Zoning ordinance adopted

Article Photos

LEWISTOWN - Despite protest from more than 40 residents of Lewistown Borough and Derry and Granville townships, the Lewistown Borough Council opted to adopt a controversial ordinance during its meeting on Monday evening.

The ordinance amends Lewistown Borough's current zoning ordinance to allow multiple buildings such as row houses, apartment houses and multi-family houses to be built on large properties without first needing the approval of a special exception, which was previously mandated.

However, area residents are concerned that the amendments to the ordinance would allow the Samuel's Dell group to move forward with its plans to build a large housing development in the Ards Ridge area.

On Oct. 15, 2008, the Lewistown Zoning Hearing Board denied Samuel's Dell's request for a special exception needed for the company to move forward with its proposal to build a 43-unit apartment complex on 16.9 acres along Ards Ridge.

Borough council Solicitor Jeffrey Snook said Samuel's Dell appealed the board's decision to the court of common pleas, which upheld the board's decision. Snook said Samuel's Dell then appealed to the commonwealth court, where he believes the appeal remains.

Area residents present at the public hearing held on Monday evening prior to the council's meeting voiced their support of the board's decision last year and requested the council not undermine that decision by passing the proposed ordinance.

Jack Coffey, who is a resident of Derry Township but would be affected by the proposed development in Lewistown Borough, said he was mainly responsible for organizing the neighbors who filled the council's chambers on Monday evening.

"I would be the most adversely affected by the changes in the ordinance you want to make," Coffey said. "I would like to know why you want to make these changes to the ordinance in light of the fact that the zoning hearing board denied a special exception to Samuel's Dell."

Snook responded to Coffey's statements and offered his opinion on what properties the ordinance would affect.

"As far as whether it is going to be done to accommodate Samuel's Dell, I think that is up to members of council to answer," Snook said. "It (the ordinance) applies not only to Samuel's Dell, it applies to any area in the borough where you have a large area. The effect, I gather, in the case of Samuel's Dell, relates to the number of townhouses that could be placed on one lot ... the change to the ordinance would say you could have more than one townhouse."

Snook continued, "Issues such as storm water, wells and traffic are really beyond the scope of the zoning board. Those issues would be addressed if and when Samuel's Dell would submit land development plans."

Snook said the company has not yet submitted land development plans and has not gone through that process because under the zoning ordinance, it first had to obtain a special exception.

Another resident, Jack Hobbs, said he felt under the zoning ordinance, large developments could be built, and a revision of the ordinance was not needed.

"The zoning board had the ability to give Samuel's Dell the exception to allow them to build the townhouses up there - but they denied it because they didn't feel it was appropriate," Hobbs said. "But if you do away with the exception, you're going to lose control over all the other properties in Lewistown Borough. If it is appropriate to put multiple buildings on the property, then there is already a way to do that."

Comments made by residents during the public hearing were discussed later among council members during the regular meeting.

"The purpose of the ordinance is to stimulate development on larger tracts of land, not just Samuel's Dell," Berrier said, adding that there are several large areas on the west end of Lewistown that could be developed.

A motion was then brought forward to adopt the ordinance with all council members, except Larry Searer and Jim Felmlee, voting in favor of the ordinance. Felmlee abstained from casting a vote for personal reasons and Searer cast the only dissenting vote. The motion was passed 5 to 1.