Chair outlines public-hearing process for conditional use and proposed solar-panel zoning changes

The chair opened the borough's meeting by announcing two public hearings: a conditional-use case for an applicant that the planning commission recommended for approval and a separate legislative hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance amendment to change provisions for solar panels on detached accessory structures. “This public hearing is for the purposes of informing and learning public opinion and comments on a proposed legislative change,” the chair said, distinguishing the legislative hearing from the conditional-use adjudicatory process.

The chair explained the procedural differences: the conditional-use matter is adjudicatory, with the applicant present and potential sworn testimony and cross‑examination, while the legislative hearing gathers public comment. A court reporter will be used for the conditional‑use hearing. The chair also cautioned that if the borough makes substantial revisions after a hearing it may need to return to the planning commission, county reviewers and hold another public hearing, and that re‑advertising may be required: “If there are substantial revisions to the ordinance, we essentially . . . need to get planning commission comments,” the chair said.

Planning‑commission feedback discussed at the meeting recommended removing the overlay in the mapped M3 strip and treating the use as conditional in that zoning district, in part because the overlay included parcels closer to residential areas and Lindbrook Park. Councilors raised several substantive concerns cited by the commission and county staff: potential building height and setback impacts near the park, whether to add minimum lot‑size rules for certain uses, impervious‑surface coverage and stormwater impacts, and whether the borough’s existing dimensional standards already address some issues.

The chair urged clarity in public outreach and framing to avoid the perception that the borough is actively inviting applicants to locate anywhere: the ordinance is intended to provide guidance and controls rather than to solicit development. No vote was taken on the ordinance itself at the meeting; the chair said the council may table action, vote to move forward, or ask staff to prepare revisions and additional review, and that the post‑enactment legal notice under the MPC remains an option for some situations. The chair indicated staff expects to schedule the legislative hearing in the coming months and to return to the council with any revised text and additional referrals from reviewing agencies.