Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntington Township board grants de minimis setback variances for 255 Whitechurch Road
Summary
The Huntington Township Zoning Hearing Board voted unanimously to grant variances allowing an existing commercial building at 255 Whitechurch Road to remain slightly inside required front- and side-yard setbacks; the board said the encroachments were de minimis and will issue a written decision within 45 days.
The Huntington Township Zoning Hearing Board voted unanimously to grant dimensional variances for a commercial building at 255 Whitechurch Road, York Springs, allowing limited encroachment into the ordinance's front- and side-yard setback requirements.
The board's motion, made on the record by Thomas Hart and seconded by solicitor Matt Teeter, approved requested relief from sections 27-1141.3 and 27-1141.4 of the township zoning ordinance. After an executive session to deliberate, the board concluded the building's encroachments represented a de minimis variance and therefore warranted approval. "You certainly have a verbal decision at this point on the record," solicitor Matt Teeter said; he added the board would issue a written decision within 45 days that explains the legal basis for the finding.
The applicant representatives said they are acquiring the existing structure and asked the board to allow use of the building for light manufacturing rather than requiring demolition or substantial rebuild to meet setbacks. Applicant witness Jeff Fortuna described the operation as a small manufacturing firm with about 10 employees and modest shipping needs: "on average, in a week's time, we would see 5 LTL trucks in a week and 1, possibly 2 flatbed trucks a week," he said. The applicants said most work would occur during normal business hours Monday through Friday.
Exhibit 1, a one-page plan from Hoover Engineering Services Inc. dated 05/18/2024, was entered into evidence and presented a site layout showing the largest encroachment at the front corner (approximately 10.3 feet relative to the 100-foot street setback measured per the plan) and a smaller 2.21-foot encroachment into the side-yard setback. Zoning officer Gus Greenvalls confirmed his field measurements placed the building close to those numbers, noting the roadway geometry and uneven ground make exact field measurement more difficult.
Neighbors and nearby property owners participated in the hearing. One adjacent landowner urged caution and recommended thorough land-development due diligence, including surveys and infiltration testing, before additional investment. The board heard that the fence along the property was used as the guide for the side buffer measurement for the hearing record.
The board recorded a unanimous voice vote in favor of the motion; the chair declared the motion granted. Teeter emphasized that the written decision would be based on the evidence and testimony presented and would not authorize any future additional encroachments or further development without compliance with township ordinances. The board also noted that any subsequent land-development steps (surveys, formal plans) could require further approvals.
The board adjourned with no further business. The hearing record notes that notice of the hearing was published in the Gettysburg Times and a property posting was made at least seven days before the hearing.
