Springettsbury Township Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Mark Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

ACTION ON THE MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2026

Mr. Robertson requested a correction to the minutes with the removal of the word “Attorney” before the name Swomley, as Mr. Swomley is not an attorney. The minutes will be corrected accordingly. Chris Coulson moved approval of the minutes as corrected, seconded by Brian Kauffman. All Planning Commission members present voted in favor and the motion carried.

BRIEFING ITEMS

No briefing items were presented.

 

ACTION ITEMS

LD-2026-0001 – Mount Zion Commons, LLC Land Development Plan

Mr. Heilman provided a brief review of the land development plan submitted for the Mount Zion Commons project, noting this is the third version presented to the Planning Commission. The attorney, the developer and the consulting engineer were present to present the plan and/or respond to questions of the Planning Commission.

Chairman Robertson announced to members of the public in attendance that the project team and the Commission would conduct their review of LD-2026-0001 first, followed by a public comment session. The purpose of the meeting was to review the final land development plan, discuss outstanding issues and make a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Chairman clarified that the Planning Commission’s role is not to grant final approval, but to recommend to the Board of Supervisors for review. Final approval rests with the Board of Supervisors.

Stacey MacNeal, Attorney, Barley-Snyder

Attorney Stacey MacNeal, representing the Applicant, provided a summary of the mixed-use development project located at the corner of East Market Street and Mount Zion Road. The project, which has been in development for three to four years, consists of three multi-family buildings (170 units), a convenience store with gas service, and three additional commercial buildings.

Attorney MacNeal stated significant progress had been made since the last review two months prior, and the team was presenting a “pretty clean preliminary/final plan.” She outlined the few remaining outstanding issues, which are primarily administrative or awaiting third-party approvals.

The applicant’s team and Township staff detailed the status of several critical external approvals which must be satisfied before the plan may proceed to the Board of Supervisors.

PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP): The traffic consultant, Eric Mountz, was not able to attend this meeting, but provided a memo explaining that the project is awaiting conditional plan approval from the Township in order to proceed with PennDOT. Key items like right-of-way dedication and stormwater consistency letters are needed before PennDOT will finalize the permit. It was noted that PennDOT has not yet approved the Highway Occupancy Permit.

DEP Planning Module: An exemption request was submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on July 6, 2026. The team is currently awaiting a response.

NPDES Permit: The team recently received technical comments from the Conservation District. The project engineer, Chris Riggle, confirmed that the comments are manageable, will not significantly alter the site design, and are already being addressed for resubmission. Mr. Robertson added that the York County Conservation District has a six-page list of items that require correction on the stormwater management plans.

Mr. Riggle reported that an Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to the Township in March. Mr. Heilman confirmed receipt.

Mr. Riggle reviewed three specific waivers that are requested for the project:

§ 289-13.A. – Plan Sheet Size – A waiver to use 30” x 42” plan sheets instead of the Township-required 24” x 36”. This larger size allows the entire site to be viewed on a single sheet, providing a clearer presentation.

§ 289-31 – Concrete Curb Height of 8 Inches – A waiver to use 6-inch curbs within the private development’s internal parking areas, as opposed to the standard 8-inch curb required on public roadways. The 6-inch height is considered the industry standard for private developments.

§ 289- 10.A. – Preliminary Plan – A formal request to waive the separate preliminary plan stage, as the project is being submitted as a preliminary/final plan. This item needs to be formally added to the plan’s cover sheet.

Planning Commission Questions and Concerns

Planning Commissioners raised the following questions and concerns for discussion:

Plan Labeling: The plan needs to be consistently labeled as a “Final Land Development Plan.”

Driveway Profiles: Access drive and driveway profiles currently in the HOP plans must be duplicated directly into the land development plan set for the Township’s records.

Unit Count Discrepancy: It was noted that some plan documents list 160 units while others state 170. The applicant was instructed to perform a consistency check and correct all documents to reflect the accurate number of 170 units.

Stormwater Management: Township Engineer John Luciani noted that a resubmission of the stormwater plan is required. The design was recently changed to a “managed release concept,” and this was the first review of the new approach. While the comments are not all administrative, Chris Riggle, the applicant’s engineer, expressed confidence in addressing them alongside the NPDES revisions.

Architectural Elevations: It was reiterated that the architectural elevations submitted and recorded with the plan must be the final versions, with no future variations permitted. This was reinforced by the confirmation that the developer is legally bound to adhere to the conditions of the conditional use decision issued two years prior.

Market Street Access: A member of the Planning Commission questioned the full-access drive on East Market Street, expressing concern about traffic safety. The applicant’s team confirmed that PennDOT and their traffic consultant had reviewed and approved this access point.

Public Comment and Resident Concerns

Chairman Robertson opened the floor to public comment. The following persons provided comments and concerns.

Jonathan Stayer, 98 Eisenhower Drive

Mr. Stayer read a lengthy statement he prepared for the meeting. He described the project as an “ecological disaster” that will be in his backyard, highlighting the loss of green space, an increase in impervious surface from 20% to nearly 80%, and potential for noise, light and air pollution affecting the residents of Springetts Apartments. He questioned the need for another gas station and more retail. Mr. Stayer stated the proposed traffic patterns would create confusion and violate a township ordinance designed to minimize congestion. Mr. Stayer urged the Planning Commission to reject the plan as it will have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding community.

Lisa Dumps, 73 Mt. Zion Road

Lisa Dumps expressed her number one concern is the increase in traffic that will be created as a result of the Mount Zion Commons project. She stated that the four-story apartment buildings are out of character for the surrounding community and will eliminate the 11 acres of green space. Ms. Dumps stated the proposed playground for the new development is way too small for the number of children that may be using it.

Other concerns include the increase in foot traffic and the amount of light pollution coming into the area. Brian Steadman, 74 Morningside Drive

Mr. Steadman asked for a copy of the plan that he would be able to understand. Mr. Steadman also asked for an estimated construction timeline. It will take approximately 16 months for vertical construction, but a total of roughly two years from the start of grading to full operation.

Carol Thibodeau, 92 Eisenhower Drive

Carol Thibodeau questioned why the central plaza had not been moved to a more prominent location to serve as a true “gateway” to the community as intended by the Town Center Overlay. Ms. Thibodeau stated the same complaints made two years ago have not been addressed, such as the increased congestion, air, light and noise pollution, and the stormwater drainage. All of these items will have adverse effects on the surrounding residents and are a clear violation of the Town Center Overlay. She criticized the adequacy and placement of resident amenities, noting the tot lot and kids’ play area are too small and located in separate locations. The dog park’s proximity to the children’s area is also a concern. She challenged the developer’s claim that nearby parks (Springettsbury Park and North Hills Park) were sufficient substitutes for on-site recreation, stating North Hills Park appears to be a homeless encampment. Mr. Robertson explained that developers can pay a “fee in lieu of” dedicating park land, with these funds used to maintain public parks. Ms. Thibodeau argued this policy creates a lower quality of life for new residents. It is Ms.

Thibodeau’s opinion that the developer does not care about the current or future residents and the adverse effects Mount Zion Commons will create on the residents. For all these reasons, she urged the Planning Commission not to approve the plan.

James Singleterry, 34 Bloomingdale Court

James Singleterry expressed concern about the increased traffic. He stated that making a left turn from the Springetts Apartments onto Market Street is already dangerous, and the increased congestion will make it impossible to get out on Market Street. Other concerns included potential for increased crime and increased costs for people on fixed incomes.

Brian Trostle, 9 Bloomingdale Court

Brian Trostle questioned the market demand for three large, four-story apartment buildings, citing visible vacancy signs at other nearby complexes. He requested to see the market study justifying the need for three more apartment buildings.

Richard Padolsky, 3 Eisenhower Drive

Richard Padolsky expressed concerns over increased traffic that will be created by the new development. He suggested installing a new traffic signal at the Springetts Apartment entrance/exit would alleviate some of the traffic concerns.

Following all public comments, the following responses were shared.

• Mr. Robertson shared that a former Planning Commission member who worked in the area of real estate often commented that there is a housing shortage in the Township.
• Township Solicitor Mr. Wymard clarified that if an applicant meets the ordinance requirements, the land development plan must be recommended for approval, as it is privately held land.
• Mr. Robertson reiterated that the Planning Commission does not have final approving authority and may only recommend a plan to the Board of Supervisors for final review.
• Mr. Heilman noted that a conditional use approval was granted two years ago and the applicant must abide by the criteria noted in the conditional use approval.
• Members of the public were reminded that there are a number of third party requirements that must be met before construction may begin, such as PennDOT’s Highway Occupancy Permit, concerns from the York County Planning Commission, and issues reported by First Capital Engineering.
• Mr. Kauffman stated he was in agreement with many of the concerns expressed by the public in attendance this evening; however, the Planning Commission’s duty is to determine if the land development plan presented meets all the Zoning ordinance requirements and the conditions applied under the conditional use application that was approved two years ago.

Chairman Robertson entertained a motion.

MOTION ON MODIFICATION/WAIVERS FOR CASE LD-2026-0001:

IN THE CASE LD-2026-0001, BRIAN KAUFFMAN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS/WAIVERS FOR THE FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MOUNT ZION COMMONS:

§ 289-13.A. – Plan Sheet Size – A waiver to use 30” x 42” plan sheets instead of the Township-required 24” x 36”.

§ 289-31 – Concrete Curb Height of 8 Inches – A waiver to use 6-inch curbs within the private development’s internal parking areas, as opposed to the standard 8-inch curb required on public roadways.

§ 289- 10.A. – Preliminary Plan – A formal request to waive the separate preliminary plan stage, as the project is being submitted as a preliminary/final plan.

CHARLES STUHRE SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION CARRIED.

MOTION ON PRELIMINARY/FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CASE LD-2026-0001:

IN THE CASE LD-2026-0001, BRIAN KAUFFMAN MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE PRELIMINARY/FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTINGENT UPON THE FOLLOWING:

• THE APARTMENT BUILDING 50 AND 70 UNIT ELEVATIONS AND RENDERINGS BEING RECORDED AS PART OF THE FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET;
• THE PENNDOT HOP PLANS BEING ACCURATELY RECORDED IN THE FINAL LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET OR ATTACHED AND RECORDED;
• SECURING ALL THIRD-PARTY APPROVALS;
• SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSING ALL COMMENTS IN FIRST CAPITAL ENGINEERING’S REVIEW LETTER OF 8/13/26 WITH ALL STORMWATER COMMENTS ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTION OF FIRST CAPITAL ENGINEERING PRIOR TO TAKING THE PLAN TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
• SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS IN THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S PLAN SUMMARY DATED 8/20/2026.

CHRIS COULSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION CARRIED.

Project Timeline and Next Steps

The developer’s attorney submitted a letter requesting an extension, aiming for the September 10, 2026, Board of Supervisors meeting. Commission members and staff expressed doubt that this timeline was realistic given the significant outstanding issues, particularly with stormwater plans. It was speculated that an October 2026 meeting is more likely. Solicitor Wymard noted that the Township must act by a specific timeline unless a further extension is granted, otherwise the plan could be deemed approved by default. Mr. Heilman confirmed the plan would not be on the August 27, 2026 Supervisors meeting agenda.

Mr. Heilman informed members of the public that project plans are available for public review at the Township building by calling him to schedule an appropriate time to do so.

Members of the public attending this meeting were reminded that all upcoming meeting agendas are available on the Township’s website about one week prior to each meeting.

MODIFICATION / WAIVER RECOMMENDATIONS

No additional modifications/waivers were presented.

INFORMATIONAL

No additional information was presented or discussed.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business to come before the Planning Commission.

OTHER BUSINESS

No other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.

Secretary

/jht