Zoning & Subdivision Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday – April 18, 2006 – 7:30 p.m. at the MCRPC Offices
2491 Highland Road – Hermitage, PA (724) 981-2412

MEMBERS PRESENT & OTHERS PRESENT

• Samuel Scott, Chairman

• Larry McAdams

• Fred Brenner

• Chuck Garrett

• Clifford McCandless

• Ron Faull

• James Hughes
  
  

• Dan Gracenin, Executive Director – MCRPC

• Jeremy Coxe, Assistant Director – MCRPC

• Brian Barnhizer, Senior Planner - MCRPC

• Matt Stewart, Planner - MCRPC

• Mr. & Mrs. Franklin, City of Hermitage

• Barry Stein, Pittsburgh, PA

• Attorney Ross Cardas

• Attorney Bob Kochems

• Rita Ferringer, City of Hermitage

• Mr. & Mrs. Householder, Perry Township

• Mrs. Reagle & son, Sandy Lake Township

• Mr. & Mrs. Jordan, Coolspring Township

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 March 21, 2006 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 – Robert Reagle – Sandy Lake Township - Mr. Stewart explained that this request was tabled at the March 21, 2006 meeting because questions could not be answered by Mr. Reagle, who was not in attendance. Mr. McCandless made a motion to remove it from the table. Mr. Hughes seconded. The motion passed. Mr. Stewart explained that the two issues MCRPC staff had with this subdivision involved: (1) where the mobile home was to be placed in relation to the other mobile home; and (2) how the second mobile home was going to be connected to an on-lot sewer system. Mr. Reagle, by way of an aerial map, showed where he would like to place his mobile home in relation to his parents’ mobile home. Mr. Reagle explained that he inquired about putting in another septic system through DEP, but he was told to request a modification and seek their approval to the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance from MCRPC regarding two or more mobile homes on one lot. In discussion, the Committee felt there would be adequate room to place another mobile home on the lot, but had issues with the on-lot sewer system. A motion was made by Mr. Garrett to recommend approving the modification for Robert Reagle contingent upon approval of sewer approval from DEP. Mr. Faull seconded. The motion passed.

2. Modification Request – John Householder - Perry Township - Mr. Gracenin explained that MCRPC received a request for a modification to the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Article VII, Section 703(d.6.) regarding storm water management requirements for a mobile home park, from John F. & Jeannette C. Householder. The property is located on Perry Highway (Route 19) and is approximately 5.369 acres. He stated that this is an existing mobile home park that was developed originally in 1968 and was grandfathered in under our Subdivision Ordinance. The mobile home park was developed prior to storm water requirements. The modification is being requested by Mr. & Mrs. Householder so they can subdivide their property. Mr. & Mrs. Householder asked if their property would be considered a mobile home park and if they are required to provide storm water management plans for the park, once the property is subdivided. MCRPC staff felt that since this was grandfathered in and because the land slopes to a stream to allow storm water runoff, there would not be enough land to develop. Mr. Gracenin stated that the leach bed for the park is located in a different area. Attorney Kochems and Attorney Cardas have been discussing this issue and developed some draft language that they would add to the deed. The deed would include easements to allow storm water runoff to cross the remaining lands of Householder. Both attorneys felt comfortable with this draft language. MCRPC staff felt that if this modification was approved, and there would be any additional growth of the mobile home park, the owners would be required to obtain more land, which would be considered a subdivision, which would fall under the requirements of the current subdivision ordinance. Attorney Cardas briefly explained this subdivision. A motion was made by Mr. McCandless to recommend approving the modification request, to exempt the property from the storm water requirements, with specific language concerning the storm water easements to be contained in the deed. Mr. McAdams seconded. The motion passed.

3. Modification Request – Tammie Jordan – Coolspring Township – Mr. Coxe explained that MCRPC received a request for a modification to the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Article IV, Section 407(3.f.1.) a flag lot is a lot which has frontage to a public street by way of an access strip. An access strip must be 50 feet wide if it serves 2 or more lots or if there is adequate acreage within the rear for further subdivision. The property is located on Tait Road with the original size of the property being approximately 12.6 acres. The lot being subdivided is 1 acre. He noted that the existing land use and the proposed land use is Single-Family Residential. Present zoning of the property is in the R-1 Residential-Agricultural Low Density Zoning District. The modification is being requested by Tammie Jordan because the access strip narrows to less than 50 feet in width. The current access strip/right-of-way is approximately 35’, which has access onto another existing right-of-way over property onto Tait Road. MCRPC felt that an alternative layout could be by acquiring additional land from Todd Steele (neighbor) to widen the access strip to meet the 50’ requirement. MCRPC staff would recommend denial of this modification because they believe the modification would further depreciate the lot by allowing two parcels to access Tait Road with inadequate access.

In discussion, Attorney Cardas stated that the 13.59 acres which Mrs. Jordan owns was approved as a subdivision in 1976 and at that time there was no frontage at all, and he does not know how this subdivision was approved. He noted that there was a mobile home and a house on the 13.59 acres in 1976. In 1993, a title search was completed for the Jordan’s and there was concern why there was no access strip/right-of-way for the two homes. A right-of-way agreement was written at that time in order to obtain access onto another existing right-of-way over property onto Tait Road. Mrs. Jordan stated that the mobile home is used for storage and is not being used as a home. Also, due to wetlands, the access strip cannot be widened to meet the 50’ requirement. MCRPC also had concerns over the fact that the 13.59 acres could be sold off for future subdivisions. After discussion, a motion was made by Dr. Brenner to recommend approving the modification. Mr. Garrett seconded. The motion failed to pass. A roll call was then taken. The roll call determined that 3 recommended approving, and 4 recommended denying. The reason for denial of the proposed modification is due to the access strip narrowing to less than 50 feet in width that would serve 2 lots, with additional acreage for further subdivision. The motion was denied.

4. Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment – City of Hermitage – Mr. Gracenin explained MCRPC received a map amendment to the City of Hermitage Zoning Ordinance. The property is owned by Luann Franklin and the request is by Barry Stein, developer. Mr. Stein would like to rezone approximately 3.2 acres with frontage on North Hermitage Road (PA 18) from IN – Institutional to CC-1 – Central Commercial. The property is currently vacant and is situated on the west side of PA 18. The rezoning request would allow retail commercial uses to be developed on the property. He noted that the property to the south was Institutional prior to being rezoned to CC-1 Central Commercial in 2000. The topography of the property is relatively flat, with a slight slope in the rear. He explained that this particular rezoning came before the Zoning & Subdivision Review Committee back in 2003. The Committee at that time discussed this rezoning and had a 3-3 split vote, so the Committee had no recommendation to the full Commission. The full Commission did hear the request and it was denied due to major concern from the school district, which is directly behind the property. At that time, the Hermitage School District had concerns of what type of uses would be permitted in the CC-1 district, since it is attached to the school property and abuts the main entrance to the school. The Hermitage School District was opposed to this rezoning and urged that this piece of property remain Institutional. At that time, this request went to the City of Hermitage and they denied the request also. MCRPC staff reviewed this request now and stands at 50-50 over this issue. They felt it is encroaching, as the Commercial district is slowly eating into the Institutional district. Mr. Gracenin explained that the Hermitage Planning Commission reviewed this request two weeks ago and they recommended approval. He noted that the Hermitage School District did not comment on this request. He stated that this Committee would only make a recommendation to the City of Hermitage, and the City has final say on the outcome of this request. Mr. Stein commented that he had met with the school district on more than one occasion and the school district had expressed their concerns on what they do not want to see happen to this property. Mr. Stein informed the school district that they do not need to be concerned, that he would not lease to those particular issues that they are concerned about. Ms. Ferringer commented that a deed restriction should be attached to and stay with this property. There was concern over the main entrance to the school, who owns the drive and how it is zoned.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Faull to recommend approving the rezoning request. Mr. McCandless seconded. A roll call vote was needed to be taken. The roll call determined that 4 recommended approving, and 3 recommended denying. The motion passed.

5. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – City of Hermitage – Mr. Stewart explained that the City of Hermitage would like to amend the text of their zoning ordinance to regulate the placement and design of communication towers and communication antennas. The proposed amendment would: 1) amend Section 202, Definitions to add this definition; 2) communication antennas and towers would be added to Section 306.10 as a permitted use in certain zoning districts; and 3) amend Section 308.44 and Section 308.45 in order to regulate tower and antenna size, setbacks, lot size, parking requirements, landscaping, fencing and ensure that all construction is in conformance with FCC regulations. MCRPC staff reviewed this text amendment and would recommend approval. He stated that this Committee would only make a recommendation to the City of Hermitage, and the City has final say on this text amendment.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. McCandless to recommend approving this zoning ordinance text amendment. Dr. Brenner seconded. The motion passed.

6. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Grove City Borough – Mr. Barnhizer explained that the Borough of Grove City would like to amend the text of their zoning ordinance to change the existing standards for canopies and marquees in the C Central Commercial Zoning District in order to make them less restrictive. Mr. McCandless explained that when the Borough was amending their zoning ordinance a few years ago, a mistake was made on the Borough’s end. The existing right-of-way standards prevent property owners from installing any canopies, marquees or awnings, requiring property owners to seek a modification.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. McCandless to recommend approving this zoning ordinance text amendment. Mr. Hughes seconded. The motion passed.

7. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Stoneboro Borough – Mr. Barnhizer explained that he received a request from Stoneboro Borough to add property maintenance guidelines to the text of their zoning ordinance. The firm responsible for permit inspections under the Uniform Construction Code recommended that the Borough adopt these property maintenance guidelines. This firm also indicated that the Borough of Mercer has guidelines in place, and that they were adopted as a stand-alone ordinance in 2004. MCRPC staff reviewed this text amendment and recommended that the Borough add property maintenance guidelines, but consider approving the guidelines as a separate ordinance.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Garrett to recommend approving that the Borough add property maintenance guidelines, but with the recommendation that the Borough consider approving the guidelines as a separate ordinance. Mr. Faull seconded. The motion passed.

ADJOURNMENT

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

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel M. Gracenin,
Executive Director

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