1 2 Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania 3 Northern Tier Coalition Comprehensive Plan 4 Public Hearing 5 6 * * * * 7 8 Apolacon Township 9 Choconut Township 10 Friendsville Borough 11 Little Meadows Borough 12 13 * * * * 14 15 An OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING in the matter of the 16 NORTHERN TIER COALITION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN held on the 23rd 17 day of April, 2008, commencing at 7:00 p.m., at the Saint 18 Francis Xavier Church Hall, Main Street, Friendsville, 19 Pennsylvania. 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: Deirdre Shepherd 2 1 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): I guess what we will do 2 is call this hearing to order. What I'd like to do is just 3 get a couple of things on the record. My name is Carson 4 Helfrich and I'm from Community Planning and Management, LLC 5 from Paupack, Pennsylvania, and as most of you know I've 6 been working with the Northern Tier Coalition on their 7 Comprehensive Plan which was adopted a couple of years ago. 8 We are currently in the process of putting 9 together zoning ordinances for all of the 12 municipalities. 10 What this advertised hearing is tonight is one of the 11 hearings required by the Pennsylvania Municipalities 12 Planning Code and this is actually one of four that have 13 been scheduled. This one tonight is the official hearing 14 for Apolacon Township, Choconut Township, Friendsville 15 Borough, and Little Meadows Borough. 16 So what I'd like to do is, again, get on the 17 record the local officials that are in attendance from those 18 municipalities. What I'd like you all to do is just let the 19 stenographer know your name, if you are supervisor or 20 council member, and your municipality. 21 MR. MCGUIGAN: Dave McGuigan, Apolacon 22 Township, Supervisor. 23 MR. THORNE: Gerry Thorne, Apolacon Township, 24 Supervisor. 25 MR. DOVIN: Bill Dovin, Choconut Township, 3 1 Supervisor. 2 MR. STEWART: Bill Stewart, Choconut Township, 3 Supervisor. 4 MR. MELESKI: Stan Meleski, Council Member, 5 Friendsville. 6 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Is there anybody else 7 here from Friendsville? Any other council members? 8 MR. MELESKI: No. 9 MR. STETSON: Dave Stetson, Little Meadows, 10 Council Member. 11 MR. FEHRINGER: Charles Fehringer, Little 12 Meadows, Council Member. 13 MR. OSBORNE: Craig Osborne, Town of Apolacon, 14 Supervisor. 15 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Thank you. What I'd 16 like to do tonight is, first of all, if anybody has any 17 statements or questions it is important to state your name 18 clearly and speak loudly so that the stenographer can take 19 the record, and also we can only have one person speaking at 20 a time. She only has one machine here tonight and can only 21 get one person at a time, so that's very important. 22 So what I'd like to do is, first of all, let 23 you know that this was duly advertised in accord with the 24 Municipalities Planning Code in the Susquehanna County 25 Independent on April 9th and April 16th; in the Binghamton 4 1 Press on April 9th and 16th; and notices were also placed in 2 the Wyalusing Rocket on April 10th and April 17th; and there 3 was a display ad in the Montrose Pennysaver on April 16th. 4 And again, that's for compliance with the Pennsylvania 5 Municipalities Planning Code. 6 So as the first part of the hearing, what I'd 7 like to do is if there's anybody that has any specific 8 statements directed at any of the particular sections of the 9 zoning ordinance itself, I'd like to take those folks first. 10 Following that, what we will do is open it up to questions 11 and we will try to answer whatever questions you may have. 12 So with that, is there anybody that has any 13 particular statements as opposed to questions with specifics 14 towards the ordinance? 15 (Whereupon no statements were made.) 16 Okay, there being none what we will do then is 17 ask for any questions from the public. Yes, sir. If you 18 could state your name, please. 19 MR. ESHBAUGH: Curt Eshbaugh. 20 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): In which municipality? 21 MR. ESHBAUGH: Apolacon Township. 22 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Do you have a question? 23 MR. ESHBAUGH: First question is on 24 nonconforming lots of record. It says in the ordinance that 25 the nonconforming lots of record are officially recognized 5 1 when they are recorded in the office of the County Recorder 2 of Deeds prior to the ordinance going into effect. 3 I have a situation where there is a 4 subdivision filed in the courthouse. So the subdivision 5 plan is there and on record, but I do not have deeds created 6 for all of those particular lots. 7 So are the subdivided lots that don't have 8 deeds associated with them considered nonconforming lots of 9 record? 10 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): I would say that they 11 are because the subdivision is actually recorded in the 12 office of the Recorder of Deeds. So I would say if the 13 subdivision itself has been recorded, you actually have 14 those lots in your ownership and have the right to deed 15 those out based on that subdivision map. 16 MR. ESHBAUGH: Second question, also dealing 17 with nonconforming lots of record. It appears that if you 18 have a nonconforming lot of record that the zoning ordinance 19 should have no effect as far as being able to build on a 20 particular lot. 21 I have a case where I own a lot that's about 22 40 or 50 feet wide and it's about a hundred foot deep. It's 23 a lakefront lot on Reflection Lake in Apolacon Township. 24 That particular lot, the back edge of it has a right-of-way 25 road which gives you access to that lot. The 15 foot at the 6 1 back of that lot is reserved for that private road. 2 Now, the way the ordinance reads for 3 nonconforming lots of record, they still have to meet the 4 setback requirements set forth in the ordinance. 5 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That's correct. 6 MR. ESHBAUGH: The setback requirements would 7 say that I have to be 20 foot from the edge of that 8 right-of-way for a building, and I also now have to be 9 50 foot from the edge of the lake. So that puts me 35 foot 10 down from the top of the lot and 50 foot back, and that 11 leaves me room for a 5-foot wide house. And also you have 12 to be 15 foot in on each side which would limit it to 20 13 foot, which is impossible. 14 So how do I handle case like that where we've 15 invested money in the lot with plans to build a nice house 16 there and now the ordinance will prevent it? 17 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Well, you certainly 18 would be able to make application for a variance. That 19 would be one option. I suppose another option if you could 20 build on it under the terms of the current regulation of the 21 ordinance you could make application for a permit. You 22 would certainly have the right to apply for a variance. 23 MR. ESHBAUGH: What would determine, you know, 24 a hardship or something that would allow a variance to take 25 effect? Who makes that decision? 7 1 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): There's a separate 2 zoning hearing board that would make that decision. And the 3 hardship, you have to demonstrate a hardship based on the 4 terms of the ordinance. And if the setback was such that 5 you can't make reasonable use of the property then a 6 variance would be justified. 7 MR. ESHBAUGH: Thank you. 8 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Any other questions? 9 MS. ESHBAUGH: Pam Eshbaugh. Could you 10 explain the rationale for deciding which properties are 11 designated as residential and which rural-agricultural? 12 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): As far as the rationale 13 for determining which lots, which parcels, are designated 14 which zoning district, that was based on a process that we 15 went through with each individual township looking at those 16 areas that we felt there were some existing residences or 17 lake communities where the town wanted to afford protection 18 for either existing neighborhoods or areas around where 19 there would be some expansion of residential. So that was 20 the basic, that was the basic approach that we took. 21 MS. ESHBAUGH: What happens when you zone half 22 of a property one way and half the other? 23 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): What happens then, the 24 property it goes with the way that it's zoned. In other 25 words, whatever zone -- the half that's zoned, let's say 8 1 residential and the other half is zoned rural-agricultural, 2 that's the way that the zoning would apply. 3 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Other questions? 4 MR. O'REILLY: Is there a map that shows the 5 breakdown? 6 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Could you identify 7 yourself? 8 MR. O'REILLY: I am Lawrence O'Reilly, Larry 9 O'Reilly. I have property in Apolacon, Choconut, Forest 10 Lake, and so forth. 11 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Yes. There are maps on 12 the table there. 13 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Any other questions? 14 MR. COUTURE: I am John Couture from Choconut. 15 What happens in the situation when there's a parcel of land 16 that is say zoned commercial now, but the business is no 17 longer operating commercially? How long of a timeframe does 18 that business have to non-exist when everything else around 19 it is residential? 20 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Well, actually, there 21 is no zoning at this point, so nothing is zoned. 22 MR. COUTURE: Right. 23 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): So in other words, if 24 there's a business that was commercial and it hasn't been 25 used -- has it been abandoned completely? Is there any 9 1 equipment in it or anything like that? 2 MR. COUTURE: There's been no work done at 3 all. 4 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Typically, what happens 5 is you don't become grandfathered or nonconforming unless 6 you have an active, ongoing business. Okay. So that if 7 there is no business, then there is no being grandfathered. 8 It's not in existence. But depending on what district it's 9 in -- in most of the municipalities in the 10 rural-agricultural district we allow for a wide variety of 11 types of businesses, so they just have to make application. 12 Assuming it's allowed in that district, they just have to 13 make application. Is it in a residential district? 14 MR. COUTURE: Yes, it is. 15 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Okay, well then 16 depending on how the business, what condition the business 17 is in now, I would say it would not have nonconformity; but 18 the owner could certainly challenge that. 19 MR. COUTURE: Okay. 20 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Other questions or 21 comments? 22 MR. PURTELL: Leo Purtell, Apolacon Township. 23 Is this zoning ordinance, what we're doing, going to have 24 any direct effect on tax basis. 25 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): You mean on the 10 1 assessments? 2 MR. PURTELL: Yes. 3 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): It should not, no. 4 Typically what happens is an assessment changes if the use 5 of the property changes. That's the way that I understand 6 it. 7 MS. ESHBAUGH: Pam Eshbaugh, Apolacon. What 8 is the process for getting zoning for a property changed? 9 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): The process is called a 10 zoning amendment. What you would need to do, once this is 11 adopted, what you would need to do is make application to 12 the local, to the Apolacon Township Board of Supervisors, 13 propose the change, the Planning Commission would review it, 14 it also goes to the County Planning Commission for review, 15 and then there would have to be an ordinance adopted to 16 effect that change. 17 MS. ESHBAUGH: How do I do it prior to this 18 being adopted though? 19 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Well, I think you would 20 have to state your case right now, what the piece of 21 property is, and how you would like to have it zoned. 22 MS. ESHBAUGH: Is it possible to do that after 23 this? Is there a period of time that we can do that? 24 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Yes. We can certainly 25 do this in between because what we are going to be doing is 11 1 having another hearing in each municipality. So if you 2 would like to do that in between, I think we could 3 certainly, after the meeting, you could talk to the 4 supervisors about it. 5 MR. O'REILLY: I have a question. I'm Larry 6 O'Reilly again. Tell me, what will a person give up or gain 7 by either saying I like this zoning or I don't like this 8 zoning? I'd like to know, is there any rights that that 9 individual property owner will be giving up? 10 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That's more of a 11 philosophical question, I guess. Do you have a specific 12 question about the ordinance itself? A section? 13 MR. O'REILLY: I have a specific question 14 about the zoning itself. As you know, we have zoning all 15 around us and to the north of us here. And there seems to 16 be always a chance, for instance, in Vestal they are always 17 reapplying or changing the zoning ordinance to accomplish 18 some type of change; but, I am always concerned with 19 people's property rights. I don't like rights being taken 20 away because when they are taken away you never get them 21 back, never. 22 That's the question I want to ask you, what 23 right do they have now, every property owner in here, are 24 there any rights that they would lose by zoning? 25 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Well, it depends where 12 1 you are located. If you are located in a residential 2 district, for example, when you look at the zoning 3 ordinance, it is only limited types of residential uses 4 allowed in that residential district; so they would no 5 longer have the right to do commercial. They could do home 6 occupations, they are allowed everywhere. But the reason 7 you do that is to afford protection to other residences in 8 that residential district where they expected it to stay 9 residential. 10 In the rural-agricultural zone, if you take a 11 look at the ordinance, there's a wide variety of uses that 12 are allowed, so you know it's pretty wide open in terms of 13 uses that are permitted. In some cases, you have to go 14 through a process to make sure that you are complying with 15 the standards in the ordinance like lighting, noise, 16 setbacks, buffers, those types of things. 17 So it is a balance between private property 18 rights and community good; but, what we tried to do in that 19 rural-agricultural district is allow that wide variety of 20 uses so that land owners have the ability to do pretty much 21 what they want with their property, as long as they meet 22 certain standards. 23 MR. O'REILLY: When you say certain standards, 24 that's within the zoning? 25 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Within the zoning, 13 1 right. That would be lighting, noise, setbacks, water 2 quality, those types of things. If you want to take a look 3 at the ordinance it's all in Article 7 of the ordinance. 4 Other questions or comments? 5 MS. ESHBAUGH: Pam Eshbaugh, Apolacon. What 6 is the difference in minimum lot size for residential and 7 rural-agricultural? I didn't see it here? 8 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): The minimum lot size is 9 actually the same in all districts. For any new lot that's 10 served by onsite sewage as well as an onsite water supply it 11 is a minimum of one acre, and that's in line with what the 12 County Subdivision Ordinance is. It mirrors the County 13 Ordinance. 14 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Yes, sir. 15 MR. BUTLER: John Butler from Apolacon 16 Township. With this big push here now about leasing for the 17 gas, suppose somebody leases their land and they want to 18 come in and drill for gas/oil, is there any regulations in 19 any of these different divisions of zoning where that would 20 not be approved? 21 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): The way that the 22 ordinance is written is that gas exploration and extraction 23 is allowed in the rural-agricultural district. As I say, 24 the way the ordinance is written now is it would not be 25 permitted in the residential district or the neighborhood -- 14 1 or the commercial village center district. In most of the 2 municipality, most of the Northern Tier area which is zoned 3 rural-agricultural, which is 95 percent at least, oil and 4 gas exploration is permitted as a conditional use. 5 Now the other thing that I need to say about 6 that is that under the State Municipalities Planning Code 7 the regulation of oil and gas and all mineral extraction 8 really is preempted by DEP. So there's very little that the 9 local municipalities can do in terms of regulating the 10 day-to-day operations of either quarries or oil and gas 11 operations. That's preempted by DEP. In terms of zoning 12 districts, it's permitted in the rural-agricultural the way 13 the ordinance is written. 14 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Yes, sir. 15 MR. ESHBAUGH: Curt Eshbaugh, Apolacon 16 Township. Follow up to his question on oil and gas. Does 17 that only apply to where the physical well facility is 18 drilled? 19 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That is correct. 20 MR. ESHBAUGH: So you could drill on a 21 neighboring piece of property and still receive royalties 22 for your's even though it's residential? 23 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That is correct. It 24 wouldn't affect horizontal drilling. It's just what's on 25 the surface. That's correct. 15 1 MR. STEWART (Supervisor): Bill Stewart, 2 Choconut Township. They could also apply for a variance for 3 that right. 4 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Well technically, they 5 shouldn't be granting these variances. They can make 6 application, but variances are generally limited to kind of 7 dimensional standards. But you know, the way that the 8 ordinance is written, we envision that there would be no oil 9 and gas extraction in the residential district; but again, 10 those residential districts are fairly fairly small. 11 MR. O'REILLY: Larry O'Reilly. I want to make 12 sure I understand the timetable because I haven't had a 13 chance to read this. You are going to go through, I 14 understand, different meetings like this? 15 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Actually, we've been 16 having public meetings over the last year, we've probably 17 had seven or eight and the ordinance has been posted on the 18 Internet. We have three more of these scheduled: One 19 tomorrow night in Montrose; one next Tuesday in Silver Lake; 20 and one next Wednesday in Lawton in Rush Township. So we 21 have those four, and then we anticipate, depending on what 22 comments we receive, we anticipate having an advertised 23 hearing in each municipality before adoption. So we are 24 looking at, at least another couple of months. 25 MR. O'REILLY: Okay. And when you say 16 1 adoption, who adopts it? Each individual township or the 2 county? 3 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Each individual 4 municipality will have their own zoning ordinance. And the 5 way it's starting out is that the zoning ordinances are 6 pretty much the same, but as time goes on and if there needs 7 to be adjustments in each municipality those adjustments 8 would be made by each individual municipality. So it's not 9 one ordinance or one big organization, it's each individual 10 municipality. 11 MR. O'REILLY: All right. Let me make sure I 12 understand this. Each individual township would have a time 13 that they are going to adopt that ordinance? 14 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That is correct. 15 MR. O'REILLY: Okay. So each individual, the 16 supervisors would vote among themselves in each township? 17 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That's correct. 18 MR. O'REILLY: If a township chooses not to 19 adopt the ordinance, they are not going to have zoning in 20 that township; is that correct? 21 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That is correct. It is 22 an each individual municipality decision. Other questions? 23 MR. MURPHY: Tom Murphy, Apolacon. On the 24 residential district it lists here crop production. Now it 25 says permit not required. Is that normal agricultural 17 1 practices? 2 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): That is correct. Crop 3 production not livestock. Crop production, that is correct. 4 MR. MURPHY: Hay? Corn? 5 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Whatever field crops. 6 MR. MURPHY: Fertilizers? Sprays? Anything? 7 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Sure. The way that 8 this ordinance is envisioned is that there's also a section 9 that quotes the Right to Farm Law so that anything in the 10 zoning ordinance cannot supersede the Right to Farm Law. 11 I will be happy to stay afterwards and look at 12 maps or discuss anything. Okay, if there are no other 13 questions. 14 MR. O'REILLY: I'm Larry O'Reilly. I'm always 15 wondering how we always need layers of control. You may not 16 think it's another layer of control, but we do have a 17 Planning Commission, and a darn good one here in Susquehanna 18 County, with darn good people. And yes, there are a few 19 problems that come up with quarries or maybe a dog kennel 20 here and there. 21 I don't really see how a zoning ordinance in 22 the county is going to -- I just, I'm concerned about the 23 people and their property rights because now you are letting 24 go of some rights no matter what you may say. I know you 25 are the good guy, and I'm not trying to fault you. 18 1 You are going to, every property owner is 2 going to let go of something. Or when you visit the word 3 conditional you are saying that at some point in time if 4 somebody has to get a variance, they are going to be at the 5 mercy of that group of people that's going to grant. You 6 may be able to prove a hardship that's a hardship on you, 7 but that doesn't mean that that group is going to accept 8 that hardship and give you a variance to say go around that 9 hardship. There is no guarantee. 10 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): I mean, I can't really 11 answer that. 12 MR. O'REILLY: I am making a statement. There 13 is no guarantee. You have suggested that you could apply 14 for a variance; but there is no guarantee that you will get 15 that variance, none whatsoever. 16 MR. STEWART (Supervisor): Bill Stewart, 17 Choconut. Larry, you're saying Home Depot is going to put a 18 big lot in down by the McDonald's? Who's going take care of 19 the road? Who's going to put the red light in? Who's going 20 to do the drainage work? 21 MR. O'REILLY: Well Bill, let me ask you 22 something. 23 MR. STEWART (Supervisor): Are you going to 24 answer that? 25 MR. O'REILLY: I'm going to answer it. Do you 19 1 want me to answer it or do you want to make another 2 statement about the Home Depot? 3 MR. STEWART (Supervisor): It could be -- 4 MR. O'REILLY: Let's say right now if I had to 5 run all the way over to Lowe's to get some PVC pipe cement, 6 I might have been better off getting it there in Choconut's 7 Home Depot; but the reality of your statement is that 8 probably won't happen in my lifetime or yours. 9 MR. STEWART: You are sure? 10 MR. O'REILLY: I say the reality, whether it 11 might happen or not. I'm only suggesting, Bill, that you 12 would be the first one to stand up if you were to lose some 13 rights that you have now. You would be the first one to 14 stand up. I can't see down the road nor can you. 15 MR. STEWART (Supervisor): I said what was 16 going to happen and we've seen an awful lot of changes. 17 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Any other specific 18 questions or comments with the ordinance? 19 MR. ZALESKI: Don Zaleski from Choconut. I 20 live on Pamela Drive up against 267 and Commonwealth Road. 21 About three years ago, it will be four years this June, I 22 moved in there. 23 Prior to my moving in on the very corner where 24 D. W. Hayes had a vacant lot across the street, they wanted 25 to put in a printing press, like the Mulligan's that we get. 20 1 It is a residential area. They came in and made their pitch 2 and the residents, everybody in our area, got up and said, 3 "No, it's a residential area." Well, it's going to be 4 quiet. Baloney it's going to be quiet. 5 My son worked for a Pennysaver on Long Island 6 and that place was noisy. You would hear that all the way 7 through where everybody lives in that valley. It does not 8 belong in a residential area. This is what we are trying to 9 accomplish with the zoning ordinance. We're not saying you 10 can't build a house there; but we are saying, if you want to 11 build your industry, put it in a commercial area. Don't put 12 it under somebody's window and that's what this is all 13 about. 14 MR. O'REILLY: Well, that's what -- 15 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Hang on. We don't want 16 to get into a debate here. 17 MR. ZALESKI: That's what this was set up for. 18 You don't want a junkyard in residential area, okay. You 19 can put your junkyard elsewhere. 20 MR. O'REILLY: I just want to make sure you 21 understand something, when that subdivision was set up down 22 there... I'm Larry O'Reilly. I am very familiar with that 23 subdivision because I sold to D. W. Hayes that land to begin 24 with. 25 If he had followed standard procedure and any 21 1 attorney that had followed standard procedure would have 2 followed up and once that first deed was recorded, he should 3 have had deed restrictions in there that said that's a 4 residential lot and those following deeds should have had 5 residential restrictions on them, whether it did or not, 6 then that would been a violation of your deed. Now when you 7 purchased your property, do you know if it said "This is 8 only for a residential home"? 9 MR. ZALESKI: Yes, it was. 10 MR. O'REILLY: Then the other deeds should 11 have been following in a similar manner. 12 MR. ZALESKI: This was prior to him selling 13 that though. 14 MR. O'REILLY: Wait, wait. All of those other 15 lots had been sold before you. 16 MR. ZALESKI: Yes. 17 MR. O'REILLY: Those deeds should all be very 18 similar in restrictions. 19 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Let's try to get back 20 to the issue at hand. 21 MR. ZALESKI: That was the issue, that we 22 wanted to set up areas where... 23 MR. STEWART (Supervisor): Where you're 24 protected. 25 MR. ZALESKI: Yeah. Certain areas where this 22 1 is residential, this is industrial, this is agricultural, 2 and this is the town center. That's all we were trying to 3 do with this. 4 MR. O'REILLY: I don't doubt your concerns. 5 What he's bringing up is real important. I don't deny it, 6 but there are some things that -- you are talking about a 7 case of about an acre of ground. 8 MR. ZALESKI: This is why we want to set this 9 meeting up. 10 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Off the record. 11 (Whereupon an off-the-record discussion was 12 held.) 13 MR. FEHRINGER (Council Member): One thing you 14 could emphasize, you talk about loss of rights, supposedly; 15 but we are not talking about, like Bill was saying, the 16 protection of property owner's rights. That's one thing 17 that offsets that. 18 The second statement I'd like to make, I don't 19 know your situation at all, but I do think that's one case 20 where the County Planning Commission does not do what they 21 are supposed to be doing, that they didn't protect that. 22 County planning did not do that. We have to do it through 23 zoning. 24 MR. O'REILLY: Let me explain that. The 25 County Subdivision Ordinance that approved that subdivision 23 1 down there, the County Subdivision Ordinance could have 2 stipulated that -- maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I 3 don't know. There could have been covenants inserted in the 4 agreement. Whether there were any covenants in his deed, I 5 don't know. That could been handled at county level. 6 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Does anybody else have 7 any questions or comments? 8 MR. ESHBAUGH: Curt Eshbaugh, Apolacon 9 Township. Follow up to Mr. Murphy's question about zoned 10 residential areas use for farm use. Can I have a cow 11 pasture land in a residential area? Or can I have a horse 12 farm with horses in a zoned residential area? 13 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): The way that the 14 ordinance is written, I believe, is that private stables 15 would be permitted in residential but livestock operations 16 would not. 17 MR. ESHBAUGH: Wasn't it stated before that it 18 was supposed to be so many acres; and even with that, just a 19 little 20-foot square and you could have a horse? 20 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): For a private stable I 21 think there's a minimum of one acre. I'd have to look at 22 the ordinance but there's some standards. That's right. 23 MR. ESHBAUGH: You made a statement earlier 24 that if I have a piece of property that happens to have half 25 of it zoned residential and the other half RA, and I want to 24 1 have my cows on this half or have my horses on this half, 2 what you are saying is I can't possibly do it? I have to 3 put them on the other half? 4 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): The livestock have to 5 be in rural-agricultural, that's correct. But the horses, 6 private stables are allowed in any district on a certain 7 parcel size and I think it is one or two acres. I have to 8 look at it. 9 MR. ESHBAUGH: I'd like to go on record that 10 on my specific pieces of property that I want them changed 11 to rural-agricultural for those reasons. 12 MR. PURTELL: Follow up to what Curt just 13 said. I'd like to go rural-agricultural on all of my 14 property for the same reasons. Leo Purtell. 15 MR. BUTLER: John Butler, Apolacon Township. 16 Follow up on the cattle/horse thing. Is there a grandfather 17 clause for situations where someone already has chickens or 18 pigs or something in a residential area? 19 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Yes. Anything that the 20 zoning ordinance covers is into the future. So anything 21 that pre-exists the zoning ordinance is what we call 22 nonconforming or grandfathered. 23 MR. BUTLER: So they're allowed as long as 24 they keep them, but if they once get rid of them they can't 25 get them back? 25 1 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Technically, yes. 2 Technically. 3 MR. MURPHY: Tom Murphy, Apolacon. We would 4 like to be on record as being rural-agricultural instead of 5 residential. 6 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): Okay. Anything else? 7 If there's nothing else. 8 MR. DOVIN (Supervisor): Bill Dovin, Choconut 9 Township. Just as certain individuals took the initiative 10 to show up at the meeting to see what was happening, I think 11 our individual planning commissions have taken a look at 12 this, and in good faith have tried to establish what we felt 13 were the right lines and boundaries for each of these areas. 14 If there's something that you identify with 15 your property that should be changed or you want it changed, 16 this is an interim step, this is the first hearing. We will 17 have another hearing before we adopt the zoning ordinance. 18 If there is something that you do want changed, you should 19 take it upon yourself to see your supervisors and have the 20 map altered. 21 MR. HELFRICH (Chair): All right. And again, 22 I will be happy to stay afterwards and I would like to talk 23 to the folks that brought up their properties because I 24 would like to get those marked on the maps. And again, 25 there will be additional hearings. Thanks a lot for coming 26 1 and I'd be happy to answer anymore questions. With that we 2 will close the hearing. 3 (Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 7:38 4 p.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25