MINUTES OFTHE 6:00 PM - March 18, 2024  HANOVER BOROUGHZ ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING  Hanover Municipal Building, 44 Frederick Street, Hanover, PA  The meeting of the Hanover Borough Zoning Board convened at 6:00 PM on Monday March 18, 2024 in the Hanover Municipal Building, 44 Frederick St, Hanover, PA, as 6:00PM: Solicitor Senft and the Zoning Hearing Board exited thei meeting to an executive 6:061 PM: Solicitor Senft and the Zoning Hearing Board returned and the public hearing Attendance: In attendance were Zoning Hearing Board Members Bond, Shirk and Chairman Zartman; Zoning Solicitor Senft; Staff Members Secretary Felix, Administrative Assistant Graham-Herrick and Zoning/Chief Codes Officer Miller; and Stenographer Deb Zepp. Borough Solicitor Tim Shultis and Attorney Kurt Thomas were Approval of Minutes: It was moved by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Shirk approve the minutes of the Zoning Hearing Board Meeting held February 19, 2024. Motion carried. Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor Senft explained the procedures for tonight's public hearings. Public comment will be limited to 2 minutes and one appearance. 515 Penn Street - Special Exception Request for Multi-Unit Dwelling Secretary Felix read the following Statement of the Secretary:  advertised. session. reconvened.  present on behalf of the Borough for the 225 Moul Avenue application.  "A Special Exception application was submitted on February 12, 2024 by JS Construction, 515 Penn Street, Hanover, PA for the property located at 515 Penn Street, Hanover, PA. The applicant is proposing a special exception for a Multi- Family Dwelling, as per. Article III Section 140-302(B), of the Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in the MUZ Mixed Use Zoning District. A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 18, 2024 at 6:00. PM and was  properly advertised on March 3, 2024 and. March 10, 2024.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  March 18, 2024 Page: 2  Property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have also received notification by mail forwarded from this office on March 7, 2024. Proper posting  ofthe property giving notification ofhearing has been certified. Signed. Dorothy C. Felix, Secretary, Zoning Hearing Board."  ScottJ. Strausbaugh, Esquire, 1201 West Elm Avenue, Suite 2, Hanover, PA was present as counsel for the applicant. Mr. Jeff Stern, applicant was present to give testimony. Mr. Strausbaugh stated they have an updated floorplan and they would like to present their All those citizens who wished to comment on the 5151 Penn Street application weres sworn Mr. Stausbaughs submitted the updated floorplan for the special exception. He: noted that the hallway was extended to allow proper access to the stairwell for the first and second Mr. Strausbaugh noted that the proposed use would not detract from the character of the existing neighborhood and was in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use meets lot requirements and building height requirements. The special exception request is for the property to be converted into 8 apartment units. All of the renovations will be interior. There is currently a mix of residential and commercial properties, sO the proposed use will not detract from the character of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Strausbaugh testified that the proposed use will not increase traffic in the neighborhood and will have excess to all utilities. A6 privacy fence is proposed to be installed along the neighboring property where the commercial business is located. Additional landscaping was added tot thej proposed plan. The property has adequate off- street parking, as there are 17 existing parking spaces. The ordinance specifies that two (2) parking spaces are required for each of the 8 units, sO the existing parking meets the total requirement of 16 spaces plus one handicapped space. The applicant stated that he will comply with any requirements of thel Borough engineer for traffic flow: ini thej parking lot, and noted that the parking area is an existing paved lot. No proposed signage is Solicitor Senft asked if the parking spaces would meet the minimum width requirements, as there were no measurements on the plan. Mr. Shirk stated that the width of the parking spaces appears to be 8 12 feet. Solicitor Senft stated that the minimum parking space width is 9 feet. Mr. Stern indicated that a dumpster will be used for refuse pickup. Solicitor Senft asked if the applicant knew of any legal conflicts with the development of this property. Mr. Stern replied that he knows of no legal conflicts, and agreed that the proposed use complies with the comprehensive plan, will not create a public safety  application as an exhibit for the public hearing.  in by Solicitor Senft.  floors.  requested.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  March 18, 2024 Page3  hazard, and it will not significantly impact the neighborhood with noise, odor or dust. Mr. Stern believes that the proposed use will be in harmony with the existing Zoning/Chief Codes Officer Miller was sworn in by Solicitor Senft to give testimony. Mr. Miller questioned the provision of "compact" parking places; Mr. Stern stated that The placement of the dumpster was discussed, and Mr. Stern agreed to comply with any recommendations of the Zoning Officer and the Public Works Supervisor. Mr. Miller stated he had no issues with the criteria for thej proposed use as presented, but the applicant must comply with building codes and thel land development process.  neighborhood and added that he does not plan on selling the property.  was an error on the plan.  Public Comment:  Mr. Wade, 506 Penn Street: Mr. Wade questioned what effect the proposed use would have on traffic. He noted that the opening of Wilson Avenue has already increased the traffic, and questioned the need for more parking and expressed concern regarding the proposed lighting for the parking lot. Mr. Wade stated that he expects that there will be ani increase in noise and traffic, and he does not agree with the placement of the dumpster Solicitor Senft questioned the applicant about the proposed lighting. Mr. Stern stated that there is already one dusk to dawn light there, and he does not plan to install more Mr. Strausbaugh noted that there is already a permitted use for a group home at the site, and noted that the proposed use would be less intensive than the prior construction Chief Code Enforcement Officer Miller noted that any additional lighting will need to comply with the code. But there is a clause sO that the lighting does not trespass" onto other properties, and Mr. Stern stated that he would comply with all requirements. Itwas moved by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Shirk toa approve the application fora a special exception for a multi-family dwelling at 515 Penn Street submitted by Jeff Stern, based 1.) Approval isl based on thet testimony of the applicant, Mr. Jeffrey Stern and Counsel  across the alley way.  lighting unless iti is required.  business use.  on the following conditions:  Scott Strausbaugh.    Minutes ofthel Hanover Borough Zoning. Hearing Board  March. 18, 2024 Page4  2.) The proposed use is not in conflict with other Borough ordinances or state or federal laws or regulations that the Zoning Hearing Board has clear knowledge of. 4.) The proposed use shall: nots significantly add tot traffic hazards or congestion in the 5.) Thej proposed use shall not create a significant safety hazard, including fires, toxic 6.) The proposed use will not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood 7.) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general character of the 8.) Any future changes to the property must be brought before the Zoning Hearing  3.) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  vicinity of the proposed special exception.  or explosive hazards.  with excessive noise, dust, odor, vibration or disturbances.  neighborhood.  Board before they are affected.  Moton carried.  225 Moul Avenue -Special Exception Request for Multi-Family Dweling(lownhouse  Court/and Requests for Three (3) Variances  Secretary Felix read the following Statement of the Secretary:  "An application for a special exception and three variances was submitted on February27,2024: by Bon-Ton. Builders, Inc., 1060 Baltimore Street, Hanover, PA for the property located at 225 Moul Avenue, Hanover, PA. The applicant is proposing a special exception fora Townhouse Court, as per Article III Section 140- 420; and thej following variances: Article. IV, Section 140-420() private streets and accessways; 140-420(K) common trash receptacles; and. Article VI140-611 for tree removal, as listed in the Hanover Borough Zoning Ordinance. The property is  located in the R-5 Zoning District.  A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 18, 2024 at 6:00. PM and was Property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have also received notification by mail forwarded from this office on March 7, 2024. Proper posting  properly advertised on March 3, 2024 and March 10, 2024.  of the property giving notification ofhearing has been certified. Signed Dorothy C. Felix, Secretary, Zoning Hearing Board."  Solicitor Senft asked the applicant if they would like to submit their application as an  exhibit for the hearing. The applicant answered affirmatively.    Minutes ofthel Hanover Borough Zoning Hearing Board  March. 18, 2024 Page5  All those citizens present who would like to testify were sworn in by Solicitor Senft. Attorneys Kurt Williams and Timothy Shultis of Salzmann-Hughes were present on Timothy P. Ruth, Esquire, Stock & Leader, LLP, 211 West Philadelphia Street, Suite 600, York, PA was present as counsel for the applicant, and the applicant Mr. Tony Forbes was also present from Bon-Ton Builders, Inc. Mr. Kevin Barnes, CPESC, GHI, Inc., 213  behalf of the Borough as a party to the hearing.  Carlisle Street was present as engineer for the project.  Attorney Ruth questioned the project engineer, Mr. Barnes on the plan.  The proposed impervious surface will be 61% to 70% lot coverage. Thej proposed plan provides adequate emergency & fire clear space of1 10 feet. Thej proposed plan provides a private deck and patio for each unit. The number of units per acre allowed by the ordinance is 20 units per acre. There are 39 units proposed on 5. .3 acres which calculates to 7.4 average units per acre. The plan will meet the requirements of 2 trees planted for each proposed 10 There: isa a one acre: natural wet pond which will be preserved. Theoutlet: structure There are 3 variances included for road design (140-420J), tree removal (140-611) The proposed plan is in compliance with the BorougMscomprehemsive plan. Mr. Ruth asked Mr. Chris Schwab of Transportation Resource Group (TRG), Inc., who is employed by Bon Ton Builders to testify regarding the traffic study for the proposed Mr. Schwab stated that the traffic study was completed in February 2024. The surrounding streets and intersections were included in the study. AM-F PM peak hours were: monitored and classified. Thei traffic study indicated that thej proposed use will not  The proposed plan complies with setback requirements. The proposed plan complies with parking requirements.  parking spaces.  willl be in conformance with stormwater requirements. and the provision of dumpsters (140-420K).  project.  result in increased traffic congestion.  There were no questions from the Borough on the traffic study.  Mr. Bond asked how the traffic would impact Grant Drive. There is no four-way stop now, and it is already congested with the existing developments. He noted that the    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  March 18, 2024 Page6  proposed plan indicates that there will be only one entrance on Moul Avenue; Grant Mr. Miller asked what system would be used for emergency access, such as a Knox-box system. Mr. Barnes stated that he was unsure at this time, however the applicant would Mr. Bond stated there will be a total of 39 units, and the original plan showed 41 units. The applicant agreed that the number of units was decreased from 41 units to 39 units. The Board questioned Mr. Schwab on the traffic study. Mr. Schwab testified that the traffic study was conducted in compliance with the Borough's requirements for traffic  Drive is only an emergency entrance, and will be gated.  comply with all requirements from the Borough.  studies.  Attorney Ruth questioned Mr. Barnes on the variance requests:  What uniqueness of the pond structure has bearing on the hardship of the lot in relation to the variance. Due to the pond location, how does it affect the proposed  roadway?  Mr. Barnes indicated that the applicant proposes a 24 ft wide cartway with paved shoulder/walking area, as a variance request to the Borough's Each unit would have 2 off-street parking spaces and a garage, for a total of There will be an additional parking area located near the pond. request to the Borough's requirement for dumpsters.  ordinance requirement for a 30: foot cartway.  3off-street parking spaces.  Trash Receptacles Trees - wood lot  The applicant proposes individual pickup at each driveway, as a variance 40% of the trees can be removed without replacement according to the Boroughsordinance. The applicant proposes a variance for additional tree removal due toi the shape of thel lota and treel locations. Without this variance the lot would be undevelopable. The Planning Commission advised adhering to the ordinance requirement as much as possible, and donating additional trees to the Hanover Borough Shade Tree Commission to make  up the difference.  Board Member Mr. Shirk asked if there was a natural spring on site, and the Mr. Barnes replied affirmatively. Mr. Shirk questioned thes size of thej proposedberm at the pond, and Mr. Barnes replied that the deepest part of the pond is 6 feet. Mr. Shirk asked if the applicant intended to reinforce the berm. Mr. Barnes stated that the current condition of the pond needs to be evaluated and the applicant is willing to reinforce it as necessary.    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough Zoning Hearing. Board  March 18, 2024 Page7  Mr. Barnes noted that the Borough engineer, County conservation district and /or Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) would need to Mr. Bond asked how the trash receptacles would be placed when the cartway is only 24 feet wide, and how the trash truck will have room toj pick up the trash? Mr. Barnes stated he felt there would be adequate room, and noted that no on-street parking is proposed. Mr. Bond asked how toj prevent vehicles from parking on the street. Mr. Barnes indicated thataj provision for no on-street parking willl be included in the condominium agreement. Mr. Bond asked why it is not possible to have 30 feet cartway, as per the ordinance, and Mr. Barnes replied that would require removal of thej pond and ai reduction of units. Mr. Bond asked if they are including the pond for stormwater management and how stormwater regulations would be compensated if the pond were removed. Mr. Barnes stated that other Best Management Practices (BMP's): for stormwater management would be incorporated if necessary. Mr. Barnes added that the permitting process to remove: a pond is difficult, and the underground spring would then become an issue if the pond Mr. Zartman asked how long the driveways would be, and Mr. Barnes replied they Mr. Senft asked why the number of streets could not be decreased to meet the 30 foot cartway width and keep the pond. Mr. Ruth stated that they would like tol keep the pond Mr. Senft stated that to grant a variance, validation is necessary to enable the reasonable use of thej property. He asked ift the applicant felt that it would be impossible to develop this projecti in compliance with the street width requirements. A discussion ensued about Mr. Senft asked why the applicant was asking for a variance to avoid provision of dumpsters. Mr. Ruth replied the applicant preferred the provision of individual trash collection tol better accommodate those 55 and older, to avoid additional accommodation for space and for aesthetic reasons. The trash receptacle could be stored indoors until Attorney Kurt Williams, Special Counsel for the Borough, stated that a 24 foot wide cartway is proposed where a 30 foot cartway would be required. A 28-32 foot right of way is proposed. Mr. Williams asked whether a design was drafted that was compliant with the 30 foot street width requirement, and Mr. Barnes replied affirmatively. Mr. Barnes noted that all derivations from the current plan would result in removal of the  consulted as well.  goes away.  would be 20 feet by 20 feet.  and make adjustments elsewhere.  the requirements for street width in relation to the proposed project.  trash day and would not be exposed.    Minutes ofthe Hanover Borough. Zoning. Hearing Board  March 18, 2024 Page 8  pond and other non-compliances. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Barnes if any turning templates were utilized to assure access by the garbage trucks and fire trucks. Mr. Barnes stated that there are no specific dimensions to assure the ladder truck would be able to manipulate, but this matter would be addressed as part of the land development plan. Mr. Barnes clarified that the street standards are not in the zoning ordinance, but are in Mr. Senft wanted to be assured that the variance creates an undue hardship or that the land cannot be developed. The need for a variance cannot be self-created. Mr. Barnes contested the development of the land is not feasible to ordinance standards without removal of thej pond due to the long shape of the property. Mr. Williams clarified that the requirements of the SALDO are incorporated by reference Mr. Williams asked how many cluster mailbox locations are expected? Mr. Barnes stated Mr. Williams questioned that with the narrower streets, ift there would be pull-off parking areas for residents to pick up their mail. Mr. Barnes stated that the proposed mail clusters would only serve 2 or 3 units, sO no driving would be required. The post office will need to make that determination, and if necessary there will be a provision for additional Mr. Williams asked that because the streets will be private, if the applicant understands that the Borough would have no on-street parking enforcement. Mr. Barnes answered Mr. Williams questioned the stormwater regulations in relation to the pond. If the pond wasn't there, what size stormwater facility would you need to handle weather events for this size community. Mr. Barnes stated that testing would have tol be done to determine, but the new stormwater configuration would probably be smaller than the pond. The Mr. Williams questioned if the stormwater facility would be half the size of the pond, how many more units would be added, and if the required street width were implemented. Mr. Barnes stated he anticipated less units could be provided in this case. Mr. Williams pointed out that it is the applicant's burden to prove the hardship to the  the SALDO.  into the zoning ordinance.  that would depend on the recommendation of the postal service.  parking areas for this purpose.  affirmatively.  plan is to provide stormwater facilities throughout the development.  Board.    Minutes ofthel Hanover. Borough Zoning. Hearing. Board  March. 18, 2024 Pageg  Mr. Williams referenced section 420-K of the Zoning Ordinance for locations of trash receptacles. Discussion ensued about options for trash collection. The Borough's ordinance would require dumpsters. The applicant requests relief from the provision of Mr. Barnes testified that garages are 13 feet by 21 feet. Mr. Williams asked what size car Mr. Williams asked what percentage of trees that the applicant is requesting to remove. Mr. Barnes replied that the applicant is requesting 75% -8 85% of the existing trees will be removed, but a significant number of trees will be replanted to replace those trees that Mr. Barnes stated that the way this ordinance is written makes this property Mr. Williams addressed traffic concerns, and how the existing trees would affect this. Mr. Barnes stated that if the trees had to stay, it would further decrease the street width. Mr. Williams stated that the variances are stated in the application as "minor deviations" from the requirements of the ordinance. How could 85% tree removal be minor? Mr. Mr. Barnes stated that if the trees had to remain on site, the property would be Mr. Williams asked Mr. Barnes to show a plan with less tree removals to the Board.  dumpsters, in favor ofi individual trash containers.  can you fit into the garage and still have room for the trash receptacles.  are removed. undevelopable.  Barnes stated it depends how you look ati it.  undevelopable.  7:481 PM: The meeting temporarily recessed for a break.  7:571 PM: The meeting resumed.  Mr. Williams asked the applicant if there were developments in the area that had not Mr. Ruth called witness Carla Ferrel, a landscaping architect for planning in York. She examined the site in relation to the trees. She found a heavy canopy of Norway spruce along the east, south and west side of the property, laid out in a screen pattern, approximately 60 years old planted very close together. In the other areas, nut trees and  used proper street width, and the impact thereof.  fruit trees are present and not in good condition.    Minutes ofthe Hanover Borough. Zoning. Hearing. Board  March 18, 2024 Page 10  Mr. Ruth asked Ms. Ferrel if 75-85% tree removal would be consistent with her findings Mr. Williams called a witness, John Bean, Hanover Borough Public Works Supervisor. Mr. Bean summarized his job duties and his experience and that he is familiar with garbage, recycling, and trash pickup in thel Borough. For ai residential home, 2-330 gallon containers are typical for weekly pickup. Additional containers can be added for Mr. Williams asked what size vehicles are used for trash pickup. And Mr. Bean noted Mr. Williams asked why the Borough has a requirement for dumpsters on a town court. Mr. Bean stated that individual trash collection creates more clutter with many trash cans and difficulty to determine whose cans belong to which residence, especially if they are A discussion ensued about the advantages and disadvantages of dumpsters versus Mr. Bean noted that Cherry tree IV has problems with trash collection. The have individual trash pickup because the streets were made narrow. There are ample no parking restriction signs but still cars are parked on the street. Because of the overabundance of cars, the garbage cans are often placed behind the cars, and it is difficult for the operators to collect and toi manipulate the garbage trucks. Cherry tree IV Mr. Williams asked Mr. Bean ifl he believes that it would be more effective to collect trash from the dumpsters for the proposed use than to have individual trash pickup in a development such as thej proposed uset this evening. Mr. Bean stated that dumpster trash collection would be preferable with less clutter, and noted that the Boroughrequires the Mr. Ruth questioned Mr. Bean if the dumpsters would be open for the residents, and he replied affirmatively. Mr. Bean added that there are options for more than once a week Mr. Shirk and Mr. Bean discussed sizes of garbage trucks and the fact that the Borough does not maintain private streets, and thus will not plow the area. If there is no plowing in the development, it would add to the difficulty for the garbage trucks to access refuse  toaccommodate the project, and she answered that seems reasonable.  additional cost, and one free pick up per week isi included. that the trucks are: rear-loading, approximately 10 feet wide.  behind cars on the driveways.  individual cans.  is private sO the Borough cannot enforce on-street parking.  dumpster areas tol be screened for aesthetic purposes.  pickup for the dumpsters ifi necessary.  for pickup.    Minutes ofthe Hanover Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  March 18, 2024 Page 11  Mr. Senft asked for Public Comment and requested a limit of 21 minutes per person. Oliver Elkins, 218 Moul Avenue: Mr. Elkins stated that the proposed development will Rona Posner, 181 Moul Avenue: Ms. Posner noted that there is currently too much heavy equipment including tractor trailers on Moul Avenue, many school children in the area, along with dangerous speeding. Another development would only increase safety Kathren Gent, 867 Blossom Drive: Ms. Gent stated she is concerned with increased traffic with a new development. She requested a 4-way stop at Grant Drive and Moul Avenue. She expressed concern about depletion of green space, for the sustainability of the wildlife in the area. But she agreed that it may be necessary to remove some dead trees. Robin McCullough, 710 Grant Drive: Ms. McCullough stated that inside her development the roads are too: narrow. Moul Avenue is used as as shortcut with speeding John Walsh, 705 Hemlock Court: Mr. Walsh stated that he felt the traffic study was grossly underestimated. The area is already overdeveloped. He believes the proposed development should be scaled back to accommodate the wildlife and the congestion in Eugene Bixler, East Walnut Street, 800 block: Mr. Bixler asked about the effects of a new development on the water system. He felt there was already too: much traffic in the alley NicoleOrum, 865 Blossom Drive: Ms. Orum stated her opposition to the effect on wildlife and tree removal. It seems the entire plan has flaws. There is too much traffic on Moul Mr. Chetan Kothapally, 701 Blossom Drive: Mr. Kothapally stated that the proposed development would cause too much of an increase in traffic and he was not in favor ofit.  create excessive traffic on Moul Avenue.  hazards.  issues. A good compromise is necessary to preserve the wildlife.  the area. He is against removing 85% of the trees.  and in the general area.  Avenue.  Final Statements by Counsel  Attorney Ruth final statement: The use of this property has been determined by Borough Council, thati is why it is zoned higher density residential, and that is what the proposal isf for. The use: is permitted by special exception. The: number of units is significantly less than what the maximum number of units could be. The current ordinance would allow for 701 units. Hereiterated that the applicant is not in favor of removing the pond. Itseems    Minutes ofthe Hanover. Borough. Zoning Hearing Board  March 18, 2024 Page 12 requests.  that every criteria has been met for the special exception, except for the three variance Attorney Williams final statement: Mr. Williams noted that Public Works Supervisor Bean explained the difficulties with narrow streets, and he would not be in favor of the Zoning Board approving an additional burden on the Public Works department. The relevance of the Hertzberg case was discussed in relation to the proposed use. 8:55PM: The Zoning Board and Solicitor Senft exited the meeting to an executive: session. 9:09PM: The Zoning Board and Solicitor Senft returned, and the meeting resumed. Mr. Senft stated that each counsel will submit briefs by April 1, 2024 and the decision deadline of 45 days will be due by May 15. The public hearing will resume the third  Monday of April.  Mr. Ruth agreed to waive the current deadline and extend to May 15.  Adjournment: Motin carried.  It was moved by Mr. Bond, seconded by Mr. Shirk to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 PM.  Respectfully submitted, Zoning Hearing Board DALA