Lancaster Township supervisors advance zoning amendment tied to 124-unit townhouse proposal
LANCASTER TWP — A property owner is seeking to develop a 124-unit townhouse plan along Route 19 and arguing for changes to an ordinance that his attorney says unfairly prevents them from being built.
A curative amendment petition was filed by Wrigley 19 on behalf of property owner Harold Wrigley, prompting a special Lancaster Township supervisors meeting earlier this week at which the supervisors voted to adopt a resolution finalizing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding a potential zoning curative amendment connected to the proposed townhouse development.
The Monday, Nov. 3, move sends an alternative curative amendment to both the township planning commission and the Butler County Planning Commission for further review. It also tees up a future public hearing on the revised amendment.
During an earlier public hearing, attorney Dylan Graham, on behalf of Wrigley, argued that Lancaster Township’s zoning ordinance contains provisions that make townhouse construction “unreasonable” on his 38-acre parcel of land.
Graham said on Oct. 20 that the current ordinance is written in a way that prevents them from being built.
The petition, he said, points to three specific issues: a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for townhouses, a 15-foot side-yard setback and a 40-foot front-yard setback.
Graham added the current lot size requirements result in “absurd” parcel dimensions, the side-yard setback is impossible to meet on attached townhouse walls and the 40-foot front-yard setback unnecessarily drives up construction costs.
To directly address those issues, Graham proposed reducing the minimum front-yard setback to 25 feet — enough space, he said, to park even the longest pickup trucks without blocking sidewalks — and eliminating the side-yard setback requirement for shared walls.
Earlier this year, members of the township’s planning commission agreed that certain standards were excessive or impractical, but were hung up on appropriate density levels. The commission initially recommended a maximum of four dwelling units per acre but later revised that figure to three.
Officials on Monday confirmed that their findings supported three of the applicant’s claims, including that the minimum lot size, side-yard setback and the front-yard setback were either “unreasonable” or “exclusionary.”
However, they opted against approving the higher density requested by the company. In their own alternative amendment, officials set a cap of 3.25 units per acre, which was the most notable tweak that was made.
Township solicitor Michele Cromer said supervisors were taking public comments seriously, but they are bound by Pennsylvania law on certain procedures in regards to the amendment changes.
“We’re not adopting anything this evening,” she said, noting residents will have another opportunity to share their thoughts once the revised amendment is reviewed by both planning commissions.
It’s unclear at this point how long that process will take or when another public hearing will occur.
