BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF  MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA  IN RE: APPLICATION OF  Case No. 21-01  BILL SINGH and SATNAM II, LLC  DECISION OF THE  MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD  A. FINDINGS OF FACT  1. Applicants are Bill Singh and Satnam II, LLC, 52 Greenfield Road, Lancaster,  Pennsylvania 17603.  2. The property which is the subject of this application is located at 36-38 Manor  Avenue, in the Borough of Millersville, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.  3. Satnam II, LLC is the legal owner of the real estate. Bill Singh, along with Jay  Singh, are the owners of Satnam II, LLC.  4. OnJ July 5, 2021, Applicants filed a request for a special exception to allow a lot add-on from the R-1 Residential zone to be used for all uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, and also a special exception to allow the existing fence on the property to remain in lieu of any additional plantings or buffer area. 5. Subsequently, Applicants requested that the application be suspended,  pending a hearing.  6. Applicants later advised the Borough of Millersville that they were ready to  proceed with a hearing.    7. Ah hearing was scheduled before the Millersville Borough Zoning Hearing  Board for October 28, 2021.  8. The application was advertised, the property was posted, and adjoining  property owners were notified.  9. An agenda of the meeting was posted more than 24 hours prior to the time of the meeting at the Borough municipal building, which was the place of the hearing, and also on the Borough website. Copies of the agenda were available for the public at the  time of the hearing.  10. The hearing was stenographically recorded.  11. The Board members present were Lindsay Gerner, chairman; Vickie Usciak, member; Karen Eckert, member; and W. David Sykes, alternate. Mr. James Kirk, member, was absent. James Sanchez, vice chairman of the Board, recused himself  from participation because he was representing the Applicants.  12. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Sanchez stated that Applicants were withdrawing the request with respect to landscape relief and stated that landscaping would be provided in accordance with ordinance requirements. That left the request for as special exception to allow a commercial use on a residentially zoned area oft the  property as the only request before the Board.  13. Jay Singh, a co-owner of the corporation owning the real estate, and one of  the principals in the business, was present and testified.  14. The property at 36-38 Manor Avenue is improved with an automotive garage, car wash, and U-Haul truck rental facilities. The property adjoins several residential  properties on Landis Avenue to the rear.  -2-    15. Applicant has purchased an area comprising .14 acres in the rear ofi its property and proposes to add that lot onto the property on Manor Avenue. Although the property on Manor Avenue is zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which allows the commercial use, commercial uses are not allowed in the Residential District to the rear. 16. Applicant wishes to utilize the. .14 acre lot as part ofi its commercial business. 17. Mr. Sanchez noted that the approval of the Zoning Hearing Board is necessary before the matter can proceed further with land development and the lot add-  on process.  18. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Sanchez introduced Applicant's Exhibit #1, a revised plan showing Applicant's proposal to development the lot add-on area ofi its  property.  19. Although Mr. Sanchez requested leave to amend the application to include a request for a lot coverage variance, the solicitor advised the Board that, due to recent amendments of the Sunshine Act, the Board could not add an additional request to the public agenda even ifi it was prepared to waive any issues regarding advertisement. Mr.  Sanchez then withdrew the request.  20. Several nearby neighbors on Landis Avenue asked questions and spoke regarding the application, but once it was understood that a landscape buffer would be provided in accordance with the zoning ordinance, they had no objections.  21. Following the conclusion of testimony, the Board voted unanimously to grant  the special exception as presented.  B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW  -3-    1. Although most of the subject property is zoned Neighborhood  Commercial, the lot add-on portion is zoned R-1 Residential.  2. 3. use.  Commercial uses are not allowed on an R-1 Residential lot. The requested relief constitutes a natural expansion of the commercial  C. DISCUSSION  This application involves the acquisition by a business of a small portion of a residential lot adjoining the rear of its property. As Mr. Sanchez noted, acquisition of this tract squares off the lot sO that the rear property line is straight, rather than irregular. The grant of a special exception will simply mean that the same kinds of commercial uses which take place on the same lot immediately to the east will also be allowed on  this.14 acre tract.  Ifthis case had involved a request to eliminate requirements respecting landscaping and screening, this would have been a matter of deeper concern for the Board. This is simply a question of allowing the Applicant to use his entire property for commercial purposes. We cannot discern any benefit in requiring Applicant to keep this small portion of his commercial property devoted to residential purposes, since it is too  small to support a residence.  D. DECISION  AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2021, Applicant's request for a special exception to allow the commercial use of the portion of the property being acquired by  lot add-on is granted.  -4-    Applicant shall improve and occupy the subject tract in accordance with the  exhibits presented and testimony offered at the hearing.  MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD  h L  By:  Vickie Usciak, Member  By:  Member  BChe  By 7hr W. David Sykes, Altérnate  James Sanchez, Vice Chair, recused himself from this decision and James Kirk was not  present.  -5-