Zoning & Subdivision Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday – February 20, 2001 – 7:30 p.m.
MCRPC Offices, 2491 Highland Road – Hermitage, PA

Members Present	Others Present
Samuel Scott, Chairman	Lisa Holm, Planner
James Rollinson, Vice-Chairman	Dennis G. Puko, Executive Director
Fred Brenner	Peggy Heldorfer, Assoc. Planner
Burroughs Price	Robert Kochems, Solicitor - MCRPC
Ron Faull	Tom Wygant
	Randy Gabany
	Russell Dawes
	Ron Bittler
	Tim Williams
	Don Welker
	Irwin R. Greenlee

 

Mr. Scott, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present. A motion was made by Dr. Brenner and seconded by Mr. Price to approve the Minutes of the January 16, 2001 meeting with no additions, corrections, or deletions. The motion passed.

N E W B U S I N E S S

1. Final – Stoney Brook – Phase II – Sublots 55-71 & Replat of 30, 31, & 55 – Hempfield Township – Ms. Holm reviewed this subdivision with the Committee noting that this development is off Route 58. She noted that this subdivision, Phase II, is for the remaining 21 lots on three cul-de-sacs, the longest being 600 feet long, and is the completion of the Stoney Brook Subdivision. The plan meets all the requirements for final plan approval. She stated that she spoke to the bank about the bonds and they informed her that they are in the process. She stated that Hempfield Township has looked at and signed this final plan.

A motion was made by Mr. Price and seconded by Mr. Faull to recommend approval of this final plan, conditioned upon receiving the bonds. Dr. Brenner abstained. The motion passed.

2. Modification Request – Greenlee – Hempfield Township – Ms. Holm reviewed this with the Committee noting that this plan is for 24 lots on a cul-de-sac off of Methodist Road. The cul-de-sac is 2,400 feet long. The Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance allows for a 1,000-foot cul-de-sac. The modification request this evening is to make the cul-de-sac longer in order to develop the land.

After some brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Price and seconded by Dr. Brenner to deny the modification request for the 2,400-foot cul-de-sac. The motion passed. Ms. Holm then presented an alternative sketch, which she discussed with Mr. Greenlee in which the development could occur with a 1,200-foot cul-de-sac. Mr. Greenlee asked the Committee to consider a modification allowing a maximum 1,200-foot cul-de-sac.

A motion was then made by Dr. Brenner and seconded by Mr. Price to recommend approval for a cul-de-sac length not to exceed a total of 1,200 feet in length. The motion passed.

3. Preliminary Subdivision – Greenlee – Lots 1-24 – Hempfield Township – Ms. Holm stated that the preliminary subdivision should be tabled until the subdivision is revised based on the modification request noted above. A motion was made by Br. Brenner and seconded by Mr. Faull to table this preliminary subdivision. The motion passed.

4. Preliminary Subdivision – Gabany – Neshannock Ridge – Lots 1-10 – East Lackawannock Township – Ms. Heldorfer reviewed this with the Committee noting that this preliminary plan is for 10 lots on a proposed 800 foot-cul-de-sac. She stated that this plan is 9-½ acres with a new road. She also noted that the plan meets all the requirements of East Lackawannock Township for roads and cul-de-sacs. The 10 lots are intended to be connected into the public sewer system of Mercer Borough. She also stated that she is in receipt of a subdivision plan for Lot 10 for a single-family dwelling, but informed Mr. Gabany that the preliminary plan has to be approved prior to subdividing this subdivision. She noted that Lot 10 has already received approval for a tap-in from Mercer Borough. Attorney Kochems noted that Lot 10 was approved because it taps-in a particular line, and the other lots tap-in into different lines. Ms. Holm stated that the plan meets all the requirements for preliminary plan. After discussion, it was noted that no construction can begin until additional information is provided related to the sewer tap-ins.

After further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Price and seconded by Mr. Faull to recommend approval of the preliminary plan with the understanding that it does not contain information on streets and utilities and therefore does not authorize their construction. The motion passed.

5. Preliminary Subdivision – A.J. Lucas – Lots 1-8 – Pine Township – Ms. Heldorfer reviewed this with the Committee noting that this subdivision plan is for 8 lots on a proposed 700-foot cul-de-sac on Route 208. She stated that the plan meets all the requirements for preliminary plan through the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and Pine Township. Again, it was stated that this is a preliminary subdivision, with a lot of work to be done.

A motion was made by Mr. Faull and seconded by Mr. Price to recommend approval of the preliminary plan with the understanding that it does not contain information on streets and utilities and therefore does not authorize their construction. The motion passed.

6. Other Business – Mr. Puko stated that questions have been raised concerning cell towers and the development of leases of property for towers that would hold communication devices. He noted that in the past we have had discussions about how to interpret this with regard to our subdivision regulations. He stated that the communication tower companies or a land broker who would be putting together some deal for a communication tower company are looking at leasing land vs. subdividing of land for cell towers. He also stated that the PA Planning Code defines a subdivision as: "the subdivision of a tract, the creation of two or more parcels out of one, whether it is for sale, lease or other use". The Commission is not sure how to deal with a company who has the intent to create a lease for a cell tower. Should the Commission state to the communication tower companies that they submit a subdivision plan, even though they are not creating a parcel? Ms. Holm noted that currently our Subdivision Ordinance does not state anything in regards to the process of and application for cell towers, but noted that another county does have a process defined in their ordinance for cell towers. Currently the Commission does not regulate cell towers as a land development. Mr. Scott stated that in talking with a gentlemen who installs cell towers told him that they do not like to buy the land in case they decide to move the tower, then they own a little piece of land in the middle of another persons farm and it is difficult to sell. Ms. Holm noted that we informed a company when they were submitting a subdivision that the transfer of the land is not something which the Commission regulates, they do not have to purchase the land, the original owner can retain the land. Attorney Kochems stated that part of the problem is when they subdivide, the Ordinance requires that they put in an access way to the structure. Mr. Puko noted that most if not all local zoning ordinances have a provision that states that there shall be no more than one principal structure on any given lot. He noted that numerous zoning officers have not been enforcing this provision. Mr. Price questioned what the difference would be between cell tower companies, power companies and railroad companies who lease property? Dr. Brenner asked if any municipality in the county has any type of ordinance on communication towers? Ms. Holm stated that in a few local zoning ordinances there are requirements on the type and height of towers, in regards to the various zoning districts.

Mr. Puko asked for legal advice from Attorney Kochems on this matter. Attorney Kochems stated that he would consider cell towers as a subdivision and the Commission and local zoning officers should take control. Mr. Puko noted that currently our Ordinance does not have any regulations for cell towers as a land development. Should we incorporate this in the update of our new ordinance that it can become a land development? It was suggested that we should leave it as it currently is and let the local zoning ordinances control them.

Mr. Puko next informed the Committee that the Commission, Liberty Township and the Mercer County Commissioners have been sued by a group of individuals from Liberty Gait. He stated that the Liberty Gait Subdivision came through our office back in 1983 as a major subdivision involving the construction of a new street. The new street was to be built and remain private by the developer who owns the development. The Commission reviewed this subdivision and there was a security placed on behalf of the Township in terms of construction of the road. The road was not completely constructed to the full length that was indicated on the plan. The financial security was left to lapse. Now, 18 years later, people in the development are aggrieved by the condition of the road and the portion that was never built. They want the County, Township and MCRPC to reconstruct the road and the Township to take it over afterwards. Dr. Brenner noted that there is a dispute over water in this subdivision also. Attorney Kochems stated that currently we are in a holding pattern until at least the first of March or longer because Liberty Township and the County are checking to see if they have outside insurance coverage, which might give them other lawyers to handle the law suit. He noted that the Commission does not. He also noted that he has been in contact with the other attorneys involved in this lawsuit and the next steps to take. He explained that there is not a simply way of settling this lawsuit because the developer used concrete for most of the roads. It would cost more to remove the concrete than it would be to install as new.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Holm,
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