Vice-Chairman Scott Goldman convened the October 13, 2010 meeting of the Warwick Township Zoning Hearing Board at 6:30 p.m. Present were Board Members Scott Goldman, Mark Will, Dane St. Clair, and Brent Schrock. Gary Lefever was absent. Also present were Township Manager Daniel Zimmerman, Township Zoning Officer Thomas Zorbaugh, Zoning Hearing Solicitor Neil Albert, Crystal Dull, James Strong, Craig Mellott, Sam High, Tammy Evans, Chris Wilson, A. Richard Erisman, A. Navarro, Jeff Rutt, Daniel Witmyer, Katherine Hartsell, John Lapp, Bruce Garner, John Lippa and Nelson Peters..

MINUTES APPROVAL: On a motion by St. Clair, seconded by Schrock, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2010 meeting as submitted.

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

The Vice-Chairman suggested that the zoning hearing application for Members 1^st Federal Credit Union be heard after the other two hearing applications, since this application will take more time for review. The Board members are in agreement to rearrange the hearing cases as suggested.

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

CASE #748, BILL AND CRYSTAL DULL - SPECIAL EXCEPTION/VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning notice for the application received from Bill & Crystal Dull, 1726 Old Rothsville Road, Lititz, PA 17543. The applicant is seeking a Special Exception to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 340-14.C.(1), pertaining to a Home Occupation in a R-1 Residential Zoning District. The Applicant would like to operate an art studio from her home. The applicant is also requesting a Variance of Section 340-78.L to allow their sign to be four square feet instead of two square feet.

Crystal Dull was sworn in. Dull stated she has had an art studio for 24 years, and has lived at the current location for approximately 9 years. She explained that she is taking her studio from a private status to a public status. She added that she teaches watercolor and drawing classes for adults and youth. She explained that the property has an area for at least 6 cars to be parked in three driveways. She stated that she also does commission work, prints and illustrations. She stated that she would like to have a 2' x 2' sign ("Art Studio & Gallery 419-9566"), although the Ordinance only allows a 1' x 2' sign. She added that the sign would be placed near the driveway.

Dull stated that she would like to allow customers to come to the studio with hours by appointment, Fridays from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesdays from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 pm., and on the third Saturday of each month from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. She noted that should would be part of the Pennsylvania Art Tour. She stated that she would have no more than 7 students per class, unless she has an open house. For an open house scheduled in October, she has received permission from the neighboring church (Salem United Methodist Church) to use their parking lot. She noted that an open house would be held approximately once every two months. She explained that the Friday hours would be for the general public. She stated that class hours are Monday from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and Tuesdays from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. & 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Dull explained that the art studio business would occupy a 14'5" x 16'7" room with an outside entrance. The studio has approximately 239 square feet, and the home has 2,016 square feet.

The Township Manager inquired how parking is provided on the property, since the proposal is for 7 students, and only 6 parking spaces are provided. Dull stated that one of the parking spaces could be double-parked. The Township Manager inquired whether students would need to back out of the parking spaces onto Old Rothsville Road. Dull stated that students would need to back into the parking spaces so they can leave the property and access directly to Old Rothsville Road, rather than backing into the roadway. She added that individuals that park near the house have sufficient area to turn around. She noted that she would post a sign indicating that motorists should back into the parking spaces. She explained that if someone does pull into the parking space, she would direct them out of the parking space. The Township Manager expressed concern that motorists would be required to back into parking spaces on the property. The Board briefly discussed the parking spaces on the property. Dull stated that other than when she has classes, she anticipates no more than 3 individuals at the studio at any one time. Dull testified that she would not sell incidental art supplies, only the work she produces.

The Board recessed briefly to discuss the case with the Zoning Hearing Solicitor. Upon reconvening the meeting, the Chairman announced that the Board will continue the hearing to their regularly scheduled meeting on November 10, 2010. On a motion by St. Clair, seconded by Goldman, the Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to their regularly scheduled meeting on November 10, 2010 in order to provide sufficient time to allow the applicant to clarify the available parking area(s) on the property, and to clarify the proposed hours of operation.

CASE #750, JOHN & SARAH ANN LAPP - SPECIAL EXCEPTION/VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning hearing notice for the application received from John & Sarah Ann Lapp, 73 S. Ronks Road, Ronks, PA 17572. The applicant is the equitable owner of the tract located at 1553 E. Newport Road, Lititz, owned by Timothy & Tammy Evans. The applicant is seeking a Special Exception to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 340-11.C.(8), pertaining to the noncommercial keeping of livestock in an Agricultural Zoning District. The applicant would like to maintain two working class horses on a two acre tract. The applicant is also requesting the following Variances to allow the barn to be situated in a front yard setback due to the topography of the lot: Section 340-11.H.(4).c & 340-87.C to allow the barn to be located in a front yard setback; Section 340-11.H.(4).(f) to allow the barn to be 25' instead of 20' tall; and Section 340-87.B.(3) to allow the building to be 50' instead of 75' from a side yard setback.

John Lapp was sworn in. Lapp stated that he would like to maintain two working horses that he uses for transportation on the East Newport Road property. The Township Manager explained that the Variances are requested due to the steep topography on the property. Lapp stated that he is unsure whether a pasture fence would be constructed. The Board members explained that a livestock fence must be at least 10' from the property lines. Lapp stated that manure would be taken to a neighbor’s field. Lapp stated that he is thinking of placing a temporary shed on the property to house the horses, and the actual barn would be constructed in a few years. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained that the ordinance is not specific to the type of structure that could be used. He added that if the established setback requirements would be met, the temporary structure could be used to house the horses.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone present wishes to comment on the proposal.

Daniel Witmyer, 1547 East Newport Road, was sworn in. Witmyer stated that his property neighbors Lapps, and he does not object to the proposal.

The Board discussed the location of the proposed barn. The Township Manager stated that it appears the barn is located 50' from the edge of the roadway, rather than the centerline of the roadway, as illustrated on the applicant’s plot plan. He inquired whether the barn would be located closer to the roadway than the home. Lapp stated that the barn would not be closer to the roadway than the existing home. The Board inquired why is the proposed barn 25' instead of 20' high. Lapp responded that he would like to install a second story for hay and other storage. The Board members clarified how the height of the structure would be measured due to the topography of the property, and Lapp responded that he measured to the highest peak of the roof. Based on this discussion, the Board determined that a height Variance would not be needed.

On a motion by Goldman, seconded by Will, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Variance under Section 340-11.H.(4).c & 340-87.C to allow the barn to be located in a front yard setback, due to the topography of the land. The approval is contingent upon the location of the barn being setback from the roadway at least as far as the existing home.

On a motion by Will, seconded by St. Clair the Board voted unanimously to grant a Variance under Section 340-87.B.(3) to allow the building to be 50' instead of 75' from the side property line.

The Board is in agreement that a Variance of Section 340-11.H.(4).(f) to allow the barn to be 25' instead of 20' tall is not needed since the structure would meet the height based on the building code measurement.

On a motion by St. Clair, seconded by Goldman, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Exception under Section 340-11.C.(8), to allow two working class horses on the two acre tract.

CASE #749, MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION - VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning hearing notice for the application received from Members 1st Federal Credit Union, 5000 Louise Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. The applicant will be represented by James M. Strong of McNees, Wallace & Nurick LLC. The property contains two parcels and the physical address is 901 Lititz Pike, Lititz PA. The applicant is seeking the following Variances to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance pertaining to placement of a new Credit Union at the intersection of Route 501 and Owl Hill Road in the (LC) Local Commercial Zoning District and the R-1 Residential Zoning District: Section 340-66.F to allow the drive-thru to be closer than 200' from the R-1 zone, Section 340-16.1.F.(1) to allow the building to be setback further than 25', Section 340-16.1.F.(4) to allow a buffer strip to be combined and to be placed on both the LC and R-1 properties, and Section 340-14.B to allow an access drive for the commercial property to be located within the residential tract.

Attorney James Strong stated he is present this evening to represent the applicant. Attorney Strong stated that the site consists of two separate tracts. The tract at the intersection of SR 501 and Owl Hill Road is zoned Local Commercial, and the adjoining tract along Owl Hill Road is zoned R-1 Residential. The plan proposes construction of a credit union building on the local commercial zoned tract, and an approximate 10,947 square foot portion of the adjoining residential tract is requested for rezoning to Local Commercial to accommodate the proposal. He noted that the rezoned area would be added to the proposed Members 1st Credit Union site. He explained that the site would be accessed via Owl Hill Road, and the access point would be shared between the Credit Union, and the residential property. Attorney Strong stated that the Warwick Township Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and recommends a favorable review of the project. He explained that the left-turn lane along Owl Hill Road would be extended in order to accommodate the proposal.

Attorney Strong stated that Section 340-66.F of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits drive-through facilities on lots that are located within 200' feet of any residentially-zoned land. Adjoining properties to the south and east of the property are within 200' of the property and are located in the R-1 Zone. Therefore, Members 1st needs a Variance to permit the proposed drive-through facilities on the Property. A 50' foot wide buffer yard, including vegetative cover, will be located between the proposed drive-through facility and the residentially-zoned properties to the south and east.

Attorney Strong stated that Section 340-16.1.F(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of not less than 15' and not more than 25' in the LC Zone. The property is a corner lot with road frontage along both Lititz Pike and Owl Hill Road and therefore, the property is deemed to have two front yards. Given the unique shape of the property and the fact that the property is a corner lot, it would be impossible to design a building that could comply with the setback requirements of Section 340-16.1F(1) along both road frontages. In addition, Section 340-16.1.F(1) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that drive-through facilities be located on the side or rear of a building. Thus, Members 1st had to locate the drive-through facilities on the southern and eastern sides of the branch building. By locating the drive-through facilities on the southern and eastern sides of the branch building, Members 1 st was forced to locate the main access drive and off-street parking area on the northern and western sides of the branch building, which front along Lititz Pike and Owl Hill Road. It is not possible to have an access drive, off-street parking spaces and drive aisles that comply with the Township's Zoning Ordinance without locating the branch building more than 25' from the right-of-way of Lititz Pike and Owl Hill Road.

Attorney Strong stated that Section 340-16.1.F(4) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 50' setback in the LC Zone for non-residential buildings, structures, off-street parking lots, loading areas and outdoor storage areas from any adjoining land that is in a residential zone. The required setback area must be used for a landscape strip and screen. Strong stated that the adjoining property is located in the R-1 Zone. Therefore, a 50' landscaped setback is required along the Property's eastern lot line. Given the relatively small size of the property, it is not possible to provide a 50' wide landscaped buffer yard along the property's eastern boundary. As an alternative, Members 1 st proposes a 50' wide buffer that is located partially on the property and partially on the adjoining property. Members 1st proposes to have a 20' wide portion of the buffer yard, including the required landscaping, located on their property. The remaining 30' wide section of the buffer would be located on the adjoining property. Members 1^st will obtain an easement from the owner to ensure that the 30' wide portion of the required buffer remains permanently undeveloped. The proposed 50' foot wide buffer, including landscaping, will screen and buffer any residential uses located on the adjoining property.

Attorney Strong stated that a Variance of Section340-14.B is requested to permit a commercial use access drive in the R-1 Zone. As depicted on the submitted plan, access to the branch facility will be provided from Owl Hill Road via an access drive that will be partially located on the adjoining property. Commercial uses are not permitted in the R-1 Zone under Section 340-14.B of the Zoning Ordinance. Members1st’s traffic engineer, and the Township's traffic engineer agree that the access drive entrance for the proposed bank facility should be located on the adjoining property, since access off of Lititz Pike is not feasible and would not be approved by PennDOT. Since the access drive entrance must be off of Owl Hill Road the increased distance from the intersection will permit road improvements (e.g. extending the existing left-turn lane on Owl Hill Road) and improve existing traffic conditions at the intersection. Attorney Strong expressed the opinion that the requested variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the R-1 Zone, or substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, or be detrimental to the public welfare.

Aaron Navarro, representing J. Michael Brill & Associates, explained that the lot has an irregular shape with limited frontage along Owl Hill Road. In addition, the lot has an unnamed tributary in a flood area, and these issues contribute to the need for the requested Variances. Navarro indicated the current property line of the property and explained that the local commercial tract currently contains an existing dwelling which would be removed as part of the proposal. He explained that the proposed building size is 3,500 square feet. The proposed layout includes 2 drive-through lanes and an ATM lane; in addition a through lane is proposed for individuals to drive around these areas, if needed, to exit the property. He outlined the parking areas for the benefit of the Board. He explained that sidewalk would be extended along the frontage of the site along Lititz Pike and Owl Hill Road. Navarro stated that the area proposed for rezoning consists of approximately 10,947 square foot area, that, if approved, would be added to the Members 1^st Credit Union property. He added that a public hearing on the rezoning request is scheduled for the October 20, 2010 Board of Supervisors meeting. Navarro explained that although the 50' buffer would be split between this property and the adjoining property to the east, the proposed 50' buffer to the south would be entirely within the Members 1^st property boundary. Navarro confirmed the Variances that are requested for the proposal and added that they are the minimum necessary to facilitate the proposal. Navarro indicated the location of the existing driveway and explained that as part of the proposal, this access is being moved 285' to the east so it is farther from the intersection of SR 501 and Owl Hill Road. Navarro expressed the opinion that the requested variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the R-1 Zone, or substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, or be detrimental to the public welfare.

Craig Mellott, representing Traffic Planning & Design, stated that he is the traffic engineer for the project. He provided his background for the benefit of the Board. Mellott confirmed the location of the existing access point, and the proposed area where the driveway would be relocated as part of the proposal. He stated that the left-turn lane along Owl Hill Road would be extended as part of the proposal, and the relocation would create less interference with motorists in the left-turn lane. He added that he worked with the Township’s traffic engineer on the driveway location, and noted that the driveway might be located slightly farther east during the land development stage of the plan. He explained that the current left-turn lane is approximately 105' in length, and with the proposed improvements with this project, the left-turn lane would be extended to 330' in length. Mellott stated that in order to make the proposal feasible, the access drive needs to be located on the adjoining residential tract. He expressed the opinion that any commercial development proposed for the Local Commercial zoned tract would need access via the residential lot, due to the minimum frontage of the commercial tract along Owl Hill Road. He added that the Variance to provide access on the residential lot would be needed by any commercial developer. He noted that the access point would also serve the residential tract. Mellott expressed the opinion that the requested variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the R-1 Zone, or substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, or be detrimental to the public welfare.

Navarro stated that the plan has been modified since the previous proposal based on recommendations by the Planning Commission, by Township staff, and by neighboring property owners. He explained that the proposed building size was reduced from 4,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet, which reduced the amount of parking and the number of drive-through lanes, and increased some of the landscaping in order to meet the guidelines of the ordinance.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone present wishes to comment on the proposal, or would like to become a party to the case.

Katherine Hartsell, 901 Lititz Pike, Apt. 2, was sworn in. Hartsell explained that she is a tenant of the existing house that would be torn down as part of the proposal. Hartsell described the historic nature of the house, and stated that she became aware of the proposal only recently. She stated that the house is a historic part of Lititz, and should not be torn down and replaced with a credit union.

The Township Manager stated that a historic inventory was conducted in both Lititz Borough and Warwick Township, and the home does not meet the specific criteria to be considered historically significant. Hartsell explained that the home contains historic relics (dress from 1883, iron mud rack, spinning wheel, etc.) from the previous and current property owner (Barbara Walter). She expressed concern that her children are now responsible for the property, and they have chosen to sell it to a commercial developer. She stated that she would not be favorable to the project even if she did not live in the house. She explained that if the Board does not grant the four variances requested, the property has no value to the developer. She noted that the property and house have been well maintained for over 160 years. She stated that she had not been informed of the proposal by the landlord, and the management company was not aware of the proposal. She stated that she moved from a home that she lived in for 13 years, and now she and her 3 children are going to lose their home. She encouraged the Board members to visit the home. She stated that the Board was concerned over the size of a sign for an art studio for a case earlier this evening, and they are currently considering a case with four Variance requests. The Township Manager explained that the case earlier this evening was for a commercial use in a residential zone, and the request for this case is for a property in the Local Commercial zone.

Sam High, 727 Furnace Hills Pike, was sworn in. High stated that he owns an adjoining property and requested to become a party to the case. He stated that he would like to receive a copy of the Board’s decision.

A. Richard Erisman, 17 East Woods Drive, was sworn in. Erisman inquired whether the drive-through lanes are necessary to accommodate the credit union. John Lippa, representing Members 1^st Credit Union, responded in the affirmative. Erisman inquired whether drive-through lanes are provided at all Members 1^st locations. Lippa responded that all locations that are open to the general public have drive-through lanes. He noted that the corporate office location, which is not a free-standing building, does not have a drive-through lane. Erisman inquired how large is the Neffsville branch building. Lippa responded that the building is approximately 1,800 square feet, and since it was previously a financial institution, they did not modify the building. Erisman inquired why a larger building is proposed at this location. Lippa explained that the building is based on the size of the market area and demographics. He added that this location would act as a hub to serve other branch locations.

Daniel Zimmerman, Warwick Township Manager, provided a background on the proposal for the benefit of the Board. He stated that, two years ago, Township staff reviewed the commercially-zoned properties in this area of the SR 501 corridor. He explained that, at that time, the Township had only one commercial zone, which would have allowed large scale uses in this region. He stated that due to the number of small tracts and limited access, the Township determined that a second, smaller scale commercial zone should be created. The proposal was reviewed on several occasions, and subsequently, the proposed Local Commercial zone regulations were modified based on conversations with affected property owners. He explained that originally, the proposed rezoning in this region included the adjoining residentially-zoned Walter property. Due to discussions with residents in this region, the Township decided to retain the residential zoning of the adjoining tract. He noted that intensive uses such as convenience stores and gas stations are not included within the Local Commercial zoning district; however, they would have been allowed under the previous Community Commercial zoning district. He explained that this Local Commercial zoning district, and revised Zoning Map were adopted by the Township on April 21, 2010. He outlined the area that was affected by the this rezoning. The Township Manager explained that one of the reasons for the shared access is to reduce the amount of access points along Owl Hill Road in this area. He added that the access point would also serve three residential properties, which were illustrated on an associated Sketch Plan, but that are not part of the current proposal. He explained that the Variance of front yard was requested by the applicant to improve the streetscape along the property. The Township Manager explained that since the adjoining tract was not rezoned, the 50' buffer strip to the east is not feasible on the site. He recommended that a condition of approval include a perpetual easement for the 50' buffer strip that would be 20' on the Applicant’s property, and 30' on the residential property. He stated that the 200' setback for drive-through facilities was a carry-over from the Community Commercial zoning district. He noted that the ordinance does not differentiate between a drive-through facility for a bank, or for a fast-food restaurant, which would have been allowed under the previous zoning of the property. He stated that fast-food restaurants tend to be open late at night, and have no roof to buffer sound. He added that the proposed use would not operate late at night, would be closed on Sunday, and would have a roof to buffer some of the traffic noise. He noted that he provided the history of the project in order to clarify the requested Variances. He expressed the opinion that the proposed use is much less intensive than some of the uses that would have been permitted under the previous Community Commercial zoning of the property. The Vice-Chairman clarified that the building is 54' farther from the roadway than the Ordinance allows. Attorney Strong explained that the building configuration was changed from the original proposal based on concerns by Township staff that customers would be walking through a parking area, or in front of a drive-through lane, based on the previous configuration. He added that the odd configuration of the lot, and fact that the lot has frontage along two roadways, impacted the layout of the property, and the need for the requested Variances.

Lippa stated that representatives of Members 1^st reviewed approximately 15 possible configurations of the lot to determine which one created the least amount of relief necessary. He stated that some of the configurations included angling the building and relocating the drive-through lanes. He stated that, for security reasons, they want the drive-through lanes to be visible from the street. He stated that the current configuration addresses their need for parking, as well as safety issues. Therefore, this project represents the minimum amount of relief necessary to accommodate the project. The Township Manager confirmed that the Warwick Township Planning Commission did not like the original proposal due to the size the building. The Commission requested a smaller building, a reduction of the number of parking spaces, a reduction in the number of drive-through lanes, and an increase in the amount of landscaping on the site. He stated that Township staff discussed 4 or 5 different scenarios as part of their review, to reduce the impact of the project. The Township Manager noted that a shared landscape buffer between two uses was also part of the Newport Square project, where the buffer is shared by Turkey Hill and the adjoining Church property.

On a motion by Goldman, seconded by St. Clair, the Board voted 3 to 1 to grant a Variance under Section 340-66.F to allow the drive-through to be closer than 200' from the R-1 zone, to grant a Variance under Section 340-16.1.F.(1) to allow the building to be setback further than 25', to grant a Variance under Section 340-16.1.F.(4) to allow a buffer strip to be combined and to be placed on both the LC and R-1 properties, and to grant a Variance under Section 340-14.B to allow an access drive for the commercial property to be located within the residential tract. The approval is contingent upon the construction project being commenced within one-year, and upon recommendation for consideration of a perpetual 50' landscape buffer easement between the Local Commercial and R-1 Residential zoned properties. Will voted against the motion.

CONSIDER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SHOPPES AT KISSEL VILLAGE: The Board reviewed the request. On a motion by Goldman, seconded by St. Clair, the Board voted unanimously to grant an extension of time until December 31, 2010 for the Shoppes at Kissel Village project.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.

The undersigned certifies that he was present at the meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board held on October 13, 2010, that he acted as the recording secretary at such meeting, and that the foregoing minutes are accurate in all material respects.

Daniel L. Zimmerman, Secretary

Based upon the foregoing Certification, the undersigned approves the minutes of the Zoning Hearing Board for the meeting held on October 13, 2010, and directs that the minutes be duly filed.

Thomas L. Zorbaugh, Code and Zoning Officer