Chairman Dane St. Clair convened the March 13, 2002 meeting of the Warwick Township Zoning Hearing Board at 7:00 p.m. Present were Board Members Dane St. Clair, Wilmer Burkhart, Randall Wenger, and Scott Goldman. Gary Lefever was absent. Also present were Zoning Officer Thomas Zorbaugh, Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor David Workman, Mike Winpenny, Mark Westwood, Barry Blodgett, Mike Leeking, Calvin Yoder, J. Lowell Forney, Diane Conrad, Jacob Conrad, David Deckard, Michelle Deckard, Dennis Beck, George Stoler, Bill Clemo, Allen Martin, Robert Murphy, Paul Nichols, Ray Groff, Lesley Schoch, Roy Martin, Martin Weaver, and David Hevener.

MINUTES APPROVAL: On a motion by Burkhart, seconded by Goldman, the Board unanimously approved the minutes of the February 13, 2002 meeting as submitted.

POSTING, PROOF OF PUBLICATION AND NOTICE: The Zoning Officer confirmed the posting, notice and proof of publication of the cases to be heard at this evening's hearing.

HEARING PROCEDURES: For the benefit of those present, the Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained the procedure to be followed for the evening's hearings.

CASE #579, DAVID DECKARD - SPECIAL EXCEPTION/VARIANCE: The Chairman read the application received from David Deckard, 49 West Lincoln Avenue, Lititz, PA 17543. The Applicant is the equitable owner of the property located at 1249 East Newport Road, Lititz. The Applicant is seeking a Special Exception to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 505, pertaining to a substitution of a nonconforming use in an R1 Zone, or if an interpretation of a Home Occupation is necessary (Section 204.3.A). The Applicant would like to relocate his family and lawn care business, and have approval to maintain livestock on this 3 acre tract. The Applicant is also requesting a Special Exception of 443, noncommercial keeping of livestock, with a Variance request of Section 443.B.3 to use the existing barn to house the livestock. The barn does not meet the required 75' setback.

The Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained that the Applicant is a client of his firm; therefore, he excused himself from this case. The Zoning Officer explained that Deckard had originally applied for a home occupation and related Variances for this site. He stated that upon discussions with the previous owner (Jacob Conrad) he was advised that this property was previously used for a business. He explained that based on those discussions, he advised the Applicant that the proposed use might be considered as a substitution of a non-conforming use.

David Deckard was sworn in. He testified that the lawn care business is family-owned and operated. He explained that his home and office are currently located on different sites, and he would like to consolidate their home, landscape business including office and storage areas, to this site. The home includes approximately 1,600 square feet. The portion for the office will be an approximate 135 square foot area located in the basement. The barn area is 68'x45' plus an attached implement shed of 33'x23'. The outside "barn yard" (existing 25'x30' cement/gravel area) will be used for mulch/soil storage.

The property at 1249 E. Newport Road would be used to store equipment, agricultural/horticultural supplies, and the office. The number of employees varies with seasonal needs. In the winter the business employs two full time employees for snow plowing and pruning. In the summer they employ four to six employees. The employees work hours are between 7:00-8:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and some Saturdays, except snow removal as needed. Occasionally, the employees work until dusk if they start late due to weather conditions. The work crews (two or three) come in and load equipment and supplies needed for the day and go to the job sites. Occasionally, the crews might return to the property during the day, but this is unusual.

Deckard stated that there is a significant parking available on the property. Most vehicles used would be on the elevation of the neighboring businesses. He explained that the driveway is wide with two entrances and the trucks they use are smaller, with better visibility than what has been used on the property in the past (feed trucks, cement mixers and trash trucks). Deckard stated that he plans for the employees to park on the large gravel lot (145'x60') at the east end of the property (presently being used to park cars, trucks and boats.)

The equipment that may be used on the property could include (while loading/unloading) lawn mowers and a small skid steer loader. Customer's yard waste would not be disposed on the property.

Deckard explained that the substitution of use of the property would not generate higher levels of noise, smoke, glare or other nuisance conditions or safety hazards beyond the boundaries of the property than what existed in the past (storage of and repairs to feed trucks, large augers, cement mixers and trash trucks). He added that the use would be a safer and aesthetically pleasing improvement as part of the residence and the neighborhood.

Deckard stated that the family would like to maintain a pony/horse and a small number of noncommercial livestock for home educational purposes. The livestock would be housed at the existing barn structure. He noted that he understands the criteria for noncommercial keeping of livestock.

Deckard addressed the criteria under Section 505, pertaining to a substitution of a nonconforming use. He submitted photographs of the existing property and detailed where the operation would be conducted in conjunction with each of the photographs. The Board inquired what other items would be stored on the property. Deckard responded that fertilizer and deicing salt would be stored inside the barn on the property. He added that only mulch and topsoil would be stored outside on the property. He stated that his equipment would be stored indoors; however, their vehicles (8 trucks and 1 van) would be parked outside on the parking lot. He noted that no retail sales would occur on the property and the mulch that would be stored on the property would be delivered by the company he purchased it from. He indicated the proposed location of the mulch/topsoil storage area for the benefit of the Board. He explained that the mulch/topsoil would be placed on an existing concrete pad. He explained that a hedge is located on the property that would screen the mulch storage area from the closest adjoining residential property. Deckard explained that the pony/horse would be housed in a "tool shed" attached to the existing barn.

The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment.

Jacob Conrad was sworn in. He explained that he purchased the property in 1976 and approximately four years ago, he sold his residence along Hollywood Avenue and has been living at the home on the property. He explained that large trucks and equipment have been stored in the upper parking lot for approximately 15 years. He expressed the opinion that the proposed use of the property would be better for the neighborhood. Conrad explained that the truck traffic at the site was continuous throughout the day.

George Stoller, 30 Diane Avenue, inquired whether or not the request before the Board is for a home occupation. The Zoning Officer explained that the Board will need to determine whether or not the Applicant needs a Special Exception for a home occupation. He stated that the Applicant will need to provide testimony confirming that a similar business was conducted at the property within a one-year time period in order for the case to be heard as a substitution of a non-conforming use. Otherwise, the case will need to be heard as a Special Exception for a home occupation, with the appropriate Variances to operate the business as indicated. He added that, if approved, the Special Exception would apply to the property, and not to the individual property owner.

A resident inquired whether or not a fence would be constructed around the entire property. Deckard responded that only the pasture area for the pony/horse is proposed to be fenced. The resident expressed concern that if the use is granted, the business could expand and grow into a larger operation. The Zoning Officer explained that the proposed use of the property could not be changed unless the property owner would request and receive additional zoning approval. In addition, a proposed use could not be more detrimental than the existing use.

Calvin Yoder, 24 Diane Avenue, expressed the opinion that the activity that has occurred on the property over the past year has increased dramatically than the use at the property in previous years. He inquired whether or not there is a deed restriction on the property. The Chairman responded that the Township does not have the jurisdiction to address deed restrictions.

Paul Nichols, 6 Robert Road, submitted photographs of the property located at 1249 E. Newport Road that were taken from his property. He expressed concern over the number of livestock that could be kept on the property. The Zoning Officer explained that the minimum lot size for non-commercial keeping of livestock is 3 acres. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance would permit 3 ponies/horses to be maintained on the property. He noted that the number of livestock that can be kept on the property is categorized by weight and outlined the guidelines for the benefit of those present. He explained that the structures that house ponies/horses must be kept 75' from the property line; however, since the Applicant wishes to use the existing barn on the property which is closer than 75' from the property line, he has requested the Variance. He noted that the Applicant would like consideration for 2-3 chickens on the property also which would be part of a 4-H project.

Barry Blodgett, 26 Diane Avenue, requested that the Board consider including a condition that would require the Applicant to install a fence or evergreen trees between his property and the adjoining residential properties.

Mike Leeking, 1250 East Newport Road, explained that the stone parking lot across from his home was installed to accommodate the vehicles being worked on by the previous business so that the entrance to his home would not be blocked since they have a shared access.

Dennis Beck, 27 Brookwood Drive, expressed the opinion that since the Applicants would also be living at the property, this use would be better for the property and the neighboring properties than someone who would only use the property to conduct a business where they would be working on cars in the barn, etc.

A resident expressed concern over manure runoff from the property since it is at a higher elevation from the surrounding properties.

Diane Conrad, 1249 East Newport Road, explained that horses are maintained on the adjoining property.

Mark Westwood, 28 Diane Avenue, explained that he is unsure whether or not a business was conducted at the property and added that he has lived at his property for several years and would not know that the business was there since it could not be heard.

David Deckard explained that for as long as his business has been at its current location, he has not had complaints from any of the neighbors.

Mike Winpenny, 44 Diane Avenue, explained that he has lived at his property since 1996 and he has hardly seen any business activity at the property. He explained that he would welcome Deckard as a neighbor since the property is zoned residential; however, he is concerned over the business at the property.

Jacob Conrad explained that his business operated from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and explained that he would provide copies of work orders supporting the business that operated at this location.

The Board inquired what type of trucks would be parked on the property.

Deckard responded that he uses pick-up trucks and added that eventually, he would like to purchase a 1-ton pick-up truck for the business. He explained that he would not park trucks in the area behind the home since that's where his children would play. He added that the trucks would be parked in the upper lot which is at a higher elevation away from the residential properties.

Deckard explained that if approved, he would maintain livestock on the property in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Chairman inquired whether or not the horse could be housed in a different location in the barn. Deckard explained that the area chosen is the only area that would have direct access to the pasture area.

The Chairman inquired whether or not another opening could be provided in the barn in order to eliminate or reduce the need for the Variance request. Deckard testified that the structure that would house the pony/horse is approximately 54' from the property line.

The Board recessed for 10 minutes. The Chairman reconvened the meeting.

The Chairman inquired whether or not the Applicant would be agreeable to screening the outside mulch/soil storage area from the neighboring residential properties. The Applicant indicated that he would be agreeable to screen the area. The Chairman inquired if the pony/horse could be housed in the upper portion of the barn in order to eliminate the need for the Variance request. The Applicant indicated that he would need to walk the pony/horse around the barn in order access the pasture area and indicated that he would be agreeable to the proposal. The Applicant testified that he would meet the requirements of Section 443, pertaining to the Non-Commercial Keeping of Livestock, if the proposal were approved. On a motion by Wenger, seconded by Burkhart, the Board voted unanimously to approve a Special Exception under Section 505 of the Zoning Ordinance contingent upon no more than six trucks (no larger than a 450 dual wheel dump truck) being be parked on the property and must be parked in the upper stone parking area, upon the outside mulch/topsoil storage area being screened from the neighboring residential properties, and upon the hours of operation being limited to Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

On a motion by Wenger, seconded by Goldman, the Board approved a Special Exception under Section 443 to allow the non-commercial keeping of livestock in accordance with the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance.

CASE #578, JOHN BECK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - VARIANCE: The Chairman read the application received from the Warwick School District, 301 West Orange Street, Lititz, PA 17543. The Applicant is seeking a Variance to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 201.8.C.2, pertaining to a side yard setback in an Agricultural Zone. The Applicant would like to temporarily place a modular unit at the John Beck Elementary School, 418 East Lexington Road and is seeking approval for a 0' setback along the east portion of the building for one year.

David Hevener, representing Warwick School District, was sworn in. Hevener stated that they wish to install a 94'x48' modular unit at the John Beck Elementary School which would be used as a classroom on a temporary basis until the renovations to the school are completed. The Zoning Officer stated that the Applicant issued letters to the two affected property owners and both are agreeable to the proposal. The Applicant is requesting a time period from the spring of 2002 until the fall of 2003 for the modular unit to remain on the property. The modular unit will provide for 4 individual classrooms which would be accessed via a common doorway that leads to a hallway that accesses each of the rooms. Hevener testified that the proposal will need to comply with the appropriate Department of Labor and Industry codes. He noted that the Department of Labor and Industry will inspect the modular unit when it is installed. The modular unit will have temporary 36" concrete circular, post-like footings which were designed by the firm of Reese, Lower, Patrick & Scott. On a motion by Goldman, seconded by Burkhart, the Board unanimously approved a Variance under Section 201.8.C.2 to place a modular unit at the John Beck Elementary School contingent upon written approval from the adjoining property owners, upon the time limit specified in the February 6, 2002 letter from the Warwick School District which was submitted with the application being adhered to, and contingent upon removal of the modular unit no later than the fall of 2003.

REVIEW OF THE TRAJAN PUTNIK PLAN (CASE #574): The Zoning Officer stated that this item was not advertised as a zoning hearing. He explained that the Board previously reviewed and approved the Case for Putnik. He explained that following zoning approval, the Applicant submitted a plan for Land Development approval which differs from the plan that was presented at the zoning hearing. The Zoning Officer explained that the case as presented only related to Lot A, and the revised plan, which was submitted as a Land Development plan, illustrates additional parking on an adjoining lot owned by the Applicant. The Zoning Officer noted that the approval of the case was based on the use of Lot A, only. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained that the Board needs to determine whether or not its decision might have been affected if the information regarding the additional parking on the adjoining lot was presented at the zoning hearing. The Chairman stated that it appears that the size of the business would be doubled. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor stated that the size of the proposed business is not necessarily a factor. He explained that since the case was decided based on testimony that no additional parking would be provided, it is possible that the Board's decision may have been affected by this fact. The Zoning Officer explained that Lot A of the plan has not changed from the Zoning Hearing Board's decision. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained that the plan is being submitted for input by the Board regarding the revised plan. He added that the Board would not be providing a determination regarding the change at this evening's meeting.

Burkhart expressed the opinion that the Applicant should resubmit the plan for zoning review. The Zoning Officer stated that during testimony, the Applicant indicated that the rear lot was not a part of the zoning hearing. The Board is in agreement that the Applicant should resubmit the plan for zoning review.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas L. Zorbaugh
Code and Zoning Officer