Conewago Online Report
Conewago Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

Comments for the Conewago Township Planning Commission on the Draft Comprehensive Plan

On Wed., October 15, 2008 at 7pm, the Conewago Planning Commission met at the Conewago Elementary School to receive public comment on its new Draft Comprehensive Plan. These are comments given by Joel Buckley.

Click here to see Enhanced version of Future Land Use Map

Trust Zoning

What’s the difference between my map and the township map?

On my map you can actually see the Trust zoning district.

The new Eleemysonary Overlay (or Trust) Zoning District would affect about 600 acres, mostly farmland. This includes a dozen or more parcels that make up fully 40% of all the road frontage on Route 743.
[Note: this is labeled EO on the Enhanced version of Future Land Use Map.]

According to the plan, “The Eleemosynary Overlay allows for additional uses to be permitted in certain areas, regardless of the underlying use.” The Trust would be allowed to ignore certain current zoning restrictions and bypass the normal review process which allows the public to comment before a decision to allow changes is made.

Why is this needed?

Now, if the Trust wants to develop a property for a use for which it is not zoned, it goes before the Planning Commission, just like anybody else, just like the Hershey Free Church did, just like Mt Calvary Church did. They can ask for a Waiver, or a Conditional Use, or go to the Zoning Appeals Board or petition for a Zoning change. The public is informed and able to participate. The Supervisors, representing us, get to make the decision.

If the Zoning Overlay is adopted, than the Trust would be able to develop this land by right, without going through these procedures. The public would be denied their right to participate. The township would lose the control it currently has over how this land is developed.

What benefit does it provide to the community?

The answer is NONE!

Ag Preservation

Three-quarters of Conewago is farmland. But a significant amount of that land is actually zoned Residential or Commercial, more than is needed for responsible future development. I commend the commission for redefining R-C Residential Country as Rural Resource. It’s a good idea to try to protect farmland not currently zoned ag from intensive development. However, the plan to have Rural Resource retain the zoning rules for R-C Residential Country is inadequate. It allows too much development. If there is water and sewer present, it only means that lot sizes will be somewhat larger than R-S Residential Suburban. It’s too easy for a developer to extend utilities to allow intensive development of these areas. I believe you either should eliminate the reduction in lot sizes for water and sewer in Rural Resource or place restrictions on the total number of lots similar to Ag Zoning.

High Density Residential Development

Again I commend the commission for reducing the amount of land that is zoned residential, particularly if Rural Resource is actually changed so it is not just a Lower Density Residential zone. However, you have also made changes which increase the zoning density of the remaining residential areas. While I understand that this is considered “efficient land use” by professional planners, I believe it is not appropriate for Conewago. Sections of Church Road, Chestnut Road and Ridge Road would see minimum lot sizes reduced from 30ksqft to 20 ksqft, or even 15 ksqft with public water. This is an increase in zoning density of 50 to 100%. I believe even Conewagoans in the residential areas want to retain the more rural life style of larger lot sizes.

The new Mixed Use Zone which would allow 10 ksqft lot sizes is a terrible idea. I know that parcel is currently zoned R-S Residential Suburban with 20ksqft lot sizes, but this would double that. It would be a better idea to rezone this parcel as Rural Resource or Ag.
[Note: this is labeled MU on the Enhanced version of Future Land Use Map.]

Commercial Development

Instead of limiting Commercial development, the plan actually increases the amount of land for Commercial and increases zoning density for Commercial. The plan’s suggestion to eliminate minimum lot sizes for commercial properties is a bad idea. In 1998, the Planning Commission disapproved a request by the Hershey Trust to rezone 140 acres of agricultural land for a MILLION SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE. The Draft Plan once again proposes rezoning most of this parcel from Agricultural to Commercial.
[Note: this is labeled C-LI on the Enhanced version of Future Land Use Map.]

You made the right decision then to reject the rezoning request. You shouldn’t grant it now in the Comprehensive Plan. There is plenty of undeveloped commercial property in existing zoning and it is appropriately placed. There is no need to add more Commercial in the Mixed Use zone.

Don’t Turn 743 into Another 39

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the plan does. All development is focused on 743. This will certainly make what is already a bad traffic situation much worse. I understand planners want to focus development where there is existing infrastructure. But that is a wrongheaded approach. It accelerates and maximizes development, instead of slowing it down. Better to keep future Commercial development where its zoned near Mt Joy. That way at least half the traffic won’t be through the township. Expanding commercial in the middle of the township in the designated Mixed Use zone exacerbates the traffic right next to the school and designated township park site.

Same with the Medium Density Residential. If it was left in Gil Petrina’s farm where its been for 25 years without being developed, who knows when it might be. And until sewer and water get there, if ever, it won’t be very high density. And even if it is developed, much of the associated traffic will be in Londonderry, not Conewago. The Mixed Used zone already has sewer, and water may be coming. Development can be done much more quickly. The Petrina farm should be kept as the MDR zone, not the new Mixed Use zone.

Sincerely, Joel Buckley