Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks Lot Sizes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor proposes larger lot sizes, wider roads and bigger setbacks to slow growth and preserve rural character
Summary
Supervisor Jaysen Cochran presented a package of proposed zoning changes June 1 that would raise lot‑size minimums, increase road widths and expand front/side setbacks across agricultural, R1 and R2 zones; commissioners and the solicitor discussed implementation challenges and potential developer circumvention by phasing.
Supervisor Jaysen Cochran led a multi‑part proposal at the June 1 Antrim Township Planning Commission meeting suggesting changes to lot sizes, road widths and setbacks across zoning districts to slow development and preserve an agricultural character.
For agricultural zoning Cochran proposed 75‑foot front setbacks and 25‑foot side setbacks to permit rear access to agricultural lots and keep vehicles off roadways. Staff reminded the commission that recent Pennsylvania legislation permits accessory dwellings, but some township lots (current half‑acre requirement) may be too small to host accessory dwelling units.
In R1 (low‑density) Cochran proposed one‑acre lots (approximately 40,000 square feet), 24‑foot road widths, 150‑foot lot widths and depths, 50‑foot front setbacks and 35‑foot side setbacks (rear remaining 25 feet). Solicitor Zachary Mills suggested adding driveway turnaround requirements as used in other municipalities to reduce backing onto roadways.
For R2 (medium density) he proposed three‑quarter‑acre minimum lot sizes (about 30,000 square feet) for both on‑lot septic and public sewer connections, 100‑foot lot widths, 150‑foot lot depth, 50‑foot front setbacks (no lower than 45 feet) and 35‑foot side setbacks.
On townhouses Cochran proposed 5,000‑square‑foot lots or a limit on units per acre and suggested developments larger than 60 units be subject to Conditional Use. Commissioner Larson Wenger asked for Cochran’s reasoning; Cochran said the intent was to slow development, reduce home size to support affordability, and preserve spacious, agricultural‑feeling lots. Solicitor Mills warned developers could circumvent a unit cap by increasing the number of phases.
The commission discussed these concepts but recorded no formal vote; the proposals are currently discussion items and would require ordinance drafting and supervisor action to take effect.
