MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD  2 3 4 5 INRE: 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17  LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA  :  Case No. 22-01 Properties:  Student Lodging, LLC, Applicant  104 N. Duke Street Prince Street 102 N. Duke Street 661 N. Duke Street 621 N. Duke Street 135 W. Frederick Street 123 W. Frederick Street  : : DECISION  1. The Millersville Borough Zoning Hearing Board (herein also "Board"), bya  18 unanimous decision, hereby GRANTS to the Applicant and owner of the Properties, namely 19 Student] Lodging, Inc. (herein also "Applicant" or Owner",aspecial. lexception pursuant to the 20 Millersville Borough Zoning Ordinance (herein also Z0)5380.27ands $380-34.A(34)in ordert to 21 allow the Applicant and Owner to construct andi maintain on1 thel Propertiesaretirement: community 22 with up to 691 residences, aj private meeting building, private roads, and other related structures and 23 improvements shown and further described in the plans attached to the Applicant's application 24 regarding the following Properties located in an R-1 Residential Zoning District: 104 N. Duke 25 Street (UPI 440-05555-0-0000); Prince Street (UPI 440-58449-0-0000): 102 N. Duke Street 26 UPIPAD-7I249.000O: 661 N.Duke Street( (UPI408231-0.000: 621 N. Duke Street(UPI 27 440-85957-0-0000); 135 W. Frederick Street (UPI #440-71923-0-0000); 123 W. Frederick  28 Street (UPI#40.89825.0-0) (collectively herein also Properties").  29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 42 45 46  2. This Decision is subject to, and the Applicant and Owner shall comply with, the  31 following general conditions:  A. Except as modified byt this Decision, in which case the Applicant and Owner shall comply with this Decision, the Applicant and Owner shall at all times comply with and adhere to the evidence presented to the Board (including, without! limitation, the Apploemtsplictiopam, exhibits, and witnesses' testimony) and also described in the Board's Minutes for this case, all of B. The Applicant and Owner shall obtain all approvals and permits that are required bya applicable federal, state, and local law, ordinances, codes,rules, C. This Decision shall be binding upon the Applicant and Owner, and their D. Any violation of this Decision or conditions described herein also shall be considered a violation of the ZO and shall be subject to the penalties and  which Minutes and documents are incorporated herein.  and regulations.  respective successors, heirs, and assigns.    49 50 51 52 56 57 58 59 62 63 65 66 70 71 74 from 72 to 69. 75 76  remediescombinedterin, inl emyvamas.anepalie, Planning Code,  or both (whichever is applicable).  3. Ifthis Decision is appealed, the Board reserves the right to subsequently amend or  53 supplement this Decision, findings of fact, and conclusions of] law that were drafted and adopted 54 without reviewing the official transcript oft the hearing in order to minimize the costs and expenses  55 for all concerned persons.  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OFI LAW  4. The Applicant intends to construct and maintain on the Properties ai retirement 5. The Properties are all located within an R-1 Residential Zoning District and  60 community consisting ofr no more than 691 residences, along with aj private meeting building, private  61 roads, and other related structures and improvements. eventually will be combined into one property.  6.  Occupation of residences in the retirement community shall be limited to those  67 individuals who are: at least 55 years old, certain surviving spouses, and certain disabled persons as 68 described int the Application. Noj portion ofat unit may be leased or licensed to any individual less 72 attached to the Application areherebyacceptedasi facts forthis Decision: andareincoponitdherin 73 as facts, with the one exception that the number residences to bel built was reduced at the hearing 77 permitted unless, under the circumstances, such use would adversely affect the community. E.g., 78 Appeal ofLynch Community Homes, Inc., 554 A.2d 155 (Pa. Commw. 1989); Johnson V. North 79 Strabane Twp., 546. A.2d 1334 (Pa. Commw.1988); Heck V. Zoning Hrg. Bd. for Harvey's Lake 83 use: satisfies the obyectiverequirements: ofthez zoning ordinance, and onces such applicant has met] his 84 or her burden, aj presumption arises that the proposed use is consistent with thel health, safety, and 85 general welfare of the community; the burden then shifts to objectors to demonstrate that the 86 proposed use will have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and general welfare of the 87 community. E.g., Morrell V. Zoning Hrg. Bd. of Shrewsberry, 17A.3d 972 (Pa. Commw 2011); 88 Greaton Properties, Inc. V. Lower. Merion Twp., 796A.2d 1038, 1045 (Pa. Commw. 2002). 91 that the use will generate adverse impacts not normally generated by a retirement community and 92 that these adverse impacts will pose a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community. 93 E.g., Sunnyside Up Corp. V. CityofLancaster Zoning Hrg. B4,739A.24644(Pa- Commw. 1999); 94 ManorHealthcare Corp. V. Lower-MorelandIwp. Zoning Hrg. B4,590A.246(Pa. Comm. 1991); 95 Shenk V. Board of Supervisors of East Hempfield Twp., 83 Lanc. L. Rev. 84 (Pa. C.P. Lancaster  69 than 55 years of age.  7. The facts in the "Zoning. Application Narrative" (herein also Narrative") that was  8. A special exception is not an exception to a zoning ordinance, but is a use that is  80 Borough, 397 A.2d 15 (Pa. Commw. 1979).  81 82  9. Thea applicant fora as special exceptionl has thel burden to demonstrate that the proposed  89 90  10. Special exception objectors must raise specific issues, and show al high probability  96 County 2007). 97  -2-    98 100 101 102 103  11. Per ZO $380-27, ai retirement community: in an R-1 Residential Zoning Districti is a 12. ZO $380-17.C describes the general requirements for all special exception requests. 13. Thetestimonyand: evidence ofthe PHMSNtAkaNE together with  99 use] permitted by special exceptioni ifthe use meets the specific requirements ofZO $380-34.A(34).  104 the "Analysis" section of the Narrative filed with the Applicant's Application, are incorporated 105 herein and adequately describe how the proposed use meets all of the foregoing applicable ZO 106 requirements for the requested special exception. Thus, aj presumption arose that the proposed use 107 is consistent with the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, and the burden then 108 shifted to the objectors to demonstrate that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect on the 112 unfortunately was either speculative or concerned non-zoning issues over which thel Board had no 113 jurisdiction (for example, land development issues that are governed by Millersville Borough's 114 Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance), or both. Thus, the objectors did not meet their 115 above-described burden, because they failed to raise specific issues (1) that showed a high 116 probability that the proposed use will generate adverse impacts not normally generated by a 117 retirement community and (2)t that any such adverse impacts would pose a substantial threat to the 118 health and safety of the community, particularly since such were speculative at best or concerned 119 non-zoning issues. See, e.g, Sunnyside Up Corp. V. CityofLancaster Zoning Hrg. Bd., supra. 122 exception, and thel Boardi recommendedi tot the objectors at thel hearing that theys should monitort this 123 caset through the entire land development process andraise their objections att the: appropriate1 review  109 health, safety, and general welfare oft the community.  110 111  14. While many objectors at the hearing voiced reasonable concerns, their testimony  120 121 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  15. For the foregoing reasons, the Board was required to grant the requested special  124 meetings and hearings during that process.  MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH ZONING hd  HEARING BOARD  By  James AI KipkJr., ViceChair F4kL    Karen Eckert Vickiel Usciak  Meht ThKlhok  149 Dated and filed July 29, 2022 after public notice and hearing duly held on June 23, 2022.  3-    150 151 152 153 183 159 160 161 164 165 PERSONS SERVED: 166 167 Applicant: 168 Student Lodging, Inc. 169 ATTN: Geoffrey Beers 170 21 S. George Street 171 Millersville, PA: 17551 173 Applicant's. Attorney: 174 Stacy Morgan, Esquire 175 Brubaker Connaughton Goss & Lucarelli LLC 176 480 New] Holland Avenue, Suite 6205 177 Lancaster, PA 17602 178 179 Parties: 180 James Frantz 181 123N N. Prince St. 182 Millersville, PA 17551 183 184 Richard Frantz 185 551 N.I Duke St. 186 Millersville, PA 17551 187 188 Jodell M. Rankin 189 581 N. Duke St. 190 Millersville, PAI 17551 191 192 Jennifer & Lee Seabolt 193 127 W. Frederick St. 194 Millersville, PAI 17551 195 196 Paul & Karen Sirbak 197 129 W.1 Frederick St. 198 Millersville, PA 17551  APPEALS DEADLINE  154 ALL APPEALS OF THIS DECISION MUST BE FILED WITH THE LANCASTER 155 COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 156 WITHIN THRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS DECISION.  PROOF OF SERVICE  162 The undersigned! hereby certifies that thel Date of Service of this Decision is July29,2022, andi ity was served upon 163 the persons at their respective addresses andi int the manners as follows [applicable boxes are checked):  METHOD OF SERVICE: Hand delivery Hand delivery  Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail  172  Hand delivery Hand delivery Hand delivery Hand delivery Hand delivery  Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail Ordinary United States first class mail MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH ZONING HEARING. BOARD due 9Pc Gllesk Suel McCullough, Millersville. Boro. Admin. Scy.  199 200 201 202 203  By: