Zoning & Subdivision Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday – December 10, 2002 – 7:30 p.m. at the MCRPC Offices
2491 Highland Road – Hermitage, PA (724) 981-2412

Members Present	Others Present
Samuel Scott, Chairman	Fred Frank, Planner - MCRPC
James Rollinson	Denny Puko, Exec. Director - MCRPC
Larry McAdams	Barbara Brown, Springfield Twp.
Clifford McCandless	Michael R. Messina, Surveyor
Burroughs Price	Judith A. Hassler, Springfield Twp.
Chuck Garrett
Fred Brenner
Ron Faull

 

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 October 29, 2002 meeting were mailed prior to tonight’s meeting. There being no additions, corrections, or deletions, a motion was made by Dr. Brenner and seconded by Mr. Price to approve the Minutes as mailed. The motion passed.

N E W B U S I N E S S

1. Modification – Pine Township – Mr. Frank stated that he received a request for a modification in Pine Township. The property is located on the south side of East Main Street Extension (PA 58), east of Grove City Borough. Currently, this property is two (2) lots. One lot is small and odd shaped, and the remaining lot is back off the road. The applicant proposes to subdivide this into four lots, reconfiguring one lot and to subdivide the remainder to make a total of four (4) lots. A fifty (50) foot right-of-way is proposed to extend from PA 58 to access all the lots at the rear of the property. The Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 404(d) requires that when a subdivision adjoins undeveloped acreage, new streets or reserved rights-of-way shall be provided to the boundary of the development. He noted that the back lot is roughly 13 acres. The applicant is seeking a modification to terminate the proposed right-of-way short of the boundary line, therefore, only providing access to the rear most lot (lot 4) and not providing possible future extensions to the large undeveloped tract. He stated that there is also a large tract of undeveloped land beyond this subdivision that currently has another access strip to PA 58.

In discussion, there was a question if there was a problem in extending the driveway? Mr. Frank stated the request he received was for the extension of the right-of-way, he did not know anything about the cartway? Mr. Puko stated that this subdivision needs a waiver to be serving three lots and needs to be built to the specifications. The Ordinance states that a driveway that would provide service to three to four lots would require a 16’ gravel cartway. Mr. Messina stated that the applicant would have no problem in putting in a 16’ gravel cartway. Mr. Messina also stated that the impression he got in talking with Ms. Heldorfer was that he would have to put in a total sub-base and paved street in order to access these lots. Mr. Puko stated that maybe that is why that waiver was never requested. Mr. Puko noted that it was not shown on the plan, and it would need to be shown on the plan indicating that it was being built. Mr. Messina stated that there was some confusion on what he read and what he put on the form he submitted to our office. Mr. Frank said there might have been just a mix up in the section that he read. He noted that the applicant would need to show on his plan the 16’ gravel cartway that would go back to the end of his property line, it would not have to go all the way through to the undeveloped land, but he would ask that the right-of-way be extended. Mr. Frank thought that the modification was that the right-of-way wouldn’t be extended, but Mr. Messina thought it was for the entire road. Therefore, Mr. Frank stated that this modification would not be necessary. Mr. Messina would need to show on the plan the 16’ gravel cartway and show the right-of-way to the property line. Committee members concurred.

 

2. Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Springfield Township – Mr. Puko stated that Springfield Township put together an amendment that would cover both their subdivision and zoning ordinances that deals with definitions. The amendment proposed would be to Section 702, Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 202, Definitions of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, to amend the definition of accessory building. The definition of accessory building would read: "One (1) second dwelling on a lot shall be considered an accessory building and the second dwelling shall meet all of the yard and height requirements of principal structures in the zoning district". The Springfield Township Planning Commission feels the amendments are necessary to allow a second residential dwelling to be placed on a lot without a land development plan being filed. Filing a land development plan can often delay construction by 30 to 90 days. Springfield Township Planning Commission feels that this is a burden on residents who are usually already in some type of financial hardship.

Mr. Puko distributed copies of some case law and interpretation of the courts on this matter. Generally, accessory uses include activities, which are incidental to the principal use. Normally what the courts have said is where you have uses that are ordinarily in the ordinance as principal uses; you can never place one as accessory to another. A residential use and a commercial use are both typically designated in the ordinance as principal uses, so you can create a situation where one of them is accessory to the other. They try to frame the situation where there is a clear accessory, such as the conversion of part of a garage for additional family living quarters for the use of the immediate family to be used customarily incidental for single-family residential use. The courts would generally say that a second residential dwelling that had no relationship with the immediate family would not be considered an accessory use. Of course this is a court interpretation brought about by a challenge of someone else’s ordinance. Springfield Township feels that there would be little likelihood that there would be a challenge to this and it would be administratively useful and beneficial to have this definition in place and not have to deal with all of those other accessory land development plans. Mr. Puko reminded Springfield Township to be cautious about this.

Ms. Brown stated that the filing of a land development plan has been a hardship on residents. Springfield Township feels that this is a customary thing in a rural township to have a second or third residents on a property. Most times it is done for immediate family members, some times it is done for farm hand. They would like to tailor the zoning ordinance to what is normal and usual in their municipality. Springfield Township feels that this amendment to the definition of accessory buildings is necessary to allow a second residential dwelling to be placed on a lot without a land development plan being filed. There was discussion on possibly placing other requirements with this definition. Springfield Township Planning Commission had discussed this, but they feel comfortable with this amendment as presented.

There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Price and seconded by Mr. Rollinson to recommend approval of the addition of the definition of accessory buildings in the Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The motion passed with Dr. Brenner abstaining.

 

3. Other Business – Mr. Frank noted that Hermitage has been reviewing their zoning ordinance and how its provisions are towards senior housing. They would like to amend multi-family housing altogether. They would like to amend and add multi-family dwellings as a permitted use in Institutional, Central Commercial and Highway Commercial Districts. Also, they would like to add senior assistance living residents, senior independent living residents and life care complex as conditional uses in the Institutional and R-4 zoning districts. Also, they would like to allow general office as a permitted use in the Institutional district. Also, remove anywhere where there is mention of two-family dwelling to multi-family dwelling. Remove convalescent home and senior citizen home because those are included with other definitions and they would be conflicting. They would like to create a new section for multi-family dwellings in all zoning districts. Also, to have multi-family developments in a Central Commercial, Highway Commercial, Institutional, R-3 and R-4 Districts meet the curbing and greenway requirements of a minor land development. They would like to amend the language of a Planned Residential Development to require a minimum setback for single-family dwellings. Also, amend the minimum floor area required for a dwelling unit.

A motion was made by Dr. Brenner and seconded by Mr. Garrett to recommend approval of the amendments to the Hermitage City Zoning Ordinance. The motion passed.

 

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Frank, 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