Chairman Gary Lefever convened the February 9, 2011 meeting of the Warwick Township Zoning Hearing Board at 6:30 p.m. Present were Board Members Gary Lefever, Scott Goldman, Dane St. Clair, Mark Will, Brent Schrock and Thomas Matteson. Also present were Township Code and Zoning Officer Thomas Zorbaugh, Zoning Hearing Solicitor Richard Nuffort, Court Reporter Rhonda Adams, Mike & Dawn Rettew, Chun Eng, Attorney James Strong, Bill Bowerman, Karl Eitner, Kevin Varner, Bruce Garner, Paul Wenger, Marlin Wenger, Mervin Wenger, Bonnie Hughes, Kim Nolan, Daryl Weaver, John King, Harold Apel, Sam & Naomi Stoltzfus, and Emma King.

MINUTES APPROVAL: On a motion by Lefever, seconded by St. Clair, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2011 meeting with a correction that the Code and Zoning Officer explained the procedures to be followed for the meeting.

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 #753, MIKE & DAWN RETTEW - CONTINUATION: The Chairman explained that this hearing is a continuation from the Board’s January 12, 2011 meeting. He stated that the Board will recess to an Executive Session to discuss the case with the Zoning Hearing Solicitor. The Chairman reconvened the meeting. The Chairman requested the Zoning Officer to clarify whether or not Red Maple Landscaping was a legally operating business at this location prior to this hearing. The Zoning Officer stated that he can not confirm that Red Maple Landscaping legally operated from this location. He noted that the business did not receive proper zoning approval from the Township to operate from this location. He added that testimony from last month indicates that the business has been operating from this location for 5-6 years. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained that the hearing has been advertised as expansion of a non-conforming use; however, since it appears that the use did not receive prior zoning approval, it can not be considered a non-conforming use. A non-conforming use must lawfully exist in order for it to be considered non-conforming. The Zoning Officer stated that he requested the Applicant to provide additional information on the existing business operation, and the proposed business operation.

Mike Rettew, representing Mike’s Landscaping, stated he was sworn in at last month’s meeting. He explained that he contacted Township staff prior to purchasing the building in order to determine whether he could operate his landscaping business at this location. He stated that he was advised that the current use is non-conforming and he would need a hearing to allow a substitution of a non-conforming use. The Zoning Officer explained that Red Maple used the building for storage, which is a use previously established at this location. He added that if they were operating their business from this location, he was unaware of the details. He said that it was his understanding that this proposed use would be operating in a similar manner; however, it became apparent that the use had expanded based on the number of vehicles parked on the property. He noted that the previous owners had used the property for antique storage, and furniture storage. He explained that he was under the impression that Red Maple used the lower half of the building for storage, only. He explained that this was the basis for the hearing to be advertised as a substitution and expansion of a non-conforming use. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor stated that the hearing application could be amended, and re-advertised. The Applicant stated that he will amend his application to apply for a Variance to allow the proposed use in the Agricultural zone.

The Zoning Hearing Solicitor inquired whether anyone objects to the application amendment.

Bonita Hughes, 841 Rothsville Road, stated she was present at last month’s meeting and added that she does not object to the hearing being continued to next month.

The Zoning Hearing Solicitor stated that Mark Will was not present at last month’s hearing. He inquired whether the Applicant objects to Will rendering a decision on the case. Rettew stated that he has no objections.

The Chairman stated that the information submitted by the Applicant appears to indicate that there are three proposed uses on the property. Rettew explained that the information references the previous property owner; however, he no longer uses the property. He noted that the proposal includes two landscaping businesses (Red Maple Landscaping and Mike’s Landscaping). The Chairman explained that the only previous use that lawfully existed was for storage, and not a landscaping business. Rettew explained that the previous owner used the building for antique storage and subsequently rented a portion of the building to Red Maple Landscaping. He requested the Board to consider allowing Red Maple to rent a portion of the building as they did with the previous owner. The Zoning Officer stated that he was originally advised that the proposal was for storage of landscaping equipment. He added that the current proposal would appear to be a commercial use. The Zoning Hearing Solicitor stated that the use of the property by Red Maple Landscaping needs to be clarified.

Rettew stated that Red Maple has employees that come to the site to pickup equipment and are gone for most of the day. He added that his proposed use is similar to what Red Maple has been doing for the past 5-6 years. The Chairman explained that it appears that Red Maple has been running a business at the property without zoning approval. Therefore, this proposal is not a substitution of a non-conforming use, it is for a business. The Chairman clarified that no one knew about Red Maple’s business operation prior to this zoning hearing. The Zoning Officer stated that if the Board approves a business at this location, certain land development issues may also need to be addressed.

On a motion by Lefever, seconded by St. Clair, the Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to March 9, 2011, and to allow the business to operate in the interim contingent upon the property being adequately maintained.

CASE #754, SAMUEL & NAOMI STOLTZFUS - SPECIAL EXCEPTION/VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning notice for the application from Samuel & Naomi Stoltzfus, 1140 Brunnerville Road, Lititz, PA 17543. The applicant is seeking a Special Exception to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 340-11.C.(2), pertaining to a Farm Occupation in an Agricultural Zoning District. The applicant would like to continue operating a nursery business from this property. The applicant is also requesting the following Variances: Section 340-69.C to allow outside sales, and to be closer than 100' from the road; Section 340-69.D to eliminate the need for screening from the road, and Section 340-69.G to allow the use to exceed 4,000 sq. ft.

Samuel Stoltzfus and Naomi Stoltzfus were sworn in. Board members St. Clair and Will stated that they will abstain from action on the case due to a conflict of interest.

Mr. Stoltzfus stated that they currently operate a nursery with flower and vegetable plants, and they would like to continue their business. He added that his son operates a mulch business at the property also. The Zoning Officer indicated the location of the business for the benefit of the Board. He explained that the Variances are being requested to reduce the impact to the use of the property as a farm. He stated that the property owner has two buildings that are 30'x100', and two buildings that are 15'x65' that he uses for the business (7,950 square feet total). He noted that all of these buildings are agricultural-related. He explained that the total square footage for the buildings exceeds the size permitted by 3,950 square feet. Stoltzfus stated that he farms 65 acres on the property, and rents additional acreage as part of the farm operation. The Zoning Officer explained that Stoltzfus has been operating the nursery for several years. The Chairman inquired how close to the road is the mulch sale area. Stoltzfus stated that the area is approximately 50' from the roadway.

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

Harold Apel, 13 Crimson Lane, stated that his property adjoins the farm. He stated that he would like to become a party to the case. Apel was sworn in. He stated that he has been a neighbor of Stoltzfus for approximately 9 years and he and his wife have purchased products from the greenhouse. He stated that he has not heard any objections to the aesthetics of the property viewed from Brunnerville Road. He added that the mulch pile is behind a brick wall. He expressed the opinion that there has not been any adverse impact to traffic resulting from the business operation.

John King, 1141 Brunnerville Road, stated that he is Stoltzfus’ father-in-law and he lives on the property. He explained that the greenhouse started as a small operation, and the business was expanded in order to provide additional income from the farm.

On a motion by Goldman, seconded by Lefever, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Exception under Section 340-11.C.(2) to allow the Farm Occupation, to grant a Variance of Section 340-69.C to allow outside sales, and to be closer than 100' from the road, to grant a Variance under Section 340-69.D to eliminate the need for screening from the road, and to grant a Variance of Section 340-69.G to allow the use to exceed 4,000 square feet as presented this evening. St. Clair and Will abstained from action on the case.

CASE #755, CHUN ENG - VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning notice for the application from Chun Eng, 16 West Ridge Drive, Lititz, PA 17543. The applicant is seeking a Variance to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 340-33.B, pertaining to driveway widths in a R-1 Residential Zoning District. The applicant would like to leave the 37' driveway opening as built.

Chun Eng was sworn in. The Zoning Officer stated that Eng constructed a parking facility at the end of West Ridge Drive. He added that a portion of the facility is located within the Township’s right-of-way, and also within an easement area. He noted that the facility is well-built. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance limits a residential driveway to a maximum of 22' wide. He noted that the 37' width includes the driveway and the parking facility. He stated that the parking facility was constructed over a stormwater pipe. He explained that Township staff has discussed the issue with Eng, and he is aware that if any damage occurs as a result of the parking facility, Eng will be responsible for the repairs. The Zoning Officer stated that if the Board approves the driveway, Eng would apply for the necessary building permit. He added that a Eng would also be required to sign a Storm Water Management Agreement if the Board approves the zoning request.

Schrock inquired whether any inspections were performed while the parking facility was being constructed. The Zoning Officer explained that no inspections were performed. He noted that the Storm Water Management Agreement stipulates that Eng would be required to repair any damage caused by the parking facility. He explained that as part of the building permit application, Township staff will request documentation of how the wall was constructed. Schrock expressed concern that the Board could be setting a precedent by permitting the wall to be constructed without conforming to the Township’s Ordinances. Goldman stated that this type of issue has been addressed by the Board, previously, and added that this is not a typical occurrence.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone present wishes to become a party, or to comment on the case. No one present indicated their desire to comment on the case.

On a motion by Lefever, seconded by Goldman, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Variance under Section 340-33.B as presented.

CASE #756, WEAVER'S GARAGE - SPECIAL EXCEPTION/VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning notice for the application from Tyler Scott, LLC, c/o Weaver's Garage, 533 East Newport Road, Lititz, PA 17543. The applicant will be represented by Kevin Varner, of Diehm & Sons, Inc. 15 Toll Gate Road, Lititz PA and Daryl Weaver of Weaver's Garage, Lititz. The applicant is seeking a Special Exception to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance under Section 340-112, pertaining to an expansion of a nonconforming use in a Rural Estate Zone. The applicant would like to demolish the existing facility and relocate a new enlarged building and reconfigure the access and parking area. The applicant is also requesting the following Variances: Section 340-112.A.(2) to allow the expansion to exceed 50%; Section 340-115 allow the building to exceed the previous approved expansion; Section 340-12.B to allow a side yard to be reduced from 20' to 12'; Section 340-35.D.(1)(b) to eliminate a landscaping strip; Section 340-35.D.(3) to eliminate screening from the adjoining property; Section 340-35.D.(2) to eliminate interior landscaping within the parking lot; Section 340-12.G to exceed the maximum impervious lot coverage by .07%, and Section 340-25.A to allow a retaining wall higher than 3' in a front yard setback.

Kevin Varner and Daryl Weaver were sworn in. Varner explained that the property contains approximately 2.57 acres located on the north side of East Newport Road, west of the intersection of Orchard Road. He indicated the location of the building, parking areas, and access on the site for the benefit of the Board. He stated that the property owner (Daryl Weaver) proposes to demolish the existing garage structure and construct a new garage that will be larger to accommodate the business. He stated that the site currently provides an access/egress from Orchard Road, and an access and an egress along East Newport Road. He explained that the plan proposes to retain the access/egress from Orchard Road, and to reconfigure the access along East Newport Road to create one access/egress from the roadway.

Varner stated that the proposed building would be relocated on the site, and the parking area would be relocated to the area that currently contains the existing building. Varner explained that, in 2003, the property owner (Daryl Weaver) had plans to expand the existing structure from the existing five bays to eight bays. At that time, he obtained various approvals from the Zoning Hearing Board for several of the same issues which are the subject of this application. He also obtained Land Development Plan approval for what was proposed at that time. Varner stated that Weaver did not proceed with the building expansions or other improvements depicted for this lot on the previous plans. At this time, the property owner believes that it is in his long term best interest to construct a new building rather than trying to continue expanding the older building as the previous plans proposed. The location of the new building has been chosen, in part, to allow the existing garage to remain during the construction of the new building. This would allow the business to continue operating during construction. The proposed building will have eight bays, similar to what was approved in 2003. There will be six overhead doors, with two of the doors having double bays.

Varner explained that Weaver currently employs himself and one other office employee, plus four technicians, for a total of six employees. There are no plans to hire additional employees. The new building is solely for the purposes of efficiency in the service and repair of vehicles. The garage is currently open Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. There are no plans to change these hours.

Varner stated that the current building is 3,310 square feet, and the plan proposes a new 7,160 square feet building. He explained that this is the basis for the Special Exception, and the Variance to increase the size of the nonconforming use, and the Variance to increase it beyond the 50% maximum permitted under the ordinance. He stated that several expansions of the existing building have occurred over the years, and the 50% expansion granted by the ordinance has been utilized. Varner explained that the current operation within the building is inefficient and the technicians have to work around each other in ways that require additional time for repairs. Furthermore, when small repairs are brought in, the technicians must take existing repair jobs, which may be up on a lift, out of the garage so that the small repair can be performed in the same space. The additional garage space in the new building, as well as the proposed double bays, will enable a much more efficient operation for the business by providing space for small repair jobs not requiring a lift, and providing more space for each bay with a lift.

Varner expressed the opinion that the impact of any approval on the neighborhood would be minimized by the following: Traffic in and out of the site is proposed to be consolidated at a single point of entry and exit instead of the separate in/out accesses present today. The increase in bays is primarily to accommodate efficiency and not to add employees. The aesthetic impact of the new building will be offset by the use of residential-style architecture.

The Variance of the minimum side yard setback is being requested due, in part, to a significant slope in the area adjacent to Newport Road. A detention basin serving the adjacent property is located on the rear of the property and is enclosed within a storm water easement. There is a shared access to the rear and northeast comer of the site as well. Shortening the depth of the building was considered to obtain the additional 8' necessary to meet the 20' setback; however, Weaver is proposing double bays in his garage so that minor repairs can be accommodated while larger repairs (requiring lifts) can be performed concurrently.

Varner explained that the Variances of the 10' parking lot landscape strip, and the requirement for screening are requested since Weaver proposes to relocate his building and consolidate his parking into a new parking lot located in roughly the area where his existing building is located. The parking lot is set back more than the required 10' from all property lines; however, the Applicant requests relief from the need to make these areas landscape strips. To the south of the proposed parking lot, the area adjacent to the property line is pavement which provides access to both to Weaver's parking lot and the adjacent property of Kimberly Weaver (Weaver's wife). This paved area is subject to a 20' wide access easement to protect it from being removed, which would deny vehicular access to Kimberly Weaver's property. To the north of the proposed parking lot, the adjacent property is owned by Weaver and is his primary residence. To the north, east, and west, there is existing landscaping on neighboring properties that provide partial buffering to the proposed parking lot (since the proposed parking lot is located where the existing business is located). The proposed building will also serve to screen the parking area.

Varner explained that a Variance of the interior landscaping within a parking lot is requested since this parking lot will function primarily as a place to store vehicles scheduled for repair, and which have been repaired and are awaiting pickup by the customers. The parking lot is located off the roadway and not directly adjacent to any property not owned by the applicant or his wife. Varner expressed the opinion that the amount of parking provided by this plan is the minimum necessary to effectively operate the business. The loss of additional parking to provide interior landscaping would diminish the number of spaces.

Varner explained that a Variance of maximum impervious lot coverage (10%) is requested since the existing lot coverage on the property is 38.3%. The proposed lot coverage is 39%, or an increase of 0.7%. There are several areas of existing pavement being removed, and a few areas of pavement being added. The Applicant believes the increase of 0.7% is de minimis, since the previous approval granted in 2003 approved up to 40% lot coverage for this property. Some of the lot coverage on the property is a driveway that provides access to Weaver's dwelling, and is not associated with the business. The pavement shown on the plan, both the existing pavement to remain and the proposed pavement to be added, are necessary to set up the business in the most efficient manner.

Varner explained that a Variance of the restriction that no wall shall be erected to a height of more than 3' in a front yard is being requested since the proposed retaining wall at the front of the building will be 9' high at the building wall, tapering to a lesser height as the wall goes away from the building. The retaining wall is proposed to provide grade transition to a proposed door providing access to the basement. The wall allows grades along the front of the building to taper from building floor height to existing grade until nearing the basement door location.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone present wishes to become a party, or to comment on the case. No one present indicated their desire to comment on the case.

The Zoning Hearing Solicitor explained that the previous approval (in 2003) was granted contingent upon the Applicant complying with Section 340-52 of the Ordinance, which pertains to automotive repair and service facilities. He inquired whether the Applicant would be agreeable to the same contingency being placed on any approval granted this evening. The Applicant responded in the affirmative.

The Board members briefly discussed the Variance requests. St. Clair stated that based on the uses surrounding, and near the property, it appears the request will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, if approved.

On a motion by Lefever, seconded by Goldman, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Special Exception under Section 340-112, pertaining to an expansion of a nonconforming use; to grant a Variance of Section 340-112.A.(2) to allow the expansion to exceed 50%; to grant a Variance of Section 340-115 to allow the building to exceed the previous approved expansion; to grant a Variance of Section 340-12.B to allow a side yard to be reduced from 20' to 12'; to grant a Variance of Section 340-35.D.(1)(b) to eliminate a landscaping strip; to grant a Variance of Section 340-35.D.(3) to eliminate screening from the adjoining property; to grant a Variance of Section 340-35.D.(2) to eliminate interior landscaping within the parking lot; to grant a Variance of Section 340-12.G to exceed the maximum impervious lot coverage by .07%, and to grant a Variance of Section 340-25.A to allow a retaining wall higher than 3' in a front yard setback, contingent upon the Applicant complying with Section 340-52 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to automotive repair and service facilities.

CASE #757, MEMBER'S 1^ST - VARIANCE: The Chairman read the zoning notice for the application from Members 1st Federal Credit Union, Attention: John Lippa, 5000 Louise Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. The applicant will be represented by James M. Strong of McNees, Wallace & Nurick LLC. The property is located at 901 Lititz Pike, Lititz, PA, and is located within the (LC) Local Commercial Zoning District. The applicant is seeking a Variance to the Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance pertaining to placement of signage under Section 340-38.B.(1)(I) for the number and area of signs.

Attorney James Strong was sworn in. He explained that the Applicant was before the Board on October 13, 2010 for several Variances; subsequently, the plan received rezoning and Conditional Use approval, and is currently in the Land Development Plan review process.

Attorney Strong submitted 5 exhibits into the record for the public hearing (Authorization Letter, Sign Plans, Revised Sign Plans, Rendering, and Revised Narrative). He explained that Members 1^st intends to install one approximate 40 square foot ground sign, which is permitted by the Ordinance. In addition, two approximate 3.94 square foot functional signs are proposed that direct motorists to the Branch’s entrance and drive-through. These functional signs are also permitted by the Ordinance. The Applicant originally proposed to place 7 wall signs with a total area of 65.71 square feet. The Ordinance allows only one wall sign with a maximum size not to exceed 40 square feet. Attorney Strong explained that each of the proposed wall signs is below the 40 square foot maximum, with the largest wall sign being only 15 square feet. He explained that two circular wall signs (8.87 square feet each) that were previously proposed have been eliminated from the current proposal. Therefore, the current request is for 5 wall signs with a total area of 47.97 square feet. Attorney Strong stated that the south elevation of the building will not have any wall signs, since this area faces residentially zoned properties. He outlined the location of each of the proposed signs for the benefit of the Board.

Attorney Strong noted that the property has frontage along both Lititz Pike (SR 501) and Owl Hill Road. Goldman inquired whether the logo window graphic is necessary, since individuals will know they are at Members 1^st when they enter the site. Attorney Strong explained that the property owner feels the request is for the minimum signage necessary for the brand.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone present wishes to become a party, or to comment on the case. No one present indicated their desire to comment on the case.

Bill Bowerman, representing Members 1^st Credit Union was sworn in. Bowerman stated that the proposed window in the building was designed to accommodate the Members 1^st window decal. Goldman inquired whether this sign is necessary, since there is a "Member 1^st" wall sign located on the same side of the building. A Board member inquired whether the ATM sign is necessary. A representative of the sign company stated that the sign is simply a light source for the ATM machine, and they could remove the lettering if needed, and the light would remain. The resulting total wall signage would be reduced to 44.37 square feet if the ATM sign is removed. Matteson expressed the opinion that the signage request appears reasonable as presented since the property is located along an arterial road and a collector street.

On a motion by Goldman, seconded by Will, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Variance under Section 340-38.B.(1)(I) to allow 5 wall signs with a total area of 47.97 square feet.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas Zorbaugh
Code and Zoning Officer