SWAN Newsletter #2

June 26, 2006

SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Attended and reported by Watson Fisher.

Triple Crown Corporation (TCC) requested the rezoning of the 32.8-acre portion of the 48.36 parcel of Stray Winds Farm that is in Susquehanna Township from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. The 32.8-acre portion is the planned residential area, the remainder of the 48.36-acre parcel is the portion under contract with St. Margaret Mary Church and that area will remain R-1. The request was approved.

Mark Disanto, Chief Executive Officer of TCC, previously had two meetings with the Planning Commission and had been requested to show how the area could be developed under the existing R-1, under the proposed R-2, and under the Conservation District Overlay (CDO). He showed sketches of each, with R-1 having 56 homes with 20,000 sq. ft. lots and no open space; R-2 having 74 homes with 8,000 sq. ft. lots and 6.5 acres of open space; and CDO having 54 homes with 8,000 sq. ft lots and 50% open space. Mark DiSanto argued that with R-1, the 20,000 sq. ft. lot requirement left no open space, with the CDO, the open space requirement left room for only 54 homes, so R-2 provided opportunity for more homes with still 20% open space.

As TCC has committed to pay toward improvements in Lower Paxton Township for the development of Stray Winds Farm, TCC committed to pay the entire cost of intersection improvements in Susquehanna Township, at Progress Ave & Paxton Church Road estimated at $111,000; and at Progress Ave & Linglestown Rd, TCC would pay a portion of the cost, $5,000.

The Dauphin County Planning Commission representative said they were not in favor of the requested change, preferring the CDO and that the future land use plan showed low density in this area. Mark DiSanto said R-2 is low density, even though it is called medium density. The county was concerned about emergency access roads and Mark DiSanto said the land development plan would show provisions for access to Sturbridge Road to the North and possibly to Paxton Church on the South. R-2 allows for 4 units per acre. But Mark DiSanto said because of the nature of the site, the 74 homes shown, which is 2.2 per acre, was all they could get on and they might lose a couple to provide for access roads.

Bob Grubic, Township engineer with HRG, had reviewed the plan and stated it was in substantial agreement with the Township's Comprehensive Plan and the future land use plan. He said he supported the request to change to R-2.

After some further discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning.

June 27, 2006

LOWER PAXTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING

Attended by Ted Robertson.

A new developer is involved in Quail Hollow Development (QH). They asked for approval to issue building permits for Phase V, which is not included in the litigation areas of Phases III and IV. This was approved, provided the developer abides by LP Twp ordinances.

Most of the rest of the meeting was devoted to approving one final subdivision plan, two preliminary subdivision plans and six preliminary/final subdivision plans. Without exception, there were numerous conditions on each of the presentations, which were required by the Supervisors for approval of the plans. The Supervisors made the acceptance of these conditions, on the part of the presenters, an official part of the meeting minutes.

In my opinion, someone (Supervisors, Planning Commission, Zoning Hearing Board) has to come down hard on developers to meet Twp. requirements. The above conditions, an average of 12 per submission, create too much work for the Twp. staff, officers and lawyers.

FYI:

1.) Quail Hollow (QH) is located off of Crums Mill Road, near Linglestown Road, the south & east sides of QH borders Stray Winds Farm Development.

2.) Quail Hollow is in litigation due to actions by the original developer that are contrary to the approved subdivision plan and in violation to the Township’s design standards.

June 29, 2006

LOWER PAXTON TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING

Attended and reported by Ted Robertson.

Everything was pretty much straightforward except for Docket No. 1211. (From the agenda, Docket No. 1211 states: Application of the Parmer Family Foundation, Inc. of 911Grove Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111 for variance from height regulations, rental restriction, parking regulations and density requirements in connection with a proposed six story, 120 unit apartment building to be located on the north side of Locust Lane, West of Fairmont Drive in a Residential Cluster Zoning District. The underlying zoning district is Residential-Cluster.)

The description on the agenda is not correct. The proposal was for three (3), six story buildings for a total of 360 units on 35 acres. Mr. Parmer, who is a member of the church adjoining the property, had a good concept in that this would be exclusively for senior citizens with cost a major factor. The variance request was denied 5-0, based strictly on size. This land is opposite to Vo-Tech on Locust Lane.

Once again, the applicant did not meet the 5 criteria necessary for granting a variance. Their prime argument was the 360 number was necessary for keeping the rental costs down by virtue of lower costs of construction. I was under the impression that economic hardship is not one of the above 5 criteria.

As an observation, there were about 30 residents of Shope’s Place and surrounding areas. This impressed the Board.
Footnotes:
1.) R-C allows 5 units/acre. This variance was asking for 10+ units/acre. R-R is 8 units/acre. The R-C zoning was approved for the previous owner.
2.) The five zoning variance standards, found in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code are:

Section 910.2 Zoning Hearing Board's Functions; Variances.

(a) The board shall hear request for variances where it is alleged that the provisions of the zoning ordinance inflict unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. The board may by rule prescribe the form of application and may require preliminary application to the zoning officer. The board may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case.

(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.

(2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.

(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.

(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.

(b) In granting any variance, the board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of this act and the zoning ordinance.