Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board authorizes hearing on DeM Road Partners rezoning petition after extensive debate on density and 65‑foot heights

East Cocalico Township Board of Supervisors · June 20, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive questions about density, parking and potential precedent, East Cocalico supervisors authorized preparation of an ordinance and advertisement of a public hearing on DeM Road Partners’ petition to rezoning parcels on Denver Road and related text amendments, including a proposed increase to 12 units per acre, reduced parking and up to 65‑foot multifamily heights for large R2 lots.

The East Cocalico Township Board on June 20 voted to authorize preparation of an ordinance and advertise a public hearing on a zoning‑map change and text‑amendment petition submitted by DeM Road Partners for properties near Denver Road.

A representative for DeM Road Partners asked the board to schedule a legislative hearing on rezoning and text amendments to allow a mixed residential/industrial redevelopment of several parcels that would include roughly 200 apartment units in multiple buildings, a 177,000 ft² warehouse, and a proposed floodplain restoration on the site. The petitioner said the request included three core amendments for large R2 parcels (lots of 15 acres or more): increase allowable density to 12 units per acre, reduce parking requirements from two spaces to 1.5 spaces per dwelling, and raise allowable multifamily height to 65 feet on qualifying large lots. "We are asking you to advertise now for a hearing on the rezoning and then just those three components," the petitioner told the board.

Planning Commission feedback and staff review showed mixed recommendations: county and township planning staff supported the density increase and reduced parking in concept, but planning commissioners did not uniformly support the 65‑foot height change or the initial buffering/setback amendments; the petitioner withdrew the buffering/setback portion for separate zoning‑hearing‑board relief where site‑specific variances would be appropriate.

Supervisors pressed for more information before any decision: requests included illustrative elevations or renderings of likely building types, projected workforce‑rent ranges and data on likely vehicle and school‑child impacts per 100 units. Board members also debated whether an ordinance change would create a lasting rule that other developers could use or whether relief should be handled on a case‑by‑case basis to avoid spot zoning. Staff and the solicitor explained that advertising a legislative hearing does not obligate the board to adopt any change and that rezoning (map change) and ordinance amendments would be separate actions at subsequent meetings.

After questions and conditions requested by supervisors, the board voted to authorize preparation of the ordinance and advertise a public hearing so the petition could be considered formally with additional materials and analysis at the hearing. The hearing will present the petition and supporting materials, after which the board may decide whether to take legislative action.

Next steps: petitioner and staff will provide additional documentation requested by supervisors (parcel list for potential applicability across the township, illustrative elevations, parking and traffic data, and workforce rent information) ahead of the advertised hearing.