BOROUGH OF CARROLL VALLEY REGULAR MEETING

OF PLANNING COMMISSION

Monday, February 4, 2019 – 7:00 P.M. Borough Office

A G E N D A

David Lillard, Planning Commission Chairman, presiding A. Approval of Meeting Minutes

A. Minutes of the January 7, 2019 regular meeting B. Open to the Public C. New Business

A. Subdivision/Re-combination Requests for Approval o Zurgable/Schubring: Parcel 42044-0041---000 Carroll Valley Lot # RB-0037 o Gruwell/Arena: Parcel 43017-0001---000 Carroll Valley Lot # A-0127

D. Old Business

A. Comprehensive Ordinance Review o Chapter 27: Zoning

Review remaining Questions & Concerns Zoning District Scenarios Home-Based Business Plan

E. Adjournment

BOROUGH OF CARROLL VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

Monday, January 7, 2019 – 7:00 P.M. BOROUGH OFFICE

MINUTES

Chairman David Lillard called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The attendance was as follows:

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS BOROUGH OFFICIALS, ETC. Present David Lillard, Chair John Schubring, Vice Chair Ron Harris, Mayor Steve Sites Michael Wight Absent Bernard Garland Bruce Carr

David Hazlett, Borough Manager Gayle R. Marthers, Asst. Borough Manager David Baker, Zoning Officer

CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2018 JOINT MEETING of PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOROUGH COUNCIL Mr. Lillard asked that the minutes reflect that he believes that Mr. Carr’s statement saying that he was “unwilling to allow him [Mr. Carr] to speak as a member of the public” is incorrect. Mr. Lillard stated that the meeting had not been convened at the time of his conversation with Mr. Carr and that the purpose for the conversation was to remind Mr. Carr that there was a quorum of Council present and that here may be a violation of the Sunshine Law. Following additional brief discussion: ***D. Lillard moved, R. Harris seconded, that the Commission accept the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 with the inclusion of Mr. Lillard’s statement. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC No one addressed Members at this time. OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Ordinance Review: Chapter 27: Zoning. Mr. Lillard requested that Members provide their comments on each of the Questions with Responses that have been submitted for review. Much discussion included the following: Document #1: Questions and Responses for December 3, 2018 Meeting:

1. Agricultural District: Section 403, sub-section I, Item 1 regarding issue of “mega-silos”

Consensus of Members that County Planning will research the subject and make recommendations

Height Restriction in Agricultural District Consensus of Member to use 35’ for consistency 2. Residential Medium Density (R3) District

Section 702, sub-section A. Item 2 regarding open space exclusions. Consensus of Members that County Planning will add exclusion list as a separate subsection.

Section 703, sub-section J regarding minimum floor area.

2 Consensus of Members to retain 850 sqft minimum for single family dwelling per dwelling unit per the Uniform Construction Code guidelines

3. Commercial (C) District. Section 902, sub-section A; Item 2a regarding establishing parking spaces.

Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage as outlined in their response.

4. General Use Requirements. Section 902, sub-section A, Item 2a regarding the word “Stealth”

County Planning will fix the typographical error 5. Parking and Loading Regulations.

Section 1604, sub-section C regarding compacted stone or millings. Consensus of Members agreed that this applies primarily to Agricultural District and County Planning will provide a redraft of the section for better clarity.

6. Sign Regulations. Section 1704, sub-section A

Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed 7. Additional Questions: Family Child Care Issue:

Consensus of Members to allow “Home Day Care” as defined by the State of PA (12 children) in ALL districts.

Airport Overlay Concerns: County Planning Office: • Confirmed that the Borough falls in the “Air Control Space” of the Mid Atlantic Soaring

Club (Glider Port on Pecher Rd) • Explained that Airport Overlays are required by a separate Airport Zoning Act

established by the Bureau of Aviation. Consensus of Members was to accept the Language regarding the Overlay as endorsed and provided by PennDOT Bureau of Aviation.

Document #2: Questions and Responses dated 11/28/2018:

1. Eluma Property zoning determination. Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

2. Sign Rules: Article XVI to the end: Consensus of Members agreed that the sections are wordy and repetitious; however, that is standard language for Ordinance Documents such as this to ensure clarity for each section. Therefore, the verbiage would be retained.

3. Repeating “Uses”, “Accessory Uses”, and “Special Exception Uses” in each zoning district with identical tables. Consensus of Members agreed that the sections are wordy and repetitious; however, that is standard language for Ordinance Documents such as this to ensure clarity for each section. Therefore, the verbiage would be retained.

4. Section 102-A-1: Use of word “morals” Consensus of Members accepted County Planners recommendation to keep the language citing that it is copied verbatim from the PA Municipalities Planning Code.

5. Section 102-A-10: Delete clause “and including single-family …. Parks” Consensus of Members accepted County Planners recommendation to keep the language citing that it is copied verbatim from the PA Municipalities Planning Code.

6. Section 102-B: Reference to “Southwest Adams Joint Comprehensive Plan” The Plan was adopted by Council on 04/04/2015; therefore, this statement is correct.

3 7. Question regarding definition of “Structure” and “Building”

Defined in Article II: “Building” is a subset of a “Structure”; no further information/correction needed.

8. Question regarding requirements of an apartment building: Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

9. Question regarding definition of “Candela” and “Nits” Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

10. Question regarding “Lot” definition. Consensus of Members was that the definition is confusing and does NOT properly establish the intent of the Borough to distinguish between re-combined lots and those lots combined onto a deed for tax purposes. County will re-work this section.

11. Overlays missing. Has been provided; will be made apart of future drafts. See 7a from Document #1 above for additional information.

12. Section 420 concern. Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

13. Question regarding development of farmland. Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

14. Section 700.B Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

15. Section 702, 703 Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

16. Eluma Property concern Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

17. Airport Overlay See 7a from Document #1

18. Section 1501-F-1 regarding Southwest Adams Joint Comprehensive Plan designating a roadway classification. Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to use “establish” instead of “designate”

19. Section 1501-S regarding information on Mobile Home Parks County Planner confirmed that this was corrected in a later version of the document

20. Section 1501-T regarding No-impact home-based Businesses. Consensus of Members accepted County Planners recommendation to keep the language citing that it is copied verbatim from the PA Municipalities Planning Code.

21. Section 1502-Z-2 regarding the term “not operating” and how it may impact current establishments. Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it easier to understand.

22. Section 1501-DD-1 Consensus of Members agreed to use the number 4 as the maximum number of units in a townhouse building. County Planners will rework the section with this change.

23. Section 1501-FF regarding lengthy, verbatim wording Consensus of Members agreed that the sections are wordy and repetitious; however, that is standard language for Ordinance Documents such as this to ensure clarity for each section. Therefore, the verbiage would be retained.

4 Document #3: Manager Dave Hazlett’s Comments & County Responses: Section 201 – Definitions of Bed & Breakfast

Consensus of Members was that County Planning will research case law and report back to Members

Section 201 – Definition of Car Wash Consensus of Members was that County Planning will update the definition to reference commercial use

Section 201 – Regarding “Produce Stands” on “non-farm property” Consensus of Members agreed to have ALL reference to Produce Stands on non-agriculture zoned property removed. It is not the desire to preclude a home-owner to selling the “extra” produce from a home garden from a table in their front yard.

Section 201 – Definition of “Public Notice” Consensus of Members accepted County Planners recommendation to keep the language citing that it is copied verbatim from the PA Municipalities Planning Code.

Section 201 – Definition of “Sign” Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it easier to understand in reference to holiday decorations.

Section 201 – Definition of “Sign” in reference to height Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

Section 401.B.4 – Regarding the producing of an Agricultural Product on a non-farm property Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it easier to understand in reference to issues like tanning of hides and taxidermy.

Section 401.B.7 – Regarding processing of Agricultural Products. Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it easier to understand in reference to issues like canning of small quantities of “extra” produce from a home garden versus the need for a special exception for slaughter facilities.

Section 403.I.2 – Regarding height for non-farm/agricultural uses. Consensus of Member to use 35’ for consistency

Section 403.J.1 – Regarding minimum livable space requirements. Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

Section 501.A.1 – Regarding forestry Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

Section 501.B.1 – Regarding accessory structures. Explanation from County Planning accepted; additional language will be added to the next draft as suggested

Sections 501.B.2 and 601.B.4 regarding production of agricultural products on non-farm property. Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it easier to understand and address “intensive farming”.

Sections 502.F2. and 502.G.2 regarding overlay incentives. Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

Sections 601.B.1 and 701.B.1 regarding Child Care Facility. Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed

Sections 602.I and 703.J.1 regarding minimum swelling unit floor area. Consensus of Members to retain 850 sqft minimum for single family dwelling per dwelling unit per the Uniform Construction Code guidelines

Section 701.B.4 regarding producing agricultural products on a non-farm property in the R3 district. Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it easier to understand and address “intensive farming” or other “farming” practices.

Sections 703.B.2 through 703.B.4 regarding residential minimum lot areas in R3 district. Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

5 Section 802.E.2 regarding minimum parking space width.

Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed Sections 901.A.13, 901.A.18 and 901.A.10 regarding exclusion of gasoline sales.

Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage as outlined in their response.

Section 902.C regarding outdoor storage limitation. Consensus of Members agreed to strike this section. Section 1201.B.1.d(3)(b) regarding invasive plant classifications

Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed Section 1305.C regarding nonconforming trees with Airport Overlay

Explanation from County Planning accepted; no further information/correction needed Section 1404 regarding clear sight triangle language.

Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage as outlined in their response.

Section 1407.A regarding exclusion for zoning permitting for seasonally removed swimming pools Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to make it consistent with Uniform Construction Code guidelines.

Section 1409.A.1 regarding setback distances for wind turbines. Consensus of Members agreed to have County Planning rework the verbiage to require that in the event of a catastrophic fall; the structure falls onto the owner’s property.

Section 1410.A regarding locations where outdoor wood-fired boilers are permitted. Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

Section 1412 regarding height regulation exemptions. Tabled until all Planning Members could be present to discuss.

At this time Members agreed by consensus that due to the late hour; the remaining five (5) pages of questions and responses would be tabled until the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS There was none. ADJOURNMENT *** R. Harris moved; M. Wight seconded that the meeting adjourn at 9:25 PM. Motion passed unanimously. Gayle R. Marthers, Borough Secretary

INT EROFF ICE MEMORANDUM

TO: PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DAVID A. BAKER, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION/RECOMBINATION PLAN

DATE: 01/05/2018

CC: FILE

Subdivision with Re-combination requires County Planning, Municipal Planning and Municipal Council approvals. The Borough regulations allows for the subdividing of a single lot only if the plan includes that the resulting subdivided area is recombined with the adjoining lots thereby eliminating the original lot and forever making it a part of parcels on either side of it. The following are before you for approval: 1. Zurgable and Schubring properties:

Subdivision of: Parcel # 43044-0041---000 Lot # RB-0037 located on Green Trail (noted as Lot 37 and outlined in red on the attached map) Recombined: Parcel A attaching to the Schubring parcel #43044-0040---000 Lot # RB-0038 (noted as Lot 38 and outlined in yellow on the attached map) Residue of Lot 37 attaching the Zurgable parcel # 43044-0043---000 Lot # RB-0036 (noted as Lot 36 and outlined in green on the attached map).

2. Gruwell and Arena properties:

Subdivision of: Parcel # 43017-0001---000 Lot # A-0127 located on High Trail (noted as Lot 127 and outlined in red on the attached map)

Recombined: Parcel A attaching to the Arena parcel #43013-0016---000 Lot # A-0128 (noted as Lot 128 and outlined in green on the attached map)

Residue of Lot 127 attaching to the Gruwell parcel # 43017-0002---000 Lot # A-0126 (noted as Lot 126 and outlined in yellow on the attached map).

Draft Carroll Valley Zoning Ordinance

Listing of Borough Manager Dave Hazlett's Comments of December

20, 2018

+

ACOPD Responses

Borough Manager Dave Hazlett provided to ACOPD a wide range of comments regarding the

August 23, 2018 version of the Draft Carroll Valley Zoning Ordinance. The following lists

substantive comments, and ACOPD response, that ACOPD staff feels warrants further discuss at

the Planning Commission. This listing does not include all of Manager Hazlett's comments,

many of which were typographic in nature and which will be addressed separately.

Section 201 – Definition of Bed and Breakfast

DH Comment – Does AIRBNB fit into this description?

ACOPD Response – Good question. We've been working on some updated language for

short term vacation rentals that we could integrate here. If the Borough wishes to include

requirements for short-term rentals, we can provide.

Section 201 – Definition of Car Wash

DH Comment – Should this have some reference to the commercial nature, or would my

driveway meet this definition?

ACOPD Response – Good thought. We can update the definition to reference

commercial use.

Section 201 – Reference to "non-farm property" in definition of Produce Stand.

DH Comment – Like for residents?

ACOPD Response – Yes. The term is intended to encompass the ability of property

owners to sell, for example, extra vegetables from a family garden. Additional comments

in this regard follow.

Section 201 – Definition of Public Notice

DH Comment – I feel like we should reference "the most recent Sunshine Law or as

amended", so that if the state law changes, we do not need an ordinance revision.

ACOPD Response – This is the MPC definition for the term. We recommend against

using any alternative.

Section 201 – Definition of Sign

DH Comment – Would religious holiday decorations meet this definition?

ACOPD Response – Strictly viewed, it could. We can further specify if necessary.

However, we note that the signs section has a reference to this, and precludes holiday

decorations from the sign requirements.

Section 201 – Definition of Sign, Height of

DH Comment – or finished grade elevation at the base of the sign?

ACOPD Response – We could add that, but this definition is designed to prevent

someone from building up the ground level at the sign location as a means to get more

effective sign height.

Section 401.B.4 – Regarding producing an Agricultural Product on a non-farm property.

DH Comment – Tanning of hides?

ACOPD Response – Good question. This and Section 401.B.7 were intended to allow

people to sell stuff they might grow, for example, from their garden. Perhaps needs to be

finessed more?

Section 401.B.7 – Regarding processing of Agricultural Products.

DH Comment – I feel like this should be either a conditional use or special exception.

For example, animal slaughter facilities, etc.

ACOPD Response – See comment for Section 401.B.4 above. This was really intended

to handle much less intensive situations... like selling produce from a garden that

someone may have pickled, canned, preserved. etc. Again, more finesse needed?

Section 403.I.2 – Regarding maximum height for non-farm/agricultural uses in A District.

DH Comment – 35 in other districts, why the increased height here?

ACOPD Response – Good question. We can adjust to 35. Also, note response to Mr.

Devlin's question regarding Section 403.I.1 as well.

Section 403.J.1 – Regarding minimum livable floor area for single-family detached dwelling in

A District.

DH Comment – seems small

ACOPD Response – The number reflects the discussions that have been held. Also,

please remember that ACOPD recommends removal of this type of standard from all

zoning districts. Dwelling size should be controlled by UCC standards, not zoning.

Section 501.A.1 – Regarding forestry.

DH Comment – Aren't we unable to prohibit this anyway?

ACOPD Response – Per MPC, forestry must be listed as a permitted use in all zoning

districts (see MPC Section 603(f)).

Section 501.B.1 – Regarding accessory structures.

DH Comment – , provided that a permitted primary use is contained on the property.

CVB deals with people who want to build a shed or garage on vacant parcels so they can

use their unpercable property.

ACOPD Response – Agreed, but let's put language in the intro statement - B - rather than

the numbered statements.

Section 501.B.2 and 601.B.4 – Regarding producing agricultural products on non-farm property.

DH Comment -- like livestock, CAFO, other use not compatible with residential uses?

This seems like a bad idea.

ACOPD Response – Again, more finesse needed here. See response to Section 401.B.7

comment above. Agree that CAFO should be on a farm. Need to consider how to handle

intensive farming?

Sections 502.F.2 and 502.G.2 – Regarding overlay incentives for non-residential uses in R1

District.

DH Comment – I have reservations about non-residential uses as a whole, but then we

would permit them to be more dense than a residential use?

ACOPD Response – We understand the concern, but within this district, the only non-

residential uses that could have the incentives applied would be public parks, municipal

uses, and utility uses. We will look at potential impacts in other districts though.

Section 601.B.1 and 701.B.1 – Regarding Child Care Facility as accessory to a non-residential

use in the R2 District and R3 District respectively.

DH Comment – did we mean residential use?

ACOPD Response – No. We've define in-home child-care as Group Child Care. Child

Care Facility can either be a principal use or accessory to a non-residential use (for

example, a place of worship in this zoning district).

Sections 602.I and 703.J.1 – Regarding minimum dwelling unit floor area in R2 District and R3

District respectively.

DH Comment – way small

ACOPD Response – Again, the number was based on previous discussion. Also again,

we suggest that this type of standard be eliminated.

Section 701.B.4 – Regarding producing agricultural products on a non-farm property in the R3

District.

DH Comment – In the most dense of residential districts? Alpacas in the K Section?

Goats, etc...???

ACOPD Response – See response to Sections 501.B.2 and 601.B.4 comments above.

Sections 703.B.2 through 703.B.4 – Regarding residential minimum lot areas in R3 District.

DH Comment, Subsection 2 – so we can have a duplex on virtually all existing lots.

DH Comment, Subsection 3 – we can place 4 unit townhouses on virtually all existing

lots?

DH Comment, Subsection 4 – we can place apartment on all existing lots?

ACOPD Response – These standards were designed to accommodate new development

rather than infill or re-development of existing property. Need to discuss how to handle

minimum lot sizes for two or more unit buildings within area where half-acre lots

predominate.

Section 802.E.2 – Regarding minimum parking space width.

DH Comment – too narrow

ACOPD Response – These are for on-street parking spaces only... not all parking spaces.

Off-street parking spaces retain the regular 10x20 size.

Sections 901.A.13, 901.A.18, and 901.A.10 – Regarding exclusion of gasoline sales.

DH Comment – why? also, gasoline or fuel should be used consistently.

ACOPD Comment – We typically recommend fuel sales be reviewed by special

exception given concerns regarding site design and traffic flow. Here, in the proposed C

District. We'll standardize "fuel" vs. "gasoline" term use.

Section 901.C – Regarding retail sales, convenience stores, and fuel sales.

DH Comment – What about retail sales, convenience stores and fuel sales? (Sheetz

example)

ACOPD Response – This range of use is intended to be covered by "convenience store"

term. But, we should make sure language is appropriately standardized.

Section 902.C – Regarding outdoor storage limitation.

DH Comment – very restrictive regarding display of merchandise for sale.

ACOPD Response – Left uncontrolled, such outdoor display can be unattractive and

cluttered. Many municipalities use this language, although some have adjusted to allow

minor product display outside (for example, DVD rental kiosks, vending machines, ice

machines, propone gas containers, etc.). We can discuss further if requested.

Section 1201.B.1.d(3)(b) – Regarding invasive plant classification.

DH Comment – based on what standard?

ACOPD Response – Good catch. We have a PA invasive species publication produced

by PS Extension (if we recall correctly). We will reference an appropriate publication.

Section 1305.C – Regarding nonconforming trees within Airport Overlay.

DH Comment – can we stop it from growing higher?

ACOPD Response – I think, technically, yes. This language comes from the model

ordinance provided by Bureau of Aviation. That said, there will likely be few, if any,

non-conforming trees due to height within the control space.

Section 1404 – Regarding clear sight triangle language.

DH Comment – Is this clearly defined in the SLDO?

ACOPD Response – We have not checked yet, but we will. Clear sight triangle language

is typically found within the SLDO. That said, we should probably look at some cleanup

SLDO language after the ZO to make sure of language compatibility between the two.

Section 1407.A – Regarding exclusion for zoning permitting for seasonally removed swimming

pools.

DH Comment – ucc requirements? This may not be correct.

ACOPD Response – The larger inflatables might be subject to UCC. But the question

here is does the Borough want to require a Zoning Permit for seasonal, temporary pools?

Section 1409.A.1 – Regarding setback distances for wind turbines.

DH Comment – should we require a structural break point so the tower snaps and falls on

the property?

ACOPD Response – We can, or we can increase setback to full height of tower. Discuss

further?

Section 1410.A – Regarding locations where outdoor wood-fired boilers are permitted.

DH Comment – why did we include the C District?

ACOPD Response – We proposed allowing in the A and C because these areas were the

least residentially developed, and thus would have the least impacts on surrounding

residential uses.

Section 1412 – Regarding height regulation exemptions.

DH Comment – Always? no limitations on this?

ACOPD Response – We can scale back if necessary. That said, this type of language is

often found in zoning ordinances.

Section 1501.A.2 – Regarding range of persons allowed to reside in an ADU.

DH Comment – So, an entire family could live in the ADU?

ACOPD Response – Yes, provided that the family is related to the owners of the

principal residence.

Section 1501.A.3 – Regarding ADU minimum size.

DH Comment – Perhaps acceptable for 2 persons, but if we permit an entire family, that

seems quite small.

ACOPD Response – The size is intended to reflect the accessory nature of the ADU.

Section 1501.A.8 – Regarding sewer connection for ADUs.

DH Comment – If connected to public sewage, we should note that it would be an

additional EDU and connection for the purpose of sewer billing.

ACOPD Response – Would the Authority allow one connection to serve both the primary

dwelling and the ADU? We acknowledge that the Authority may bill for 2 EDUs. We

can add such language if appropriate.

Section 1501.A.8 – Regarding sewer system design capacity for ADUs.

DH Comment – This is not how on-lot systems capacity are calculated.

ACOPD Response – Acknowledged. This language, as we've used previously, was an

attempt to get away from the practice of calculating capacity based on the number of

bedrooms, which we believe does not properly account for larger families where multiple

persons may share a single bedroom. We should discuss appropriate alternative

language.

Section 1501.C.4 – Regarding bathroom provision within Bed-and-Breakfast Operations.

DH Comment – We should indicate the sewage billing requirements, or the requirements

of the ON-Lot sewage system.

ACOPD Response – Suggest that this should be an additional standard in addition to the

current.

Section 1501.S.3.d – Regarding outdoor spot or flood lighting in mobilehome parks.

DH Comment – need defined more

ACOPD Response – This phrase originated in the Borough's current Mobilehome Park

language. We agree that further definition may be necessary. We could state that the

light shielding must be designed to preclude view of the light source (ie the light bulb)

from abutting properties or the public street.

Section 1501.T.3 – Regarding display or sale of goods at No-Impact Home-Based Businesses.

DH Comment – substantial should be defined clearly

ACOPD Response – Understood. "Substantial nature" could be viewed as a subjective

standard. That said, this phrase is taken directly from the definition of No-Impact Home-

Based Business from the MPC. We therefore recommend its continued use.

Section 1501.T.8 – Regarding illegal activity prohibition in No-Impact Home-Based Businesses.

DH Comment – Is this really necessary to say?

ACOPD Response – Yes, as the language comes directly from the No-Impact Home-

Based Business language in the MPC. We recognize the awkwardness of the language.

Section 1501.X.5 – Regarding business activity conducted from a rental storage unit.

DH Comment – What if it is another permitted or accessory use?

ACOPD Response – Regarding another permitted use, such additional permitted

principal use would be precluded per Section 303, which limits the number of principal

uses of a property to 1. Regarding accessory use, we don't view the conduct of a business

out of a rental storage unit as customarily accessory to a rental storage facility. Thus, we

don't see the accessory use question as a problem.

Section 1501.X.7.b – Regarding outdoor vehicle storage standard.

DH Comment – What if the commercial use is to rent places to store RV's, Boats, etc...?

ACOPD Response – We've typically recommended that vehicle storage be permitted as

an accessory element to a rental storage facility with buildings. We've typically tried to

avoid having such uses that are, essentially, large parking lots used for long-term storage.

We acknowledge that such uses, however, exist. We can provide language to account for

this potential if requested.

Section 1501.X.9 – Regarding view of light source at rental storage uses.

DH Comment – I believe this needs clarified further.

ACOPD Response – Should we further state that view of the light bulb or lens covering

the light bulb is precluded from view?

Section 1501.Z.1 – Regarding range of outdoor furnishing associated with restaurants.

DH Comment – Hostess station? Pool Tables?

ACOPD Response – We suggest that we use a catch all phrase to generally cover items

that are customarily accessory to restaurant use.

Section 1501.Z.2 – Regarding storage of outdoor furniture at restaurants when not in use.

DH Comment – Like every night, or only during the cold weather months?

ACOPD Response – We suspect that this language originated in a location where seating

was being placed within the public space (for example, a public sidewalk). We could

clarify that removal only occur for that furniture within such settings. Outdoor seating

fully on private property could be left out permanently, or could be removed seasonally.

Section 1501.AA.3.a(2) – Regarding provision of shuttle service at resort uses.

DH Comment – We can require that?

ACOPD Response – We think it's worth trying. The idea here was to try to get non-

private auto connectivity when new venues are created. This would not impact existing

venues at an existing resort, but could come into play if new venues are added.

Section 1501.DD.7.b – Regarding location of parking for Single Family Attached dwellings.

DH Comment – Not garage access from front?

ACOPD Response – We have typically recommended against front-loaded garaged for

single-family attached (that is, townhouse) dwellings as all front yards get consumed for

vehicle parking / driveways. We also believe that excessive front-loading has impacts on

pedestrian accommodation as sidewalks are constantly intersecting driveways.

Section 1501.HH.4 – Regarding tower safety for wireless communication towers.

DH Comment – we should have similar language with windmills

ACOPD Response – With regard to having a "structural break point" similar to that

discussed for Section 1409.A.1 above? We can if desired.

Section 1602.B.2 – Regarding parking lot surface requirements for uses of a seasonal nature.

DH Comment – Will this affect Liberty Mountain Resort?

ACOPD Response – It would not impact Liberty as they operate currently. If, however,

Liberty adds a venue, the standard would be applicable to the additional parking required

by the new venue. That all said, we anticipate that Liberty may already comply with the

standard, or at least be close to compliance.

Section 1602.G.1 – Regarding view of light source in parking lot illumination standard.

DH Comment – Define.

ACOPD Response – As above, we believe the important issue is to preclude direct view

of the light bulb or the lens covering the light bulb. We can add language to further

specify.

INNOVATIVE GROWTH THROUGH HOME BASED BUSINESSES INITIATIVE

BOROUGH OF CARROLL VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA

Subcommittee on Home-Based Businesses, Carroll Valley Planning Commission

The goal of this innovative economic development project is to encourage low-impact, in-

come-earning home-based businesses in Carroll Valley, PA

1

INNOVATIVE GROWTH THROUGH HOME BASED BUSINESSES INITIATIVE CARROLL VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA

Initiative Vision Statement: To encourage low-impact, income-earning home-based businesses which pro-vide benefits to the participating homeowner(s) and their families and the entire Carroll Valley (CV) community and its government.

I. Background and Justification of the Innovative Growth through Home Based Businesses Initiative

A. As an economic growth and community development measure, the Carroll Valley Planning Commission (CVPC) established an ad hoc Subcommittee in 2015 to explore ways the Bor-ough can encourage the growth and development of Home Based Businesses. Since its crea-tion, this Subcommittee on Home Based Businesses has examined the potential advantages of Carroll Valley existing as a regional Home Based Business hub. After researching the issue, the Subcommittee concluded that there is sufficient economic and community benefit to fur-ther pursue measures that enable the Borough to brand and market Carroll Valley as being HBB “friendly’. Moreover, the area’s demographics are ripe for an initiative to encourage and foster home-based businesses.

B. Carroll Valley is one of the fast growing areas in Adams Council, with a population increase of 17.8% between 2000 and 2010.1 Just under 80% of the population are families (two or more individuals related in a household) and 93% of housing units are owner occupied. Fur-ther, between 2010-2014, 58% of the Borough’s population commuted out of state to work with 85% driving to their place of employment and most having an approximate commute time of 45 minutes.2 Moreover, the demographics of the area lend themselves to home-based businesses. Education levels are high with 60% having at least some college and over 35% of the working population holding jobs with skills that are potentially transferable to a home work environment, such as administrative and support services, sales, and executive/manag-ers.3

C. Further, one component of Carroll Valley Borough’s request to the Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania for funding assistance to construct a new municipal building is that the Borough sup-port HBBs by providing local services, such as meeting rooms, high speed internet, faxing, and high volume/quality copying.

II. Benefits of the Innovative Growth through Home Based Businesses Initiative

A. With low-impact, income-earning businesses operating out of homes rather than new com-mercial buildings, CV can maintain its rural character while producing income for families

1 Adams County Office of Planning & Development. (2011) Adams County, PA. Gettysburg, PA. Retrieved from http://www.ad-amscounty.us/Dept/Planning/Documents/Statistics/AC_Profile2011-web.pdf

2 US Census Bureau (2014). Commuting Characteristics by Sex: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

3 Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Carroll Valley City Profile. Retrieved from http://www.newpa.com/geo/adams/carroll-valley/

2

and new revenue streams for the Borough government without the excesses of growth and development.

B. Many residents who retire or confront unplanned life changes can choose to pursue life-long passions and interests while minimizing financial risks such as costly commercial building rentals or properties. Indeed, the opportunity to write off the space the in-home business oc-cupies as a tax deduction is a significant HBB cost reduction in itself.

C. A HBB growth policy can spawn further benefits. For example, one idea is to produce an online directory of CV residents who can support services, such as clerical, administrative, bookkeeping, as well as more specialized services such as desktop publishing, photography, notary, legal counsel, etc. An external benefit or positive side effect of the growth of HBB is the increased business produced for local tradespersons, such as carpenters, electricians, plumbers and other home services providers who live in CV.

D. While the Initiative centers on the economic expansion of HBBs, it can also have positive side-effects, such as community risk reduction. Some studies show that most burglaries occur during traditional daytime working hours, when most individuals are not at home.4 In addi-tion, when one or more parents at home during after school hours, risks associated with the ‘latchkey’ child may be reduced.5

E. For those considering relocation to this region and who have existing Home-Based Busi-nesses, Carroll Valley may offer a competitive advantage over other Adams County areas. With effective economic incentives that provide the motivation for residents to open in-home business will come adaptations and upgrades to support it. This can be seen when upgrades in electrical and communication lines are made, workshops for producing crafts and other prod-ucts for sale are installed and driveways for customer parking are redesigned.

III. Subcommittee on Home-Based Businesses Innovative Growth through Home Based Businesses Initiative

A. Procedures Governing the Subcommittee on Home-Based Businesses

1. The Subcommittee on Home Based Businesses proceeds under the authority of the Plan-ning Commission, which exists and operates under the jurisdiction of the Carroll Valley Borough Council.

2. This Subcommittee is an ad hoc committee formed for the express purpose of examining the potential benefits of facilitating home based businesses in Carroll Valley, as ex-pressed in the Subcommittee’s Vision Statement.

3. The Subcommittee must have a written mandate from the Carroll Valley Planning Com-mission detailing the purpose and scope of this ad hoc Subcommittee.

4 Jacksonville State University (2013). Securalert: Home Burglaries and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.jsu.edu/po-lice/docs/Schoolsafety.pdf

5 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2012). Home Alone Children. Retrieved from http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Home-Alone-Children-046.aspx. J. Raja-lakshmi1 and P. Thanasekaran (2015). The Effects and Behaviours of Home Alone Situation by Latchkey Children. American Journal of Nursing Science (4:4).

3

4. The Subcommittee will review relevant ordinances and policies, gather additional infor-mation within the purpose and scope of its mandate, and make recommendations to the Planning Commission.

5. The Planning Commission chair will periodically brief the Borough Council or Council chair regarding the progress of the Subcommittee.

6. If outside the purpose and scope of the Subcommittee’s mandate, the Subcommittee must obtain prior approval of the Planning Commission before expanding into additional areas of policy or code. As a body under the authority of the CV Borough Council, The Plan-ning Commission will consult with the Council on matters that involve substantive altera-tions or additions to CV ordinances.

7. The Planning Commission can accept or reject the Subcommittees findings/recommenda-tions or refer it back to Subcommittee for further work.

8. If public hearings are recommended by the Subcommittee, the Subcommittee chair must obtain the approval of the Planning Commission, which may require the approval of the Borough Council.

9. At such time that the Subcommittee submits recommendations to the Planning Commis-sion, the Planning Commission must act within a reasonable and timely manner to review and act on such recommendations, including, including referring the recommendations back to the Subcommittee for further work, referring the recommendations to the Bor-ough Council, or declining to refer the recommendations for any additional action.

IV. Focus of the Innovative Growth through Home Based Businesses Initiative

A. Review of Carroll Valley Code as Pertains to Home-based Businesses.

1. Initially, the Subcommittee on Home-Based Businesses will review current status of Home-Based Businesses within the Borough of Carroll Valley, PA. Identify the number of Home-Based Businesses in Carroll Valley. As of June 2016, there are 7 permitted Home-Based Businesses within the jurisdiction of Carroll Valley. According to the U. S Census, 88 (4%) residents in Carroll Valley reported themselves as self-employed.6 Moreover, 6.7% of residents in Carroll Valley worked in their place of residence.7 How many of these resident “unincorporated business workers” operate out of their homes in CV is not known. Therefore, this issue comprises a significant component of the Sub-committee’s work, to ensure all residents operating a Home-Based Business are identi-fied, brought into compliance with CV ordinances, and are able to benefit from the Initia-tive’s advantages.

6 US Census Bureau (2014). Select Economic Characteristics 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Re-trieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. The self employed category of worker is defined by the US Census Bureau: “Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers includes people who worked for profit or fees in their own unincorporated business, professional practice, or trade or who operated a farm.” US Cen-sus Bureau. How does the Census Bureau define the word self-employed worker? FAQ. Retrieved from: https://ask.cen-sus.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=785

7 US Census Bureau (2014). Commuting Characteristics by Sex: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

4

2. The Subcommittee on Home-Based Businesses will also examine current Carroll Valley Codes pertaining to HBBs. In the Carroll Valley Code, there are existing ordinances per-taining to Home-Based Occupations defined as “no impact” and “minor impact” com-mercial activities and those with a more significant impact, known as Home-Based Busi-nesses. by §27-111 in the municipal code. These categories are further distinguished in (§27-401-404). The Subcommittee plans to evaluate these categories to determine their viability in the current economic environment.

3. While there are sections in Chapter 27 of the municipal code of Carroll Valley that ad-dress traditional store-front businesses, there are sections of this chapter that can pertain to Home-Based Businesses. In §27-701 – 706 and §27-801 – 812, the Code defines the types and sizes of signage a business can display and parking constraints, respectively. Both of these issues should be reviewed for relevance to Home-Based Businesses in or-der to balance business development and growth, as well as maintaining the rural, com-munity atmosphere of the neighborhoods that these residential businesses inhabit.

4. Make Recommendations Regarding Revisions of Current Ordinances and the Potential Development of New Ordinances

5. Review Carroll Valley zoning ordinances that pertain to Home-Based Businesses, which are predominately located in Chapter 27 of the Carroll Valley Code.

B. Compliance Incentives

1. Develop ways to encourage Home-Based Business owners to acquire required permits. HBBs to get permits and impose fines for non-compliance. Consider a grace period for enforcement and possibly a free permit for one year.

2. Discuss with the Carroll Valley Finance Committee possible financial incentives to pro-mote HBB growth.

3. Develop criteria for a possible new “Registered Carroll Valley Home-Based Business” certification that will enable registrants to utilize Borough resources.

4. Seek authorization for “registered” HBB owners to use of Borough government facilities and resources, e.g., copy/fax services, meeting rooms, etc.

V. Proposed an Action Plan and Projected Timeframes for the development of the Innovative Growth through Home Based Businesses Initiative

A. 3rd Quarter 2016

1. Subcommittee briefs Planning Commission and Borough Council on the Innovative Growth through Home-Based Business Initiative

2. Changes are made to the Initiative as directed by the Commission and Council

B. 4th Quarter 2016

1. The Subcommittee reviews existing ordinances, and where appropriate drafts proposed revisions to update the current municipal code’s pertaining to Home-Based Businesses.

2. The proposed ordinance revisions are submitted to the Planning Commission for their re-view and comment.

3. The Subcommittee makes changes as required and resubmits to the Planning Commis-sion.

5

C. 1st Quarter 2017

1. The Planning Commission Chair and Mayor brief the Carroll Valley Borough Council on the progress of the Innovative Growth through Home-Based Business Initiative.

2. The Planning Commission and the Subcommittee gather input from CV residents, busi-nesses, and Home-Businesses.

3. Public Hearings may be help, in consultation with the Planning Commission and Bor-ough Committee.

4. Relevant materials can be distributed to the public announcing the Initiative, summariz-ing proposed ordinances changes, and inviting public comment (Funding for material printing and mailing will be required from the Borough Council). Social media will also be used to announce, explain, and seek comment on the Initiative.

VI. Innovative Growth through Home Based Businesses Initiative

A. Updates can be made to the Initiative after the public comment period, which is then referred to the full Planning Commission for consideration and comment.

B. When no further modifications are required, the draft Initiative can be referred to the Carroll Valley Council with a recommendation to support or oppose.