The Carroll Valley Borough Council once again grappled with zoning ordinances about constructing chicken coops and selling lots.
Adam and Katlyn Colson approached the borough council in July and asked permission to keep the chicken coop they built in the front of their house because there is no room in the backyard as the ordinance dictates. Colson said she spoke with neighbors to ensure they were okay with the coop, designed to match their house and garage, and its location. It sits behind a large garden, and the entire area is fenced. Many neighbors have attended the meetings in their support.
Council president Richard Matthews opened Tuesday’s discussion on the chicken coop ordinance by quoting from the deed of his property, under “restrictions”: “No poultry, horse, cow, sheep, hog, goat or other similar animal excepting only ordinary household pets shall be kept or permitted on the premises.” He added that he did not understand why the borough had ever decided to do something contrary to property deeds. “So my vote on chickens will be, ‘No,'” he said.
Council solicitor Zach Rice explained that deeds and council ordinances are two different areas of the law. “The restrictive items in a private deed are not items that the borough would enforce.” He added that a deed is a private tool to enforce restrictions, not a public tool.
Borough manager Dave Hazlett suggested a revision allowing spaces to keep the coop other than the backyard. Still, those areas would not solve the original problem because of where the current sewer system is located.
Planning Commission chair Richard Wright asked Hazlett if additional language could be added to allow more flexibility without giving residents the right to “just put chicken coops everywhere.” Rice did caution the council about granting ordinance waivers to residents because it can quickly become very political.
“This is a very unique community in that we have very unique situations on different lots,” said borough manager Dave Hazlett, adding it would be challenging to come up with language that would fit every unique situation.
Wright still asked the council to allow the planning commission to look at putting in additional language to make the ordinance more flexible.
Perhaps we should consider not putting in language, but taking out language,” said council member Bruce Carr. “Why can’t you just let people make their own minds up as long as it doesn’t affect anybody else?”
A motion to amend the chicken ordinance, removing the conditions of the location and falling back on the underlying zoning district setbacks, brought a three/three split from the council, and Mayor Ron Harris was asked to break the tie. He voted in favor of the amended ordinance, which will be passed back to the planning commission for further consideration.
Lot sales
In unfinished business, the council looked at guidelines that will allow the process of lot sales to move forward. Council member Kari Buterbaugh asked if there would be any provision for residents who currently own lots in Carroll Valley to have an advantage when purchasing a neighboring lot.
Hazlett explained that any lot that sells for more than $6,000 must be advertised and sold through a sealed bid. According to state law, lots appraised at less than $6,000 do not have to be put out for a sealed bid. But they still have to be advertised.
Solicitor Rice said there is a provision for swapping a lot with the council, but the lot acquired by the borough must be used for recreational purposes.
“So what you’re saying is there’s no way you can show favoritism towards the Carroll Valley resident?” Buterbugh asked again.
“Exactly,” replied Rice. “Whether it an exchange or a sale,” he added, “if the fair market value is in excess of $6,000, the answer is ‘no.'”
Hazlett said that the document he prepared suggesting guidelines for selling lots was in response to a decision by the council that some of the available lots should be sold. “Every time we talk about it, we spin our wheels exactly the same, so you’ll have to forgive my obvious frustration,” he said.
“In theory, the concept of favoritism towards borough residents is perhaps a laudable goal, but in reality, you’re going to have plenty of situations where favoritism to one means discrimination or targeting or adverse impacts on someone else.”
When a resident expressed concern about the number of lots to be sold, Hazlett said, “We might have 200 lots, but the reality is we have about four or five that it would behoove us to liquidate because they’re worth significantly more money than others.” The original purpose of selling the lots at one time was to help reimburse the borough for a 20-acre land purchase that will someday be turned into a youth park.
After the 40-minute discussion, Matthews said, “We really wore out the broom on that rug.” The council voted unanimously to accept the guidelines for lot sales as presented.
Other council business
An amendment regarding building setbacks and permitting requirements for home occupation and no-impact home-based business was tabled until October 2023.
The borough unanimously passed Ordinance #5-2023, which will authorize the completion of the project to update the borough’s wastewater treatment plant. Estimated at more than $6 million, the project’s expected life, including the existing facilities, will be at least 30 years.
Kay Lake
Council member Carr noted that Kay Lake has become so overgrown with aquatic vegetation it “could be mowed” and asked if anything could be done to alleviate the problem.
Hazlett responded that Kay Lake has had the maximum of chemical remediation allowed. However, he added the borough may seek special permission to add additional chemicals, which they might consider for the spring. He said that the council in 2005 had discussed dredging the lake, but it decided to seek a different resolution due to its cost of about $1.5 million.
Later, during the GMS funding solutions report, Matthews asked if the statewide local share account might be a source of funding to clean Lake Kay. The maximum project request is $1 million, and Hazlett said his office had just met with GMS representatives the previous day to discuss possibilities. Lake Kay is one of the 12 projects submitted for consideration, and Hazlett said they are working with GMS to decide which projects will be best suited for such a funding solution. Carroll Valley is currently waiting to hear if they will be awarded the $212,000 funding they are seeking for the trail project.
Photo Caption: Faced with the issue of aquatic growth on Kay Lake, Carroll Valley Borough is seeking possible solutions.
Judith Cameron Seniura is a freelance reporter. She began her journalism career in the early ‘70s and has written for newspapers, magazines, and other media in Ontario, Canada, Alaska, Michigan, Nebraska, San Antonio, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.