Huntington Township supervisors review draft zoning ordinance, tighten traffic-study triggers

Speaker 2, an unidentified speaker, presented a draft rewrite of Huntington Township's subdivision and zoning ordinances and walked the board through supporting PennDOT traffic-counts, road-classification distinctions and proposed language on shared access and traffic-study triggers.

The presentation focused on how PennDOT’s 24-hour sample counts (taken on summer weekdays between late April and mid‑October) inform whether a road functions as a local road or a minor collector. Speaker 2 said he pulled the counts from PennDOT’s website and cautioned they are snapshots: "it's a 24 hour account on a random day" and earlier records and contractor-collected counts use different protocols. He told the board the draft ordinance currently runs about 60 pages plus an added 12–13 pages of definitions, and he expects a roughly 75–80 page total once finished.

Why it matters: classification affects what improvements and traffic mitigations the township may require when development occurs. Speaker 2 and other board members emphasized the difference between occasional events and sustained traffic increases, noting it takes many consistent trips for a road to be reclassified.

On shared access drives, board members debated conflicting wording on page 42. The board agreed on two linked principles: new shared driveways will not be permitted after the ordinance is adopted, and existing shared driveways should be required to conform to the township’s design requirements when the property is redeveloped or when changes make upgrades necessary. Speaker 5 recommended deleting a sentence that created the conflict and replacing it with a clear requirement to conform to design standards.

The draft also contains proposed objective triggers for requiring traffic or impact studies. Speaker 2 said he streamlined more subjective thresholds into clearer conditions that would give supervisors authority to require a study under specific circumstances (for example, where an existing narrow road would be physically unable to safely accommodate the trips generated by a proposed use). Board members stressed that where the zoning code already mandates a traffic study for a particular use (such as a sports complex), that requirement must remain; Speaker 1 cautioned against language that would unintentionally allow removal of specific-use study requirements.

Next steps: Speaker 2 said he and Scott will refine the traffic-study provisions and will send the draft to an outside solicitor (Worcester) for legal review before public distribution. He estimated materials could be handed out in December and formally reviewed by the board in January. The board set its next meeting for Dec. 23. Speaker 3 moved to adjourn at the meeting’s end; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (aye recorded; specific roll-call votes were not transcribed).

The meeting also included a brief procedural note on broadband funding and applications; Speaker 2 directed members seeking details to contact Sherry Clayton Williams, identified in the meeting as an Adams County director, and a board member volunteered to follow up and report back.