Huntington Township planners simplify land-development triggers, remove 20,000-sq-ft clause

Planning commission members in Huntington Township spent the bulk of the meeting redrafting Section 4 of the township land-development code to make triggers for preliminary versus final plan review clearer and simpler.

The commission agreed to a primary threshold that sends projects to preliminary plan review if they propose five or more residential lots or if they require construction, installation or extension of public infrastructure such as streets, sewer or water lines. "If it requires new public infrastructure improvements, it has to do a preliminary plan," said Speaker 2 during the discussion of thresholds. Members decided to delete a previously included 20,000-square-foot threshold because it was redundant with the new infrastructure-focused language.

Why it matters: The changes affect when developers must submit preliminary plans and the level of review projects will face. Commissioners said the clarified language should reduce confusion, speed staff review and make it harder for applicants to avoid requirements through ambiguous drafting.

Key provisions and clarifications

- Lot-count trigger: Commissioners settled on "5 or more" residential lots as the a-condition that requires preliminary plan review; projects of "4 or fewer" would follow the b-condition for final-plan procedures.

- Infrastructure trigger: The ordinance will explicitly require preliminary review for any project that involves construction, installation or extension of public improvements including streets, sewer and water lines, regardless of square footage.

- Stormwater and exemptions: The commission discussed aligning stormwater-plan triggers with land-development triggers. Members said projects proposing more than 5,000 square feet of impervious coverage would generally require a stormwater plan, while keeping a 7,500-square-foot exception tied to lot acreage for larger farm lots. "There's an exception for 7,500 square feet," Speaker 1 noted when members reviewed exemptions.

- Small structures and clarity: Commissioners debated whether minor structures (for example, a gazebo or covered patio) should trigger a land-development plan. They agreed to remove a clause that could unintentionally require full plans for small structures and instead rely on stormwater and building-permit triggers.

- Anti-avoidance: Members warned against piecemeal development designed to circumvent thresholds (for example, repeated 0.9-acre phases). Speaker 3 raised the concern and the group confirmed existing erosion-control and anti-piecemeal provisions would continue to apply.

Administrative and procedural items

- Submission timelines: The group retained a 30-day county completeness review for initial submissions and agreed resubmissions should be handled on a shorter timeline. Commissioners favored requiring at least 10 business days for resubmittals so staff and commissioners can review late changes rather than receiving them immediately before meetings.

- Title and distribution: To avoid tying the code to individual staff, members agreed to reference positions such as the code-enforcement officer or a designated person rather than a specific name; that position (or designee) will distribute plan copies to the county, Scott (staff mentioned in the meeting), and other required reviewers such as the SEO or sewer authority as appropriate.

- Plan consistency and permits: The draft will require that plans submitted for permits be consistent with the version approved by the board of supervisors. Commissioners asked the solicitor to review that language because recent case law could affect enforcement.

- Escrow, fees and as-built records: The commission discussed adding a fees and escrow section to recover inspection and review costs from developers. They noted escrow accounts are specific in purpose, must be replenished when depleted, and stop plan review when funds are exhausted. Commissioners asked the solicitor whether escrow rules should be placed in this ordinance or in a separate, stand-alone escrow ordinance. The draft also calls for submission of recorded operation-and-maintenance (O&M) plans and a copy of as-built stormwater O&M documents to the township upon completion.

Quotes from the meeting

"If it requires new public infrastructure improvements, it has to do a preliminary plan," said Speaker 2 as members agreed to prioritize infrastructure triggers over a square-foot threshold.

"There's an exception for 7,500 square feet," Speaker 1 said while clarifying the farm-size exemption that may prevent small agricultural lots from being unduly burdened.

Next steps and procedural posture

Commissioners asked staff to incorporate the agreed edits, to flag highlighted language for solicitor review (especially plan-permit consistency and escrow placement), and to circulate a revised draft for another review. No final adoption vote on the ordinance took place at this meeting. The commission then moved, seconded and approved adjournment by voice vote.

The draft and the solicitor's recommendations will return to the commission for further action before a final vote is taken.