WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

7171 ALLENTOWN BLVD., HARRISBURG, PA 17112

THURSDAY AUGUST 24, 2017

MEMBERS PRESENT / MEMBERS ABSENT / STAFF PRESENT / OTHERS PRESENT
Jim Zeiters / Kyle Miller / Janet Hardman, ZO / John Poff, Light-Heigel
Tom Stewart / Gerald Longenecker / Alex Greenley, HRG
Richard Mula / Tara Rex, Admin
Dave Ankney
Jim Shandersky
  1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Zeiters.

  1. ROLLCALL

This was noted by the recording secretary.

  1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes from April 27, 2017 were approved as written.The motions passed unanimously.

  1. PUBLIC COMMENT– none at this time
V.OLDBUSINESS – none at this time
  1. NEWBUSINESS

17.004, Rustrum Realty Minor Subdivision.

  1. John Poff, Light-Heigel, presented the minor subdivision plan for Rustrum Realty. There is NO CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED with this subdivision. The sewage module has been given to Brian McFeaters, Township SEO. There are wetlands currently on proposed lots #2 & #3, with an easement around that. There will be open space on the lots.
  2. Janet H. presented her comments and they were discussed. John P. handed out the responses to the HRG comments. Alex G. presented HRG comments and they were discussed. Andrew B. presented Tri-County comments and they were discussed. It was mentioned that the EAC did not have any comments for this plan.

Dave Ankney recommended, Tom Stewart seconded the motion to recommend the Minor Subdivision Plan, with the condition of all administrative comments being met & approved by Janet Hardman, to approve recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. This motion was unanimous.

Ordinance 2017-07; §195-49: Development Standards

  1. Janet presented this to the board. She stated that there is no need for this language because the other standards actually set the parameters for the development. The Board agreed without questions.

Tom Stewart recommended, Richard Mula seconded the motion to remove all of §195-49.D in its entirety. This motion was unanimous.

Ordinance 2017-08; §195-113: Special Event

  1. Janet presented this to the board and stated that it is in the Zoning Ordinance, but is not a standalone ordinance that can be enforceable. There was a lot of disapproval from the Board members. Janet asked if they could talk about each point separately.
  2. Richard M. asked why we need regulations for a temporary driveway; Section D was to be removed.
  3. It was asked to quantify the range / limit on Section E. What is traffic control? Define it.
  4. Section F was discussed. What is blocking? Define it. This was to be removed.
  5. Section H was discussed with absolutely no support from the PC.
  6. Section I was discussed that all event signs shall be temporary.
  7. Section K was discussed and although it states no permit required, most of the members want the permit. Dave Ankney asked if we had to have an ordinance in order to enforce permits? Janet replied yes. It was suggested that IF we do an ordinance, funds should be provided for an attorney to draft the language for the special event.
  8. Section L was discussed. Are these the requirements for a temporary structure? What are the setbacks? What are the height restrictions? What are the coverage limitations? Do we have temporary lighting regulations? What about glare? Is that taken into account for a temporary event? Janet H. stated that the lighting/ glare is already in the ordinance.
  9. Kyle Miller’s comments were presented by Janet H. There were so many questions from the Board, including the need to provide definitions for the words used throughout the ordinance, to have requirements based on safety, hours of operation, and how you make a determination for a lot of the proposed criteria? Much of the proposed ordinance is subject to opinion and not defined or explained.
  10. Jim Z. brought up the comments from the July 28, 2016 PC minutes. The conclusion from that meeting was that NO ORDINANCE be written; as all concerns are accounted for in the permit process (ingress/ egress). Janet H. stated that she is not and will not regulate this by permits.

The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to table the ordinance. Tom S. does not want it to be considered at all and is not in support of this ordinance in any way.

Ordinance 2017-09; removal of BOCA language

  1. BOCA (National Building Code) is to be removed throughout the book and replaced with UCC (Uniform Construction Code of PA, Act 45, as amended). Sections included in this are: §195-57, §195-168, §195-178, §195-179.

Tom Stewart motioned, Jim Shandersky seconded the motion to remove all BOCA language throughout the book.This motion was unanimous.

  1. OTHER BUSINESS THAT MAY COME BEFORE THECOMMISSION: none at this time
VIII.ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned.

K: MPC/ 2017 MINUTES /08.24.171