Meeting minutes

Wagenseller: We forgot to swear in the witnesses. Those who want to give facts to the board stand up now and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That includes all parties, and anybody else who is going to say anything or even might say anything.

Audience: I do

Earhart: Lot number 2 has adequate frontage on Stevens Street. I did meet with Danny Whittle (?) Lancaster County Planning Commission to express a number of design criteria that the County Planning Commission will be enforcing, encouraging, desires and one of the strong desires of the County Planning Commission is to have no driveways accessing Stevens Street. I did not get that from your code enforcement officer who said that is not the policy here but it is the policy of the County Planning Commission and he asked if there is adequate frontage along the proposed street he would like to see an alternative access to lot 3. So although I am showing a flagpole into lot 3 it is not necessary for access, it could come off of Stevens Street, that is why I am not requesting any kind of zoning activity for lot 3 even though it is oddly shaped. Only lots 6 and 7.

Donohue: So you don’t need a variance for lot 3? Even if it accesses Sundra Drive and not Stevens?

Spangler: No

Earhart: In my opinion, but I don’t want to speak for Mr. Spangler, it does comply with your ordinance, it has a bonus lane, so to speak.

Spangler: That’s correct

Bucksner: If you do not access Sundra Drive will that leg remain?

Earhart: The intent is to have the driveway access Sundra Drive, I imagine that it will be if not a required condition of approval of the Lancaster County Planning Commission who has jurisdiction over the subdivision aspect of this property, it will be a strong suggestion of the County Planning Commission. I don’t see… Mr. Ressler do you see any reason that you would put a driveway to Stevens Street should you have access onto the through street.

Unknown: Can I ask a question?

Wagenseller: It might be easier to wait until the applicant has finished, because all the parties have a legal right to cross examine.

Earhart: I have number of exhibits here and I have listed them.

Wagenseller: I’ll just give you all the stickers now.

Earhart: Just let me go through the exhibits quickly because this gives you the background to the project. Applicant’s Exhibit #1 is a copy of the subdivision plan called Graystone Terrace 3A, Exhibit#2 is Graystone 3B. On these exhibits you can see this is the intended layout of the property where a number of folks in the audience live and this needs to go together like this, and at the far end, this is the subject property right off the end here and you will see there is a forty-six foot wide right-of-way intended for a street. And if you read the plan you will see that that was to be dedicated to become a street.

Unknown: That is an extension of Ridge?

Earhart: Right, but not exactly an extension of Ridge. Applicant’s exhibit #6 shows a sketch plan that was prepared by Diehm & Sons in 1978 and it shows how that property, lot #4 is the Maney house. So this is the 3.2 acres of the subject ?

Bucksner: Ok

Earhart: This shows a potential of how this could have been laid out at that time, installing Ridge Ave. with turnarounds at the base of Sundra and Jeanette and just crossing Jackson. We didn’t have a problem with that but in 1979; Applicant’s exhibit #4 is copies of quick claim deeds that were filed by the Guldens. The Guldens are the people who live basically at the end of Jackson.

Unknown: Both sides

Earhart: Yes, there are two different Guldens at this point in time. And what the quick claim deeds do is they claim the right-of-way from Sundra across Jackson to the end of, on exhibit #6 it is marked Harold and Carol Gulden. And a quick claim, what that does, basically is saying if nobody claims this land, we do and your solicitor can explain this better.

Wagenseller: A quick claim deed says I don’t promise that I own anything but if I own it you as the grantee now have my rights.

Earhart: So anyway, that basically nullified the dedication of Ridge Road, so Ridge Road right-of-way no longer exists. To the best of my knowledge and I have checked with the County Planning Commission and I’ve checked on the official maps that are available in the Borough so there is no longer that connection available. My client has approached the Gulden’s to see if they wanted to reestablish that right-of-way but at this time they are not interested in reestablishing that right-of-way. So we are dealing with the 3.2 acres that we have and it abuts directly to the end of Sundra, like that, but it does not connect to Jackson Drive. Jackson is separated by a 46 foot wide strip from the subject tract. Anyway, that just gives you a little bit of history how this lot is adjacent to the existing residential area. We did submit over a month ago a sketch plan to the County Planning Commission so that they could provide you with their input. But they didn’t do that. So what I did was copy a section out of the County Subdivision Ordinance, Applicant’s Exhibit #5 and have highlighted for you “flag lots”. The County’s Subdivision Ordinance encourages the use of flag lots in certain situations and one of the places the most strongly encourage is when flag lots are used as an infill design tool. And on this particular property not having access to Jackson, creates a corner of this property that is not directly accessible by other means. Again I’m telling you what Danny Whittle told me, he was excited to see the flag lots and he asked me if I couldn’t use them to get more lots in this property if they were going to be developing to get the maximum development so there would be less pressure elsewhere. But I just wanted you to be aware of that. Why I’m here is the interpretation of the zoning officer was not that flag lots are prohibited but they are not encouraged by your zoning ordinance and because the definition of a flag lot is the frontage is limited that he believes it does not comply to the configuration requirements of the zoning ordinance. In other words that the front yard is to narrow because your measuring it at the right-of-way. I will point out that your zoning ordinance says the width of a property is to be measured between the side lines of the lot so there is some interpretation there are the side lines of the lot at the right-of-way or are the side lines of the lot where the building envelope is. That would be an interpretation that would be beneficial to us and to your zoning officer in the future when trying to interpret these things. Needless to say we needed to come to you in either event and so we here to ask you to look at these lots. Other design constraints we had there’s not a whole lot of different ways we could develop this property and be in compliance with all of the ordinances. One of the things that has been mentioned here tonight by the citizens and we agree with would be a cul-de-sac, but we have a county who encourages the connection of dead-end streets for the purpose of emergency access, ambulance, fire protection and those kind of things and we would love to be able to put a cul-de-sac back to service this rear corner but there is also a regulation that prohibits a cul-de-sac less then 250 feet in length. And that has to do with Federal School Taxes, I can’t tell you why but that is one of the regulations that we have to meet. So again, it come backs to the way to utilize this rear corner is through a unique configuration of lots. These lots are fully 80 feet wide, Lot 6 is shown at 90, Lot 7 is shown at 80 the flag pole we are showing at 20 feet across we are showing a joint use driveway that should have the same pavement cross section as a public street and is a 20 foot width per your code enforcement officer directive. And I’d be happy to take some questions from you. I did see the Borough Planning Commission last week and they did recommend approval of this lot configuration.
Bucksner: Thank you.

Donohue: Why does the County say you cannot access onto Stevens Street but the Borough it’s not a no no. What is the reasoning they say you cannot access onto Stevens?

Earhart: The reasoning back then was to minimize of interception point on streets having through traffic. They would consider it to be essential to connect Sundra Drive to Stevens somehow to eliminate the cul-de-sac, they don’t like them and the reason again is for emergency vehicles have to go out and around. They would consider Stevens Street to be the higher volume street that connects East Petersburg to a street that is a busy street, Colebrook. I cannot speak for the county planning commission but I can go back and say the borough would rather have driveways there and the borough can stand up and talk to the county.

Donohue: The lot the way it is, without re-zoning, you can build houses on it?

Earhart: Yes.

Donohue: How many houses can he build without getting it re-zoned?

Earhart: It’s not getting re-zoned. This is not a re-zoning; we could have 10 or 11 lots on here easily. Mr. Ressler brought along pictures, samples of different elevations of housing that he has marketed elsewhere in the county as well as pictures of actual buildings that he has recently constructed. I know several of the photographs are up at Mallard Pond in Manheim, just outside of Manheim Borough. And I think that what you’ll see from these photographs and elevations are they are very nice houses, they’re not mansions of half a million dollars but they’re not section 80. Mr. Ressler in the past week has been talking to the Guldons; we have created other sketch plans.

Donohue: One of the things you handed us says that flag lots are used when there is a demonstrated no potential to construct a street. So are we really at the point where here at the end of Jackson there is no potential to construct a street?

Earhart: You have a seller that doesn’t want to sell; there is not much we can do about it.

Donohue: You just spoke to them this week? And how do I understand this? They declared the land is theirs.

Wagenseller: Quick claim.

Donohue: Is that something we should look into?

Wagenseller: Usually Zoning Hearing Boards don’t get involved with legal titles to properties.

Guldon: I forget when it happened but when I wanted to purchase that property I went to the borough and the borough said we don’t own the land. So I went to the ? and I said may I purchase this land and he said yes providing all five of you purchase the land, which we did. Then after that, I don’t know how long, we got a letter in the mail we were sued. We never went to court, we got a letter from the court saying forget it, your not being sued. It’s your land, forget it.

Wagenseller: It doesn’t matter how it got this way, the point is there is no access to the North.

Earhart: Right

Bucksner: At this point there is no access.

Donohue: But in order for us to give her the variance she has to prove there is an unnecessary hardship, that these cannot be accessed any other way. And the flag lot is constructed when there is no potential to construct a street, or cul-de-sac.

Earhart: All I brought the regulations from the county is to show you that one of the primary reasons they encourage flag lots, which are generally not encouraged, but one of the times that they do encourage it is when you have a unique configuration to a property and it allows for an infill situation. Infill being land that is surrounded by development and is zoned for development but is not yet developed. And so that is what I’m saying, this is such a situation. And I’m sorry about the confusion of the quick claim, that is just a deed Mr.? filed when you bought the land.

Bucksner: Ok. I take into consideration, as zoning board chairman; I take into consideration more issues than what the zoning ordinances are. It seems that from hearing the neighbors, we’re East Petersburg, its one thing to be Lancaster County, but East Petersburg’s small, there’s not a lot of land and it’s a small type community. So to bring in ordinance’s in from Lancaster County Planning Commission, they do good work, but we’re East Petersburg, it’s a little different. If the neighbors are really opposed, from what I’m hearing, the neighbors, who to me are the most important parties, are not opposed to Rich Ressler Construction to the idea of these lots being developed, it’s just they feel they have the hardship with Sundra Drive being cut through, that seems to be the big issue. And it seems that even though right now there is this gray area about Ridge Avenue, the original plan for this, the possibility for that at some point being connected as a street. So it’s just my feeling that the people that really have the hardship here are the neighbors. Also with this gray area of Ridge Avenue, which to me this is the plan that looks great to me. This looks like it gives access to all the lots and doesn’t really create any undo hardship as far as traffic and seems to be really contusive to the community that this lot is in, which is a big issue. That’s just my feeling on it. Even though what we’re voting on is the variances on those two flag lots, it goes a little bigger than that. I don’t have the power to say this can’t be developed or anything like that; I’m here to vote on these variances. However, there are other issues here and it meant enough for all these neighbors to show up here. Does anyone else have anything to say at this point?

McElwain: Can I ask what will happen if this doesn’t get granted?

Earhart: It will still be developed. We’ll have to come up with a new plan.

Bucksner: And it will have to come back to the planning commission and zoning hearing board.

Earhart: It may or may not come back to you. I respect what you just said, however, I really do take issue with you saying that the issue with Ridge Road is gray. We have done research, we’ve gone to the people who own the deed that therefore own the land, it is not on your official map. I have not heard from anyone in the borough that they are willing to condemn the land or do eminent domain to create the right-of-way to build that road again so in my opinion I gave you the information so that you would have the history. I would way it is not gray, but pretty black and white that it doesn’t exist unless the borough gets involved and does something to that effect.

Bucksner: That is true but that does leave an option, the borough getting involved and doing something. So that doesn’t mean that because at this point nothing has been done that we have to go with this plan. So gray area might be the wrong word but it’s not like there is no possibility of that ever happen.

Earhart: For the purpose of my application before you I would say there is no possibility at this time and that’s what I’m asking you to determine your decision making on. If for some reason the borough decides to do something that would allow my client to develop more lots, which it would by having access to Ridge Road, I’m more than positive that he will change his mind about the design. Right now we comply best as we can with county, as best as we can to the borough zoning and I think that we’ve really been diligent and I really don’t have an alternative to develop that corner of the property in compliance with your ordinance without different criteria. If we had different criteria than of course it would be a totally different plan and we wouldn’t be here.

Wolf: Have you explored options of putting fewer lots in that space? Making them larger?

Earhart: We have explored many options and certainly that is something but this corner does provide a unique problem no matter what you do here you still have a corner that is really…

Wolf: Is this economically the number of houses that get in this area to get the price you are trying to sell these homes at?

Earhart: I’m not involved with money and this is the design that I have that complies to the greatest extent possible to the ordinances. Is there other alternatives? Of course there are other alternatives, there’s alternative to have a 3.22 acre lot with a big house on it. But this is consistent with where your zoning appears to want to go; it is consistent with the lot sizes that are surrounding the area. I would say that with land being at a premium East Petersburg Borough planning policy would say make the most of the land you have to develop rather than to put pressure on the things that people value such as the farm land which is outside the borough but still this provides opportunity to increase your tax base and all those other good things to improve the community.

Bucksner: Mr. Ressler would you like to say anything?

Ressler: Nothing more than to reinforce what she said. We feel we explored the options, we would love to do a cul-de-sac in there that was our first idea Lancaster County said no deal, they definitely want to see the streets connected. We would love to do a loop in there like we’re talking but we feel that’s not an option, we don’t own that ground. We were told it is not an option to purchase that ground, so we feel that’s been exhausted.

Bucksner: Thank you. It is possible that if this gets voted down tonight that it might not come before this zoning hearing board again. However, again my feeling is I’m a representative of the people and so it is my feeling I have to hear from the neighbors.

Neighbor: My name is Russell Howell; I live at 6120 Sundra Circle. First of all from what I can understand we have no say now, this is going to be developed either way.

Donohue: It’s already zoned residential.

Howell: That’s what I’m saying, so no matter what we say it’s still going to be developed.
(At this point there was of talking between zhb members and I could not make out the conversation between Mr. Howell and Ms. Earhart.)
Howell: So what you are trying to do is build as many houses as you can, doesn’t matter what the neighbors think or feel you’re just out to make money.

Earhart: I have no response to that because I’m sure if you have the opportunity to make an extra $200 you don’t walk away. I did not hear anybody against it, what I heard is that they have concerns about the traffic. And we would love to solve that but we don’t have the capability of…

Donohue: You understand what she is talking about connecting Sundra and what she is saying is if they didn’t connect Sundra and if they did connect Sundra over to Jeanette there would be more houses. So are you saying you would prefer more houses and no connection?

Unknown: I don’t what either.

Donohue: Well that’s not going to happen I think we can all acknowledge that because Lancaster County is in such desire of building.

Unknown: I guess I prefer more houses and no road.
(More talking among zhb and zo, cannot hear what is being said with audience.)
Bucksner: At this point we would like to ask all parties for any final comments.

Ressler: I’d just like to make sure that when you vote we’re only talking about those two lots.

Bucksner: Yes sir.

Donohue: You want a variance for the two flag lots.

Bucksner: At this point I would like to take a vote. We are voting on variance for the two lots, lots 6 and 7, of the 80 foot minimum lot width. All in favor of granting a variance for lots 6 and 7 on this property raise your hand high. All opposed to granting a variance for Rich Ressler Construction of the lot width of lots 6 and 7 raise your hand. This variance is denied at this time.

Chairman Randy Bucksner adjourned the meeting at 8:08pm.

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday June 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Randy Bucksner, Catherine Donohue, John Wolf and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
Meeting called to order at 7PM by Chairperson Randy Bucksner.
First order of business was to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. Randy Bucksner was elected chairperson and Catherine Donohue was elected vice-chairperson.
Chairperson Randy Bucksner then read the appeal of Vince Eshelman for Special Exception for an accessory building exceeding 200 SF at 2544 Golden Drive. Also a variance to exceed the 10’ height limit for accessory structure. After a brief discussion, a vote was called for by Chairperson Randy Bucksner for the Special Exception. All vote yea. A vote was then called for the variance to exceed the height from 10’ to 20’, all voted yea.
Chairperson Randy Bucksner adjourned the meeting at 7:12 PM.
EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday August 24, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were Randy Bucksner, John Wolf and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller.
Meeting called to order at 7PM by Chairperson Randy Bucksner.
Chairperson Randy Bucksner read the minutes from the June 22, 2005 meeting. Motion to approve minutes. Vote all yea.
Chairperson Randy Bucksner made motion to have Attorney David Wagenseller and his firm to be the Attorney for ZHB. Vote all yea
Chairperson Randy Bucksner then read the appeal of Kurt McEllhenny for Special Exception for an accessory building exceeding 200 SF. After a brief discussion and questions about setbacks and current shed, a vote was called for by Chairperson Randy Bucksner to approve the Special Exception. All vote yea.
Chairperson Randy Bucksner adjourned the meeting at 7:06 PM.

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD

6040 Main Street

East Petersburg, Pennsylvania
MEETING MINUTES

A meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the Borough of East Petersburg was held on Wednesday July 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. o’clock at the East Petersburg Borough Community Center, 6051 Pine Street, East Petersburg.

Board members attending were John Wolf, Randy Bucksner, Catherine Donohue and Board Solicitor David Wagenseller. Also present was Zoning Official Francis C. Spangler.
Visitors: Rick Miller, Rev. Mary-Margaret Ruth, Samuel L. Maurer IV, Rev. John Smalligo, Dudley & Donna Myers.
Meeting called to order at 7PM by Vice Chairperson Randy Bucksner.
It was moved and seconded (John Wolf/Catherine Donohue) to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2006 Zoning Hearing Board. Unanimous approval.
Application of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church, regarding the property at 1945 Broad Street, East Petersburg Borough, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Applicant wishes to apply for a Variance of Section 410.a, requiring educational church uses to be on the same lot as the house of worship and a Special Exception of Section 202.3.4. Vice Chairman Bucksner asked if there was anyone opposed to this proposal. No one was opposed. Francis Spangler noted that the Planning Commission was in favor of the applicant. Vice Chairman Bucksner asked Mr. Spangler if the application was posted in the newspaper and property. Mr. Spangler said it was. After reviewing the application and asking questions of the applicant the board made its decision. It was moved (Randy Bucksner) to grant the special exception according to Section 410, to permit utilization of 1945 Broad for church related offices. Unanimous approval. It was moved (Randy Bucksner) to grant a variance of Section 410.4.a to permit an accessory educational use to be located on a different lot then the house of worship. Unanimous approval.
Vice Chairperson Randy Bucksner adjourned the meeting at ? PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Ginger Groff

Administrative Assistant

EAST PETERSBURG BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD