Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 2, 2025 Commissioner's Present Also Present Fredrick Lighty Nick Gehret, Lower Paxton Township Codes Officer Douglas Grove Andrew Bomberger, Dauphin County Planning Commission Jeff Kline Issac Underhill, HRG. Inc. Everette Hamilton Kurt Meckes Sandra Bloom Amber Hessler- Booth 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 ofthe Lower Paxton Township Municipal Center, 425 Prince Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Meckes led the recitation ofthe Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Mr. Lighty asked if there were any questions or changes to the March 5, 2025 of the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Mr. Hamilton made a motion to approve the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission March 5, 2025 Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Grove seconded the motion, and a unanimous vote followed. New Business a. Ordinance 25-04 (The Grove at Spring Creek) Mr. Gehret stated that the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission has received the following information on the Ordinance 25-04 amends Chapter 203 oft the Zoning Ordinance, Section 303. A, to modify the Lower Paxton Township Zoning Map (the "Zoning Map") to rezone land from the R-1, Low Density Residential District to the Open Space Development Overlay District. Ordinance 25-04 amends the Zoning Map to rezone from the (R-1) Low Density Residential District to the (OSD) Open Space Development Overlay District for the parcel known as Dauphin County Property Identification No. 35-077-050. The parcel consists of 25.673 acres ofland. The Property is approximately 146.737 acres in size, including 121.064 acres in Swatara Township and 25.673 acres in Lower Paxton Township. The property is comprised of Dauphin County Tax Parcel 63-015-014, 63-015-030 and 35-077-050. The property has frontage on 61st Street (SR3017), Crusader Way and Spring Creek Road in Lower Paxton Township and 61st Street (SR3017) and Fordham Ave. in Swatara. The property is located in the Swatara Township R-S Single Family Residential Zoning District and the Lower Paxton Township R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning District. The Planning Commission has been provided the following information regarding Ordinance 25- 04: Proposed Ordinance 25-04 The Application for the amendment to the zoning ordinance A copy ofthe Public Notice The Proposed ordinance was advertised in accordance with the PA Municipalities Planning Code. The Public Notice will be posted in the Legal ad column ofThe Sun on Thursday March 20, 205, and Thursday, March 27, 2025. The property was posted with the public notice on Monday, March 24, 2025. The Application for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was sent to Lower Paxton and Dauphin County Planning Commission for review. Ordinance 25-04 was recommended for approval at the March 3, 2025, Dauphin County Planning Commission Meeting. Joel McNaughton, MCN Land Holdings LLC, was present to represent the plan. The property is at Grove Road and Spring Creek Road and consists of 146 acres split between two Townships. 25/26 acres are in Lower Paxton Township services by public water and public sewer. It is zoned Open Space and RS in Swatara Township. The open space is 10 acres by right use and are asking for an overlay. Mr. McNaughton stated that they started the process with Swatara Township in late October 2024 and January 2025 issuing a letter for the Yield Plan with the density similar to the open space in Lower Paxton Township, would like to rezone from R1 to OSD. Mr. McNaughton stated they submitted a yield plan, and it was reviewed and approved in Swatara Township. Mr. McNaughton is asking for two requests: Recommend an OSD overlay and to record a Yield Plan. Dauphin County Planning Commission approved the overlay, with the stormwater and roadways. The yield plan is a tool to establish density and has no other legal standing. This could be determined later for the plan. Mr. Lighty stated the request for open space and questions the detention ponds? Mr. McNaughton stated the open space request is to avoid development in steep slopes and that the stormwater basin is in the open space instead of being in the property lots. HRG Comments Mr. Underhill stated that by the yield plan that the lots 21-27 oft the cul de sac are maximum by ordinance, the west side is 760 feet. Mr. McNaughton stated that they received the comments. The opinion /belieft that the yield plan is a tool which represents reasonably and estimates number oflots reasonably with the sites possible. The 7 lots are of a subdivision waiver, townhomes are not reasonably depiction of what is to be done on the premises. The cul de sac to the left is under a powerline. The asking of a similar waiver not to take the road to Spring Creek Road. Mr. Lighty stated, "can they do a yield plan and a development plan? Mr. Gehret stated that the layout is not exactly in spirit with the ordinance of density, by right use but not the best optics. The maximum is 600 feet and no more than 20 dwellings. The actual subdivision should be a land revision plan, worded explicitly in the ordinance. Mr. Lighty stated the land development plan you can use waivers, and the yield plan is not informing. Mr. Gehret agrees but would like to work with the developer. Mr. McNaughton stated the Yield Plan and Land Development mimic one another. The language shows the maximum number ofdwelling units that would be possible under current township ordinance with Open Space development provisions would not be used and instead the provisions for conventional development in the applicable zoning district would be used. It is a SLDO requirement ofcul de sac not zoning. The Yield Plan is not served and is not required to contain detailed requirements of a preliminary subdivision plan. When we did the. Autumn Oaks this was my yield plan, I hand prepared the yield plan and now we seem to be getting away from that and it is an engineer drawling. The ordinance language as I view it is 1. Open Space development provisions would not be used and instead the provisions for conventional development in the applicable zoning district would be used. 2.The Yield Plan is reviewed by the Zoning Office and the Township Engineer and determined by the Planning Commission as to whether it serves as a reasonable accurate estimate ofthe number ofd dwelling units possible on the site. Mr. Lighty stated that you cannot grant a waiver until the Land Development plan. Mr. McNaughton believes that the yield plan is reasonably accurate and doesn't believe the language and is reasonably accurate. Mr. Lighty stated that the number oflots is not true. Mr. McNaughton stated the intent is reasonably accurate as the yield plan. The Yield Plan and OSD are separate. They are two separate sections but would like to do both together. The yield plan does not require waivers. Mr. Lighty stated reasonably accurate language. Mr. Gehret stated the development ordinance does not state the yield plan is not required. In the Overlay District what is no in the overlay. It is very clear with the plan but not the rezoning. County Comments Mr. Bomberger stated that Dauphin County Planning Commission has reviewed the request and submitted a letter, better development in Open Space. The yield plan Dauphin County Planning Commission did not move. The number oflots times the 10% density is a commonsense compromise. Language does not ask for a waiver. Audience Comments There were no audience comments at this time. Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the modify zoning map ordinance 25-04 25.67 acres from R1 to Open Space subject to the comments from HRG, County and Staff. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion and a unanimous vote followed. Mr. McNaughton stated the action to the yield plan. Mr. Light stated we do not accept that, staff accept it. Mr. McNaughton stated that it is this group's call and that it is reasonably accurate. Mr. Gehret stated it is reasonably accurate. Mr. McNaughton stated that he would come back another time. Mr. Grove stated that there is no ordinance with the yield plan for another time. Mr. Gehret stated we had done it both ways, Ordinance and Yield Plan, the rezoning language was not clear. Mr. Lighty stated the yield plan is not needed to make a decision. Mr. Gehret stated the yield plan does help to decide the yield plans and natural features. However, the language is not clear. Mr. Bomberger stated to change the zoning. The yield plan in the land development, no action or just the yield plan but with the land development. Mr. McNaughton stated rl to OSD rezoning, can come back to establish the density. It adds months, and a lot oftime for Preliminary Plan. Mr. Lighty stated to save months you want us to do that. Mr. Kline made a motion to the 600 to the 770 feet at the cul de sac and Mr. Hamiton seconded the motion. Mr. McNaughton stated, see you in a year or at least 6-9 months. b. The Preliminary/Final Minor Subdivision & Lot Addition Plan Over Lands of Herbert M. & Janice M. Wragg and Debbie E. & Jeffrey L. Hochlander Mr. Gehret stated that the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission has received the following information on the Preliminary/Final Minor Subdivision Plan and Lot Addition Plan proposes to subdivide Lot 2A (2.105 acres) Afrom Existing Lot 2 and combine it with existing Lot 1 as an add-on lot. Presently, Lot 2 stands at 4.2 acres and Lot 1 has a total area of1 1.098 acres. With the addition of Lot 2A INTO Lot 1, Lot 1 will now have a total area of 3.203 acres and Lot 2 will be reduced to a total area of2.241 acres. The site is located in the R-2 Medium Density Residential District and the site will be served by private sewer and private water supply. The applicant request waivers: 1. [SLDO: 180-404. C. 5]- The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to provide all existing features on the property and extending a minimum of 100 feet beyond the property's boundary. The applicant seeks relief due to the fact that the plan is not proposing any new lots or earth disturbance. We support this waiver request due to the simplicity of the plan. 2. [SLDO: 180-404. C. 5 & C.8]- The applicant is requesting a waiver ofthe requirement to provide all existing contours on the property and extending a minimum of 100 feet beyond the property's boundary. The applicant seeks relief due to the fact that the plan is not proposing any new lots or earth disturbance. We support this waiver request due to the simplicity ofthe plan. 3. [SLDO: 180-508. A. 1]- The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement to provide sidewalk along the roadway frontages bordering the subdivision. There is no sidewalks adjacent to the property. We support this waiver request as there is no construction or public improvements proposed as part ofthis subdivision plan and no existing sidewalk in the vicinity of parcels to be subdivided. 4. [SLDO: 180-509. A]- The applicant is requesting a waiver for the requirement to provide curbing along the roadway frontages bordering the subdivision. The applicant seeks relief due to the fact that curbs currently do not exist in the area. We support this waiver request as the is no construction or public improvements proposed as part ofthis subdivision plan and no existing urb in the vicinity of parcels to be subdivided. 5. [SLDO: 180-503. A.9]- The applicant is requesting a waiver ofthe requirement to widen all streets bordering the subdivision which do not meet the current minimum width requirements. Due to the fact that the plan is not proposing any new lots, relief from street widening is requested. We support this waiver request for the reasoning provided. 6. [SLDO: 180-515. E. 1]- The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to provide street trees. The applicant seeks relief due to the fact that the plan is not proposing any new lots or earth disturbance. We support this waiver request for the reasoning provided. 7. [SLDO: 180-404. C. 4 & 518]- The applicant is seeking a waiver of the requirement to provide a wetland study. The applicant seeks relief due to the fact that the plan is not proposing any new lots or earth disturbance. We support this waiver request for the reasoning provided. Any comments or questions for Mr. Gehret. HRG Comments: Mr. Underhill stated that there are some plan notes and labeling that is necessary. County Comments: Mr. Bomberger stated that there are no real comments. Mr. Thomas Keene, Burget Associates Engineer, was present to represent the plan. Mr. Keene stated that he would talk to the Township Engineer regarding any comments and that the County comments are minor things that need adjusting. Audience Comments: Mr. William Miller,4311 Crestview Rd, stated that some plans cannot be seen in advance by the public. Mr. Miller stated that there is a big transportation study coming up, sidewalks, and a lot of property. Mr. Miller stated that waivers are never ending, and deferrals are something. Deferrals that are required, like at Union Deposit Road, there was only a verbal recording and they gave their word and they were good with that, down the road will you get a sidewalk. Mr. Miller stated that in 1970 till now there were 90% waivers given and has the work been done. Mr. Miller stated he is anti-waiver when it comes to sidewalk and curbing, because down the road it should be looked at, there should be deferrals on sidewalk with those big projects. Deferrals were given to other kinds, trees before they dug. Mr. Miller stated Waivers versus Deferrals, there are two kinds of deferrals that do not cost money, escrow and being creative. Some municipalities are doing stuff to get rid of waivers and fix the problem. There is a Transportation study and the first meeting is April 25th. Mr. Bomberger stated that waivers are forever and deferrals and easements and any other way that can be determined. The pedestrian pathway in the area of Prince Street and Union Deposit Road became one of those areas. The Township would not have had to go to the right of way and it would not have cost the property owner anything. Mr. Miller stated that this has been discussed in the Green Way Committee, this language. Mr. Miller would like to know if a deferral can be given and deferrals can be looked at and amended and to look at easements. Mr. Lighty stated that it is a great waiver and can be looked at at the Land Development Plan. Mr. Miller stated could the deferral be an easement and can we back track. Could you make this happen. Mr. Gehret stated that this discussion was not appropriate for tonight. Deferrals not appropriate, the developers agreement is in place. Mr. Miller stated that the informed decisions and having limitations. Mr. Meckes stated that the clarity is greatly proposed and to develop as proposed. The Land Development Plan and building is the next phase and the future ifit sells lots. Mr. Grove made a recommendation of approval ofthe Preliminary/Final Minor Subdivision & Lot Addition Plan Over Lands ofHerbert M. & Janice M. Wragg and Debbie E. & Jeffrey L. Hochlander Plan # 25-03 with approval ofthe 7 waivers listed and the subject to comments from HRG, Staff and County. Mr. Meckes seconded the motion, and a unanimous vote followed. C. Ordinance 25-01 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 oft the Lower Paxton Township Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on July 11, 2006. Ordinance 25-01. Includes updating land use regulations, such as: A 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. Ordinance 25-05 Mr. Gehret stated that the Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission has received the following information on the Ordinance 25-05 amends the Lower Paxton Township Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, as adopted on August 8, 2018; to include two additional land use categories and delete a no longer used category. The Land Use Map highlights major policy matters concerning the Land Use Plan categories, most ofv which relate to existing or recommended zoning districts. The Comprehensive Plan sets overall policies for preservation and development over the next 10 to 15 years. The amended Land Use Map and Land Use categories will include descriptions of the Neighborhood Design Zone and Towne Centre District. While deleting the RESIDENTIAL Cluster District. Per the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), the governing body may adopt and amend the comprehensive plan as a whole or in part. Before adopting or amending a comprehensive plan, or any part there of the governing body is required to provide a copy ofthe comprehensive plan to all contiguous municipalities, the county, and other relevant boards for review and comment (MPC 302). The information is required to be sent at least 45 days before adopting the Official Plan. Ordinance 25-05 is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday May 20, 2025. The public hearing will begin at 7:00pm in the Township Municipal Building, 425 Pr5ince Street, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Ordinance 25-05 will be discussed prior to the public hearing at the May7, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Gehret stated that on March 24, 2025 25-05 the Future Land Use Map was delivered to CD. School, Bishop McDevitt, and County, 45 days has begun. May 7th is a meeting, and May gth is the public meeting. Originally it was supposed to be May 7th. Hard Copy has been asked for. No true changes have occurred. The Official Map parking requirements and the Official Zoning / Land Use Map standard. Mr. Lighty stated the Comprehensive Plan and Dauphin County Comments. Dauphin County comments do not go on these. Public Comments 25-01 The Mountain Road thing, proposed changes to Mountain Road he was curious. Issue to why we need exceptions to Neighborhood Commercial, are there still exceptions. The carwash being a Special Exception, does not come to pass, there will be a lot of problems. What is going beside Sheetz on Blue Ribbon Ave. There are wetlands there and that lot was cleared. Mr. Lighty stated that if anything was going to be built, they would need a building permit. Mr. Gehret stated that the lot is being cleared up but there is not a permit. Next Regular Meeting The next regular Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2025, at 7:00pm. Adjournment Mr. Meckes made a motion to adjourn the April 2, 2025, Lower Paxton Township Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Grove seconded the motion, and a unanimous vote followed. The meeting adjourned at 7:52pm. Sincerely Submitted, ad.le Kuaadi Michele Kwasnoski Recording Secretary