Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 5, 2025 Commissioner's Present Also Present Fredrick Lighty Nick Gehret, Lower Paxton Township Codes Officer Douglas Grove Jason Hinz, HRG. Inc. Lori Staub (via Zoom) Andrew Bomberger, Dauphin County Planning Jeff Kline Tim Staub, HRG. Kurt Meckes Evertte Hamilton Sandra Bloom Amber Booth Heshler, (alternate) Call to Order Mr. Lighty called to order the meeting of the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission at 7:00pm on the above date in Room A of the Lower Paxton Township Municipal Center, 425 Prince Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Lighty led the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Mr. Lighty asked if there were any questions or changes to the December 4,2024, January 8, 2024 and the January 8, 2024 Re-Organization Meeting, of the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Mr. Grove. made a motion to approve the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission December 4,2024, January 8, 2024 and the January 8, 2024 Re-Organization meeting minutes. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and a unanimous vote followed. Ordinance 25-01 Comprehensive Zoning update Mr. Gehret stated that the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission has received the following information on the Draft Ordinance 25-01 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance repeals and replaces Chapter 203 of the Lower Paxton Township Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on July 11, 2006. Ordinance 25-01, includes updating land use regulations, such as: Ar new Zoning Map, with zoning district changes, deletions, locations, and boundaries Uses allowed in each district Standards that apply to buildings and structures Standards that apply to specific uses Updated parking standards The primary goals of the Zoning Update are: Simplify the zoning map and ordinance to make it easier for the user to navigate with a limited number of steps to research the regulations impacting a project or parcel(s). Update zoning map to reflect changes that have occurred in the built environment since the last major update. Update to accommodate and regulate modern uses such as wireless communication facilities and solar energy facilities. Update definitions and other provisions to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations and related case law, such as the Fair Housing Act. Ordinance 25-01 has been sent to the Dauphin County Planning Commission and neighboring municipalities for comment and review. Mr. Tim Staub, HRG. Inc. Community Planner, was present to discuss the updates to the Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment. Mr. Staub explained that the comprehensive zoning rewrite project has taken place over a few years and for several reasons. Such reasons are to simplify the zoning ordinance and address resident concerns. Several changes have occurred after public meetings. Mr. Staub noted that one such concern was the residents that were opposed to certain rezonings such as the combining R1 and R2 sections around Locust Lane, and residents who were opposed to the ON to BC zoning change. After the first rounds of public meetings- the Planning Commission recommended reverting back to separate RL and R2 districts, despite earlier recommendation to consolidate. The commission also recommended to only keep the properties adjacent to Linglestown Road ON and to rezone the residential properties to the south R-1. There have been updates to the text of the ordinance to bring the language current with today's zoning standards. The Chairman asked Mr. Gehret to explain the two additional rezoning requests that had been added to the agenda. Mr. Gehret explained that these requests came in after the official map had been sent out to satisfy the PA Municipalities Code review (12/26/24). Should the commission wish to add these three parcels for rezoning the process for review would begin again. The review time is 45 days from delivery. The Chairman then asked representatives of each request to speak to their request. 0 Andrew Miller, MPL Law Firm, representing Farhat Excavation, is requesting that the land directly to the west ofl-81 off Crums Mill Rd be rezoned from R-1 to BC. Mr. Miller said the land was shown to be rezoned on the Comp Plan Future Land Map. Mr. Farhat believes it would be appropriate for some type of office development rather than residential. John Kershner and George Parmer addressed the commission on behalf of the Parmer Foundation. The foundation owns the lot directly across the street from DC Vo Tech and beside the Trinity Presbyterian Church. The Foundation and the Church are requesting their properties be rezoned to IN, Institutional. The foundation wants to give back to the community. A member of the church asked Mr. Parmer to consider constructing a critical care facility on the site. They ask this because residents of the township want to age in place. The Chairman asked Mr. Staub what the next step is and Mr. Staub responded that he can open the floor to any additional public comment. With that, Chairman Lighty asked Mr. Bomberger of TCRP to provide comment Andrew Bomberger of TCRP, went through his comments that have been provided to the commission. Mr. Bomberger noted the comments are neither positive or negative just things to consider. The map amendment represents significant changes to the Zoning Map. The 2018 Comp Plan Land Use Map is generally consistent with the current Zoning Map, SO any proposed changes are inconsistent. The parcels between Wenrich St and Piketown Rd provide for a significant increase in viable density, even beyond what is suggested in the townships Comp Plan, which states an additional limited density residential area. Chailman Lighty made note that this area is the NOD area. Mr. Bomberger made a comment that this NOD area along with the additional area to be rezoned from AR to R-1 creates 150 acres of increased density and that is something of note. The County would like the permitted uses chart clarified to show what a blank space in the permitted use chart indicates. Staff responded that an addition could be made. The County also recommended another look at the parking requirements in the ordinance as the requirements seem excessive and reducing the number of spaces will help redevelopment. The County is also available to help review the language under the Right to Farm Act. The County would have preferred a redlined or highlighted ordinance showing significant changes between the current ordinance and proposed. Mr. Lighty responded that this is a complete repeal and replace SO a redline is not possible. Mr. Bomberger recommended additional supplemental material to help residents understand the changes for such al large ordinance would be helpful. Additional Comments from the public: Al Fauci, 631 Lancaster Ave., expresses concerns about proposed zoning changes in his neighborhood, citing potential impact on property values and quality of life. Fauci worries about the possibility of high-rise developments and 24-hour commercial establishments in the area, which could lead to increased traffic and lighting problems. If this is rezoned, you could have any commercial product permitted. There is also concern about the 30' buffer yard requirement and how it will be maintained and required. Opposed to rezoning. Robert Holloway, L&N Beverage, expresses concern about potential commercial development in their neighborhood, including parking and traffic issues, and the impact on property values. He highlighted the potential uses that might be permitted under the new general commercial designation, including adult-oriented businesses, tattoo shops, heavy equipment repair, apothecaries (medical marijuana) and more. Against the rezoning. Kenneth Bell, 5907 Fox St, directly behind the plaza. Mr. Bell asked why this rezoning is happening? Mr. Bell cited he has concerns with gas/diesel pumping stations and what the required buffering will be. He also expressed concerns about rezoning and potential impact on nearby homes. He questioned why this area would be rezoned when there is CG designated area on Rt. 22 SO close. Concerns about the potential of a 24/7 business and how that negatively impacts neighbors. There have not been issues with the existing commercial businesses for 30years and this puts too much at stake for the neighbors. Opposed to rezoning. David, 624 Lancaster Ave, and his 13-year-old daughter Ella who attends Linglestown Middle School. Ella has concerns about wildlife and what will happen to them and safety walking with her friends. David has concerns about the trash and potential screening required. He also asked why this was needed as there is a Turkey Hill and Sheetz within walking distance. He is against the rezoning. Michael LaRue, 669 Lancaster Ave, has resided in the home for 31 years, If the zoning is changed the resident believes the propeity will have more noise and lighting issues. The Copper Pub closes at 2am and at 2am in the summer, motorcycles rev their engines multiple times before they pull away and, in the winter, cars idle for 15 minutes to get warm. If a 24/7 use is approved, the sound issues will be worse. He asked that the PC keep the zoning as iti is currently zoned. Bob Baker, 626 Lancaster, stated that he had sent a letter and asked if the commission received it. He read the letter to have it on the record. He spoke to the increased traffic on Mountain Rd. and the rumor that a WAWA is proposed on the site. A WAWA will increase noise and safety concerns. The residents want to support small businesses and a large convenience store will negatively impact the businesses that already exist in the plaza. It will change the quiet neighborhood that they currently enjoy. The current equity they have in their homes could be impacted. The neighborhood is a walking neighborhood and not having an adequate buffer zone is a concern for safety. People coming off 81 can refuel at Sunoco, Turkey Hill or Sheetz which are all in proximity SO there are adequate places to refuel. Mr. Baker clearly stated that he wanted it noted that he is very strong opposition to any rezoning of this parcel of land. 0 Chairman Lighty then added for the record that the property is currently zoned for a convenience store. A discussion ensued related to the difference between a Turkey Hill and a WAWA. Jake, 5911 Fox Street, directly adjacent to the properties in question. Has owned his house since 2020. Wanted to be heard along with his neighbors that the request be denied. The current plaza could be redeveloped without rezoning. The property can't be adequately screened or buffered to protect neighbors from negative impact. The Dollar General Grocery received a Building Permit and installed lights across the back of the store and the resident was responsible for putting up protection form the lighting. He commented that the loud bangs that occur in the early morning are the trucks in the back of the building where they do night work and idle their engines. He agrees that the plaza needs some polishing but there is a better path to revitalizing without rezoning. Barbara, 5905 Fox Street, Voiced her opposition to the rezoning plan Jason Burke, 617 Lancaster, he asked that the commissioners put themselves into the neighbors' shoes and answer if seeing something like a hotel out the window is something they would want to see from their house. Opposed to rezoning. Amy Winter, 623 Lancaster, house is directly behind the property in question. Biggest concerns are congestion, accidents and safety. Opposed to the rezoning because it is not good for the neighborhood. 20+ kids live in the neighborhood and their safety would be in jeopardy. A 24-hour business would make it unsafe. She has lived in the neighborhood for 22 years and it has been wonderful, but this change could ruin everything for the close-knit community. Deb Stafford, 633 Lancaster Ave, asks that this rezoning be reconsidered and that she echoes what her neighbors have already stated. Stacey, 625 Lancaster Ave, has lived at the address for 25 years. Porch on the second floor which overlooks her pool. Should the lot be developed, she will be looking at lights, possibly 24/7. Iti is currently zoned for business SO why can't someone build under the zoning that is there now? Chairman Lighty responded that this is an upzoning to allow other types of business to go into the area. The neighbors pointed out that 2 of the 3 owners live in Florida and questioned why we would change a zoning district to help out of state owners. The Chairman responded that the area needs to have additional uses to which the neighbors said the property can be developed with coffee shops, bakeries, deli... things that make sense against a current district. Chairman Lighty went on to say that we can't pick the business that goes into a district - we pick the district. The audience then questioned when the vote would take place. Chairman Lighty informed the audience that the vote would occur tonight. Martin, Englewood Heights, located near the area to be rezoned from AG to RL. Questioned if this is good for the township. Understands that the township is growing, and things must change. Has concerns about the impacts of the growth on local roads and infrastructure. The Englewood Heights development is on public sewer and well and there is a concern with having to connect to public water. Kimberly LaRue, 669 Lancaster Ave, what she found on a search is that the neighborhood commercial zoning is to support small scale retail services and mixed use developments that serve the population without significantly impacting the adjacent property or disrupting the residential character of the neighborhood. The narrow piece of land to be rezoned abuts probably 20 homes. She requested the commission look at the human side of the rezoning and the repercussions to their daily life. She does not believe that this parcel was shown to be rezoned in the Comp Plan SO what is prompting this rezoning? There are empty spaces along Rt 22 corridor, there is not a shortage of where you could place these types of uses. North Mountain Road, everything on the east side you are proposing to leave CN, SO why are you changing our side of North Mountain Road. Ms. LaRue requested that the commission make no exceptions to allow business like WAWA or Sheetz on the property and that the proximity of this land to the Clermont neighborhood be chosen over the proximity of the interstate. She respectfully requested that the commission decline the rezoning. Ross McCorkal, 649 Lancaster Ave, Opposes item #12 on the zoning map. Questioned if all this opposition would get relayed to the Board of Supervisors. 0 Mr. Gehret addressed the audience that this item is scheduled to be before the Board next Tuesday only as an update of the ordinance to the Board. The Public Hearing is 2/18 and the board will be provided documentation of the meeting tonight. O Mr. McCorkal continued by asking if the commission would be voting on this tonight and if the vote is an open vote? Does the audience get to see whether the commission actually heard what everyone in the audience in attendance had voiced. Mr. Lighty responded that they would. Chairman Lighty then addressed the two additional map revision requests made by Mr. Farhat and Mr. Parmer. The Chairman asked that the rezoning requests come back to the PC as separate rezoning requests SO that the neighbors are notified of the rezoning. Mr. Grove moved for recommendation of Ordinance 25-0, The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Lighty seconded the action. Roll Call vote was held. Commissioner Bloom -No. Commissioner Meckes-No. Commissioner Hamilton- No. Commissioner Lighty - Yes. Commissioner Grove - Yes. Commissioner Kline- Yes. Commissioner Staub -No. Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan Harrisburg Temple Plan # 24- 19 Mr. Gehret stated that the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission has received the following information on the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for the Harrisburg Temple proposes to develop parcels 35-067-011, Tract 1) 6.102 acres and (35-069-099). Tract 2) 0.563 acres at the site known as 605 Rutherford Road. Tract 1 will be the location of the proposed Religious Temple. The project will consist of removing the vacant building that is roughly 1,300 square feet and multiple deteriorating accessory structures that are present on the lot. The temple that will be constructed will have a building footprint of 18,850 Square feet with an accessory building situated to the north that will have a building footprint of 2,396 square feet. Access to the property will be provided via a private driveway off Rutherford Road. The driveway and parking spaces will encompass the perimeter of the temple. The exterior property will be heavily landscaped and enclosed by ornamental fencing with a gateway entrance. The site is located in the R-1 Low density Residential district and will be served by public water and sewer. Special Exception : The following Special Exception was granted on September 26,2024, by the Zoning Hearing Board. 1. [ZO: 306.B.2]- The applicant has received a Variance of the requirement that any wall or fence in a buffer yard shall be placed on the inside (nonresidential side) of any required plant screening. 2. ZO:203-706)- The applicant has received a variance of the requirement that a monument sign shall not be installed in a residential district. 3. Z0:203-40238)e)- The applicant has received a Variance of the requirement that the Minimum building setback from a lot line of an existing dwelling in a residential district is 60 feet. Waiver Request: 1. SLDO:180-404)- The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement of providing information on the required 24 X 36 inch final plan sheet. The applicant is in favor of providing the landscaping plans on 30: X 42 inch paper. This project is incredibly dense with landscaping. Using larger sheets permits fewer total drawings on a project where detail needs to be included. Verify with the Dauphin County Recorder of Deeds that they will accept the proposed sheet size for purposes of recording. If they will, we would support this waiver request. 2. SLD0:180.503..3 The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to have the clear sight triangle leg reduced from 75 feet to 70fett. 605 Rutherford Road has a water course at the front of the property. A culvert and extensive stream relocation plan has been developed to minimize impact and best protect the existing natural features of the property. The crossing height, location and grades are based on the PennDot requirements, site constraints, and the best practices. The crossing is tall enough that it will require a wall for fall protection. Fall protection is taller than the ordinance will allow within the clear sight triangle. The partial reduction of the 75 foot requirement for the leg along the drive will permit the best design for the water course and entry possible. We support this waiver request to avoid additional impacts to the stream and natural sight and as clear sight distances are able to be met for the intersection. 3. Z09:203.804.6.2- The applicant is seeking a waiver of the requirement to allowi for trees and shrubs to be planted on the basin slope and floor. This is not a request that can be waived as it is a Zoning Requirement. 4. [SWMO: 170.602.A.15)- The applicant is seeking a waiver of the requirement to reduce the required 2-inch drop between inlet and outlet pipes for stormwater structures CB-G3 and CB-B4. The site at 605 Rutherford Road includes a watercourse at the front of the property, necessitating a culvert and an extensive stream relocation plan to minimize environmental impact and protect existing natural features. The site's low- volume driveway was positioned to align with an existing intersection, which also coincides with a 36-inch pipe serving as the mouth of the watercourse traversing the property. Due to the existing stream elevation, the outlet elevation, and required pipe sizes, CB-G3 cannot achieve the required 23-inch drop. Similarly, CB-B4 is constrained by entrance grading, a retaining wall, wetland stream impact considerations, and maximum allowable grades. As a result, it can only accommodate a 1-i inch drop within the structure. We support this waiver request. Requested Deferral: 1. SLODO:180-505)- The applicant is requesting a partial waiver of the requirement to install sidewalk along street frontage. The site has a total frontage of 585 feet along Rutherford Road, with the proposed plan including 554 feet of sidewalk. As you move south along the frontage, the elevation of the existing ground steadily decreases while the road elevation remains consistent. The proposed sidewalk extends as far south as possible while still allowing the grading to transition smoothly to existing conditions with a 3:1 slope at the property line. Extending the sidewalk the remaining 31 feet would require a retaining wall at the property line to prevent earthwork from encroaching onto adjacent property. This would result in a sidewalk ending at a wall, which raises potential public safety concerns. To address this, the owner is willing to enter into a developer agreement with the Township to install the remaining sidewalk segment at a future date when appropriate grading can be achieved to match any future sidewalk extensions. We support this deferral request. HRG Comments: Mr. Hinz stated there are some technical issues that need to be addressed. The requests of the deferrals, the two inch drop of the storm sewer is not reflected in the memo. As long as it is flushed with the inlet and has a positive flow. The existing grades with the elevation and the bottom of the inlets are flat. The sidewalk deferrals should be requested and we would support that. The sidewalk extended to the full property boundary to connect the sidewalk. Call the developers engineer to address the comments. County Comments: Mr. Bomgardner stated that the revised plan should be submitted. The parking information is not clear. The text is jumbled. The easements should be put onto the plan. The landscaping, there should be a table of the landscaping laid out of each, SO they match. The sidewalk shown on the plan and the developer agrees. Robert LaPlaca Engineer with Progressive Corporation; Christian Johnson, the Representative for the Temple, were present to represent the plan. Mr. LaPlaca stated this is a complicated site the DEP involved with the extensive stream and the natural features of the property. We are dedicated to doing well and keeping everything beautifully maintained at the highest detail. The sidewalk is very tricky at the frontage. We are not designing the sidewalk for pedestrian traffic because it is unsafe. The one slope drops fast, SO bringing in fill to help grade that slope. The sidewalk, develop as much as can be done, and tryt to match smoothly. The deferral agreement is not the developer's agreement. Mr. Lighty stated that the developers agreement, agrees with the deferral. Mr. will talk to the client. Mr. Gehret stated, do not know the language of the complication and the discrepancies. Staff, County and HRG Comments, the last version was the passed Friday and they will work towards them, with the waivers and the mouth streams grading. Whether to keep it or if there is any other way. Mr. Johnson stated that the Temple is low key. There are no funerals, weddings are small with no eating. The traffic is ultimately low and there are no services on Sunday. The building is of great importance, SO it is a long term commitment. Public Comment: 1. Resident at 2240Forest Hills Dr., stated that the sidewalk, however there is not too much activity in that area. It may evolve rapidly. Mr. Lighty stated that the deferral is 20 - 30 feet. The property redeveloped beside it, and ift the neighbor does something, or that may not occur. The area may develop. 2. William Miller, 4311 Crestview Dr., stated that the sidewalk developed and getting everything done. The last 31 feet and on the GIS the sidewalk, the Green Way Committee should go to the Catholic Diocese to develop a dialogue, fori improvement now. Get on Board , this is a critical piece. Mr. Lighty stated that the sidewalk on the other side of the street is all sidewalk, this side of the street there is nothing. Mr. Miller stated that the sidewalk goes to the corner. There is no safe place to walk. 31 feet is not dangerous and get the sidewalk extended down to the diocese. Mr. Lighty questioned the sidewalk ending at the diocese. Mr. Miller stated that the need for dirt, that there is extra dirt at the Colonial Road development that Mr. Kessler is developing. The cost should be defrayed while this occurs, why buy and haul while you could just haul the dirt. Mr. Miller stated that waivers should not be given, deferrals are the only way to go. The people looking at this should connect it and fill in the void. The township is bigger than Harrisburg and one of the biggest in the state, Provide foundation and obligation Mr. Grove moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan Harrisburg Temple Plan #24-19 with the deferral of sidewalk included and the subject to comments from Staff, HRG, and County. Mr. Meckes seconded the motion and a unanimous vote followed. Public Comments- There are no public comments at this time. Commissioner Comments- There are no Commissioner comments at this time. Mr. Bomberger stated that Tri County has a 25 year Metropolitan Transportation Plan and they met with 28 Municipalities, including Lower Paxton Township Staff, HRG., they had a really good discussion. Mr. Lighty stated, that was good to know. Next Regular Meeting The next regular Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 5, 2024, at 7:00pm. Adjournment Mr. Grove made a motion to adjourn the September 4, 2024, Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and a unanimous vote followed. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. Sincerely Submitted, VAqclale 9w assli Michele Kwasnoski Recording Secretary