA (724) 981-2412\

MEMBERS & OTHERS PRESENT

Samuel Scott, Chairman
James Rollinson 
Chuck Garrett 
James L. Hogan 
Burroughs Price
Clifford McCandless
Ron Faull
James Pat White

Andrew Dash, Planner - MCRPC
Denny Puko, Exec. Dir. - MCRPC
Peg Heldorfer, Associate Planner - MCRPC
Norm Straub, Surveyor
Thomas P. Liszka, Delaware Twp.

Mr. Scott, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present. Mr. Scott noted that the Minutes of the December 9, 2003 meeting were mailed prior to tonight’s meeting and there being no additions, corrections, or deletions, the Minutes stand approved as mailed.

N E W B U S I N E S S

1. Modification Request – Thomas P. & Anne M. Liszka - Delaware Township – Mr. Dash explained that this item was the same as presented at the December 9^th meeting, with the following changes: lot size has gone from 15,853 square feet to 13,171 square feet. This was done because the access strip, which started at 20’ wide and narrowed to 9.4’, has been widened to 20’ wide for its entire length. The many discrepancies with the plan have been fixed, and if the modification were approved, the plan could be recorded as it is now.

In discussion, Mr. Price and Mr. Faull stated that we should not punish Mr. Liszka for the way the lot was platted a long time ago. Mr. Faull asked if the major concern of the Committee was the access strip, and is the change what the Committee recommended. Mr. Dash replied, yes.

After discussion, Mr. Price made a motion to recommend approving all three modifications. Mr. Rollinson seconded. The motion passed with Mr. Hogan abstaining.

Mr. Liszka asked when the final decision would be made and what the process is afterwards. Mr. Puko explained the remainder of the process and Mr. Dash stated that he would send a letter to Mr. Liszka informing him of the Commission’s final decision.

2. Text Amendment – M. C. Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance – Non-Building Waiver – Mr. Dash explained a request to remove the non-building notation on a plan, which requires a replat in order for the notation to be taken off. Mr. Straub discussed what he would like to see be changed and why. He noted that the Planning Commission stamps "non-building lot" on any plan where sewage facilities are not approved by the PA Department of Environmental Protection. He stated that this causes a problem for his clients who do not want sewage, but want to build storage buildings. He does not want to take the extra step of a replat, which would cost the landowner more money. Mr. Puko explained the "non-building lot" stamp, which is an administrative decision done by the staff and has been done for a long time.

Mr. Dash noted that he had talked with DEP and they require their language to be taken off at the time the plan and the lot are replatted when sewage facilities are approved. Mr. Dash gave Mr. Straub a copy of the non-building waiver language; Mr. Straub read it and stated that the language seems flexible enough to not require a replat. Again, Mr. Dash states that DEP requires this Statewide, not just the northwest region or any one staff member.

In discussion, Mr. Hogan talked about previous items that had gone before the Committee, wondering if this change would have made any difference in these plans – no one knows for sure. Mr. Puko discussed three options: 1) since the "non-building lot" stamp is an administrative decision, the staff can continue or stop doing this without a Committee motion; 2) the Committee can make a motion to change the language, keep it, or remove it altogether; or 3) the Planning Commission could take out the requirement to follow DEP regulations altogether, but advises even though Planning Commission has not required many safeguards to be shown in subdivision plans (wetlands, steep slopes, buildable lands, etc.), but has always required conformance with DEP regulations so a buyer would be protected and that they would be able to have a lot that would support a sewage system.

Mr. Garrett suggested that we change the language from "non-building lot" to "not tested for sewage". He noted that the language change would allow the owner to put up buildings that do not require sewage, while the "non-building lot" does not allow anything to go up. Mr. McCandless agreed, but suggested that we change the wording to "not approved for sewage". Mr. Puko asked the Committee if they would want the staff to change the language from "non-building lot" to "not approved for sewage". Mr. McCandless made a motion to recommend approving that the staff changes the wording on plot plans from ""non-building lot" to "not tested for sewage". Mr. Hogan seconded. The motion passed.

Mr. Straub felt that the MCRPC should record all plans, due to the possibility that someone could change the plan after it has been signed off. Mr. Hogan wanted to know how you could protect everything. Mr. Puko read from the PA Municipalities Planning Code "upon the approval of a final plat, the developer shall within 90 days of such final approval shall record such plat in the office of the recorder of deeds". Again, the MPC says plan shall be recorded. Mr. Puko felt that this was a good suggestion for security reasons, but noted that it is a detriment to us (the Planning Commission) not being a county agency in the Courthouse.

3. Otter Creek Township – Major Revisions – Mr. Dash explained that Otter Creek Township would like to revise the sign regulations in their Ordinance because of being complex and difficult to understand. They want to allow more uses in their existing Business "B-1" and Industrial "I" districts. Mr. Dash explained the revisions. Mr. Hogan questioned the non-conforming expansion revision. Mr. Puko explained that they would be allowed to expand lateral, but would not be allowed to go to the road or lot line. Mr. Puko noted that he would make sure that this is clarified better in the ordinance. There was also discussion regarding political signs. It was suggested that they add provisions to make sure the political signs are picked up. Mr. Hogan made a motion to recommend approving the revisions to the Otter Creek Township Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Garrett seconded. The motion passed.

4. Text Amendment – Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance – Subdivision Fees – Mr. Puko explained that we would not present this item now, but felt that we need to discuss changes to the fee schedule for subdivision reviews at a later date. He noted that the fee schedule was put in effect in 1986. Mr. Hogan stated that we should consider charging resubmission fees on subdivisions that go out for corrections. The Committee felt that we should review the fee schedule at an upcoming meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Dash, Planner

 

Mercer County Regional Planning Commission
2491 Highland Road, Hermitage, PA 16148
mail@mcrpc.com    www.mcrpc.com

 

home    about mcrpc    planning projects    community development    transportation    zoning    subdivision