Springettsbury Township Zoning Hearing Board Meeting Minutes

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Dale Achenbach called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Achenbach introduced members of the Zoning Hearing Board and Township staff.

REORGANIZATION / ELECTION OF OFFICERS

ACTION ON THE MINUTES

OLD BUSINESS

No old business was presented.

TOWNSHIP STAFF SWORN IN

The following persons were sworn in:

Randall Heilman, Director of Community Development
John Luciani, Interim Zoning Officer and Professional Engineer, First Capital Engineering

NEW BUSINESS

ZHB-2025-0001 – YORK SUBURBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT

Mr. Heilman reported that Case ZHB-2025-0001 was to be presented this evening; however, the applicant has requested a continuance until the March meeting. Chairman Achenbach asked for a motion to approve the request for continuance.

IN THE CASE ZHB-2025-0001, MR. SEILER MADE A MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OR CONTINUANCE UNTIL THE MARCH ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING. CHRIS SHUTTLESWORTH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL BOARD MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION CARRIED.

ZHB-2025-0002 – JCM LIVING, FALLBROOK FLATS APARTMENTS

Mr. Luciani confirmed that the case was properly advertised and posted, and provided a brief overview. The property is located at 3889 East Market Street in the F-D – Flexible Development Zoning District. The case was made known to the Township through the building permit process. The applicant is requesting a variance to section 325-134.B. to place an accessory building in the front yard along Yorklyn Gate Road. The ordinance requires accessory buildings to be placed in the rear of the principal building or structure. The Fallbrook Flats Apartment Complex fronts East Market Street, Yorklyn Gate Road and Stuart Drive, creating three front yards for the property.

The property was the former site of the York Valley Inn, which was demolished. Inch and Company redeveloped the property in 2021-22 to construct 150 apartment units within five different buildings. The property recently changed hands. A number of discussions have been held with the applicant. The applicant wishes to use a few of the existing parking spaces to place a shed along Yorklyn Gate Road which is within the front yard and would require relief from the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Luciani provided a copy of the overall land development plan that was provided by Inch & Company, as well as a hand-drawn plan provided by the applicant. The documents were entered into the record as exhibits Township-1 and Township-2. Mr. Luciani demonstrated on the map where the applicant wishes to place the accessory building along Yorklyn Gate Road. The proposed location is in the front yard where there is no landscaping or buffer. Township staff have suggested an alternate location in the backyard.

Mr. Mike Spencer of JCM Living was sworn in to provide testimony. Mike Spencer, Maintenance Supervisor for JCM Living

Mr. Spencer is employed by JCM Living as the Maintenance Supervisor. He is proposing the shed be placed in one of the three front yards in a corner of the parking lot along Yorklyn Gate Road in order for trucks to access it for deliveries and pickups of supplies and equipment. The shed would be used to store extra appliances, snow equipment, lawn equipment, parts and supplies.

Mr. Spencer stated the alternate location suggested by the Township would not be ideal due to water runoff in that area from Building D into a catch basin, and the inability of delivery trucks to access the area due to ground saturation.

Mr. Spencer stated there are plenty of parking spaces for the apartments, even with the elimination of a few for the placement of a shed in the parking area. He noted that the original plan drawing shows 200 apartments, but there are only 148 apartments in use. Three apartments were changed to a gym, community center/leasing office, and a permanent model apartment unit.

Mr. Spencer provided a photo of the shed to be purchased. The shed would be painted to match the apartment buildings.

Questions/concerns of Zoning Hearing Board:

Mr. Kauffman recalled that a variance was previously requested for a gazebo which also created an impervious coverage issue, but noted that placing the shed in the parking area would not create additional impervious area, to which Mr. Luciani confirmed the footprint of the structure is not great and no additional stormwater management would be necessary. Mr. Luciani noted that the purpose of the ordinance is mostly aesthetic.

Ms. Cunningham asked Mr. Luciani if the site can accommodate the loss of parking spaces required for the shed, to which Mr. Luciani believes there are enough spaces.

It is Mr. Luciani’s opinion that there is plenty of room in the backyard to place the structure. It would not be as accessible to trucks, but a hand cart could be used to take equipment and supplies to and from the shed.

Mr. Bair reviewed the property on Google maps prior to the meeting and at that time the map showed a container where the shed is proposed. Mr. Spencer responded that a dumpster was brought in when four tenants moved out and has been taken away.

Mr. Kauffman noted that the proposed placement of the shed is on the corner of two roadways, creating an issue with sight distance. He asked if there was another location within the parking area that would work for him. Mr. Spencer responded the shed would be seen no matter where it would be placed in the parking area. Mr. Luciani stated it could be placed behind Building D. Mr. Spencer responded there is a swale that runs behind Building D to the catch basin behind Building C. There is also a slight slope from the neighboring properties, making the area wet at all times making it impossible to use a hand truck.

Mr. Spencer noted there is 8 feet of grass between the road and the parking lot in the proposed area. Mr. Spencer stated he would be willing to plant shrubs to provide a buffer area to cover the shed from public view. Mr. Luciani responded that the planting of shrubs would create an issue for sight distance to traffic at the corner of Yorklyn Gate and Stewart.

Ms. Cunningham asked if it would be possible to place the shed between buildings C and D near the dumpster. Mr. Luciani does not think the area would be large enough to accommodate the shed. Mr. Spencer noted the shed might fit in that location, but the dumpster bin at the corner would make it hard for delivery trucks to access it.

Mr. Bair suggested the shed be placed on the opposite side of the parking area adjacent to the dog park. Mr. Spencer agreed this would move the shed back from Yorklyn Gate, removing the sight distance issue. Mr. Luciani responded this would be a more desirable location even though it would still be considered in the front yard.

Solicitor Markey asked if macadam would be needed for the structure to which Mr. Spencer responded it would be needed.

Ms. Cunningham’s opinion is there are other locations to place the shed so no hardship has been demonstrated.

Mr. Spencer shared that although there is plenty of space in the backyard behind the apartment buildings, it is all grass area that is constantly wet. Placing the shed in the backyard would require the construction of a pad to set it on and a driveway to access it, which would increase impervious area.

Mr. Heilman clarified that if the shed would be moved adjacent to the dog park, it would still be in the front yard requiring the necessity of a variance. The applicant responded this would be an acceptable alternative.

Chairman Achenbach entertained comments from the public in attendance with no response. Solicitor’s Opinion

Solicitor Markey provided his legal perspective. In the past, the Board has accepted hardships created by various lot frontages. The property in question has three front yards. The testimony indicates most of the areas suggested are not practical in terms of access and mobility for servicing the apartment complex. As Secretary Cunningham indicated, the Board does need to consider hardship. It was Solicitor Markey’s opinion that the hardship is a buildout of the land development plan that does not accommodate the applicant’s proposal, but the three front yards also create a hardship. If the Zoning Hearing Board is inclined to approve the variance, Solicitor Markey recommended conditions be placed on the approval that the proposed 12’ x 22’ shed be moved from the proposed location to the location directly across the parking lot abutting the dog park.

IN THE CASE ZHB-2025-0002, DAVID SEILER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO SECTION 325-134.B WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SHED BE MOVED ACROSS THE PARKING LOT TO THE AREA THAT ABUTS THE DOG PARK. MARK BAIR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL BOARD MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Achenbach instructed the applicant to work with the Township staff as needed. Mr. Heilman instructed the applicant to submit a modified application that reflects the new location approved by the Zoning Hearing Board.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 6:42 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretary

/jht