Carlisle staff outlines broad land‑use reforms on neighborhood retail, noise, EV readiness and data centers

Carlisle planning staff briefed borough council on Sept. 3, 2025, on a package of potential land‑use reforms that would loosen dimensional rules in older neighborhoods, clarify noise standards, add electric‑vehicle readiness requirements for some developments, and set thresholds for industrial uses such as data centers.

Jared Wolfson, director of sustainable community and economic development, said staff’s review examined historic land‑use patterns in established neighborhoods and the ways current zoning treats those areas as if they were suburban developments. Wolfson said that makes many traditional corner stores and small mixed‑use properties nonconforming and forces discretionary review by the zoning hearing board rather than allowing permit approval by staff.

Wolfson said the administration may recommend flexibility on front setbacks and minimum lot dimensions so small additions or conversions that conform to neighborhood patterns can proceed without multiple variances. He described common benchmarks planners use for neighborhood context — 2,500 and 5,000 square feet — and said the code currently allows a 2,500‑square‑foot “neighborhood convenience store,” but the text has been applied unevenly. “A neighborhood retail store can allow lots of different things. What we're usually seeing come through the door is kinda your neighborhood smoke shop,” Wolfson said. He said staff may revise the text so the retail definition favors grocery and basic household items over products that do not serve daily needs.

Wolfson said the review will also consider R2, R4 and R5 residential districts where dimensional nonconformities are common, and he suggested allowing neighborhood‑scaled commerce along arterials and collectors, on corners with more parking opportunity, or as accessory uses in owner‑occupied properties.

Noise code consolidation was another topic. Wolfson said the borough has separate noise standards in peace and good order provisions and in zoning, enforced by different officers, which creates confusion. He noted a state preemption tied to alcohol licenses: under Pennsylvania’s licensing preemption (Act 67), licensed establishments may generate up to 75 decibels at the property line Sunday‑Thursday from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Friday‑Saturday from 10 a.m. to midnight. By comparison, Wolfson said, the borough’s commercial district limit is 65 decibels and residential limits are lower. He asked whether similar allowances could be extended to non‑licensed venues in locations where the land‑use context supports outdoor music and events and whether local standards could be consolidated to reduce enforcement confusion.

On electric‑vehicle policy, Wolfson said the climate action committee and the land‑use subcommittee are considering minimum EV parking or readiness requirements for redevelopment: “If you scaled your project up to a minimum of 10 parking spaces…then we want you to be ready for EVs when the market's favorable,” he said. He also noted safety concerns raised by volunteer fire companies and staff about indoor charging and lithium‑ion battery fires, and said staff favors solutions such as conduit, panel capacity or outdoor charging where feasible.

Wolfson addressed data centers and other industrial uses, saying the borough currently lacks a land‑use definition for data centers. He said guidance from the American Planning Association ranges from small‑scale 10,000‑square‑foot facilities to regionally significant campuses. Staff proposed scaling industrial definitions beyond the recently adopted 10,000‑square‑foot “artisan industry” category to a 20,000‑square‑foot threshold with a 25‑employee ceiling for the Light Industrial (I‑2) district, and keeping the more intense allowances in the I‑1 district.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and short‑term rentals were also raised. Wolfson said ADU recommendations would include dimensional standards and plumbing/utility connections; metering and billing for water and sewer service to ADUs are operational complications staff is studying. He cited Lancaster’s short‑term rental code as a model for limiting investor‑driven conversions in sensitive neighborhoods.

Councilors asked follow‑up questions about accessory commercial units and owner‑occupied businesses; a council member suggested exploring owner‑occupied accessory commercial conversions in R4. Wolfson and councilors also thanked a Dickinson College student intern, Monse, for compiling analyses of where zoning hearings are required. Several councilors and residents recalled historic corner stores and supported considering more neighborhood‑scaled retail.

No ordinance or text amendment was adopted; Wolfson said staff will return with draft code language for council consideration.