WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA PDF Free Download
1 / 22/22
100%
WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 8, 2025 – 7:00 pm
Stokes Assembly Hall – Township Administration Building
1039 Wilmington Pike, West Chester, PA
For general inquiries or questions about any of the items on this agenda, please contact the Township
office either by phone (610) 692-1930 or via e-mail at administration@westtown.org.
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Adoption of Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting September 3, 2025
Announcements
1. Zoning Hearing Board Request for 105 Piper Lane for Variances to Accommodate
Inground Swimming Pool Has Been Received
2. Zoning Hearing Board Request for 1023 Wilmington Pike for Variances to Accommodate
Single-Family Home Has Been Received
Public Comment – Non-Agenda Items
New Business
1. Subdivision and Land Development Projects Update
Status update on current and incoming subdivision and land development projects.
2. Review List of Proposed Ordinance Amendments
Revisit a list of proposed ordinance amendments to discuss potential additions/changes
and to set up priorities for 2026.
Old Business
Public Comment
Reports
1. Board of Supervisors Meeting September 15, 2025 – Brian Knaub
2. Environmental Advisory Council Meeting October 23 and 30, 2025 – Russ Hatton
3. Board of Supervisors Meeting October 6, 2025 – Russ Hatton
Adjournment
Next PC Meeting:
- October 22, 2025, 7:00 PM
PC Representative at next Board of Supervisors Meeting:
- Monday October 20, 2025, 7:30 PM – Kevin Flynn/Brian Knaub
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 1
WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Stokes Assembly Hall, 1039 Wilmington Pike
Wednesday, September 3, 2025 – 7:00 PM
Present
Commissioners, Russ Hatton (RH), Tom Sennett (TS), Jim Lees (JL), Kevin Flynn (KF), Jack Embick
(JE) and Rob Pingar (RP). Brian Knaub (BK) was absent. Planning Commission solicitor Kristin
Camp and Township Manager and Director of Planning & Zoning Mila Carter were also present.
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Embick called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Adoption of Agenda (TS/RH) 6-0
Mr. Sennett made a motion to adopt the agenda. Mr. Hatton seconded. All were in favor of the
motion.
Approval of Minutes (TS/RH) 6-0
Mr. Sennett made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from August 6, 2025. Mr. Hatton
seconded. All were in favor of the motion.
Announcements
None.
Public Comment – Non Agenda Items
None.
New Business
None.
Old Business
1. Land Development Application – Sarah Starkweather Elementary School
Mr. Embick announced that the applicant, West Chester Area School District (WCASD), calls
for improvements to the Sarah W. Starkweather Elementary School.
Amanda Sundquist, legal counsel on behalf of the WCASD, summarized the project, which
includes to the removal of three modular classrooms and construction of the building addition
of 8,885 square feet. She recapped that the applicant appeared before the Commission on
July 23rd where a detailed discussion on the application has taken place. She added that
since then the project team has reviewed the Township consultants’ letters and revised the
plan, which was included in the Commission’s meeting packets. In addition, the Chester
County Planning Commission (CCPC) has issued a review letter pursuant to Act 247. Ms.
Sundquist requested a Commission’s recommendation on the updated plan and proposed
waivers, as she believed that the district has addressed, or will address, all outstanding
comments. She further noted that the WCASD feels that a suggested by the Commission
sidewalk along the access driveway from Stetson Middle School to Starkweather Elementary
School) is not appropriate for this project. Ms. Sundquist explained that a sidewalk is not
required, and it is unnecessary for school operations, and presents safety concerns by
potentially encouraging public access onto an elementary school campus. She added that
sidewalk would increase impervious coverage, resulting in substantial site disturbance and
would not serve the needs of the WCASD families, staff, or employees.
Mr. Embick wanted to hear Al Federico’s, Traffic engineer, comments related to parking,
traffic impacts, and a potential connector (sidewalk or some other Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) compliant pathway). Al Federico reported that the revised plans had been received
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 2
just recently, thus not fully reviewed yet, but he was ready to discuss two main issues. He
noted that while he generally supports pedestrian connectivity, he recognized the concerns
raised by the applicant and left it up to the Commission to make a final decision. Mr. Federico
further acknowledged existing nonconformities related to parking requirements, specifically
noncompliant parking space geometry and dimensions. He clarified that while immediate
corrections are not being requested, he recommends for the WCASD to bring the lot into
compliance during future resurfacing. He noted that the parking spaces in the northern area
near Cheney Drive were quite narrow measuring as little as 7.7 feet wide. Mr. Federico
thought that striping adjustments might result in the loss of several spaces. Mr. Pingar asked
whether there was sufficient parking for the school’s needs. Ms. Carter referred to the site
plan sheet that noted the existing 104 parking spaces while the school’s current enrollment
only requires 41 spaces as per presented parking calculations. Mr. Flynn asked about timing
of the parking lot resurfacing. Ms. Sundquist noted that Mr. Birster, Director of Facilities and
Operations, indicated that the resurfacing and striping would take place at the end of overall
improvements and making the parking lot compliant with the requirements.
Mr. Pingar requested a details on how the stormwater will be managed on site. Barry Stingel,
Landscape architect, provided an overview of the site’s existing and proposed stormwater
management systems. He explained that currently, stormwater is collected through
downspouts and inlets that discharge into an existing basin located on the south side of the
property where athletic fields are located. Mr. Stingle added that with new improvements,
there will be a stormwater basin consisting of a subsurface structure that captures runoff and
allows for periodic maintenance through cleanout ports, and releases water into the existing
basin. He further explained that the existing basin was built in the 1990s and does not have
sufficient capacity to meet today’s standards for both stormwater quantity and quality,
necessitating the additional facility. Ms. Camp emphasized the importance of including clear
and accessible operation and maintenance requirements in the recorded documents
pertaining to existing and proposed stormwater facilities. Mr. Stingel noted that periodic
cleaning will be necessary to remove sediment accumulation, with frequency determined by
the plan’s specifications. Mr. Pingar asked about the frequency of maintenance. Mr. Stingle
was not sure but noted the appropriate maintenance language has been added to the plan
sheets and will be included in the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Pingar raised a question about the piping crossing under the building. Mr. Stingel
explained that it is an active drainage line that predates a prior building addition, which had
been constructed over the pipe. He added that the new addition will be constructed over this
pipe, a practice relatively common in school facilities due to phased construction over time.
Mr. Stingel provided that this reinforced concrete pipe is functional and in use, carrying
stormwater from the existing parking lot. He stated that structural footings for both the
previous and proposed additions have been, or will be designed to protect the pipe, as it is
located at a significant depth. Mr. Stingel also explained new stormwater piping will be
installed to collect runoff from downspouts around the building, and this new system will
connect to the new underground basin before ultimately discharging into the existing basin
and storm manhole, thereby integrating both old and new infrastructure into a coordinated
drainage plan.
Mr. Embick asked whether the existing stormwater basin is a detention facility or it is designed
to infiltrate. He also wanted to know how it will function in connection with the new basin.
Mr. Stingel clarified that the design team does not have the stormwater calculations for the
existing basin and therefore cannot confirm its design, and provided that its functionality is
only known in terms of size and performance where it collects runoff, retains it for a period of
time, and releases it at a controlled rate. He added that the basin is equipped with an outlet
pipe for controlled discharge and an emergency spillway for extreme storm events, such as
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 3
a 100-year storm. Mr. Stingle assured that the new stormwater system will capture all
additional runoff before conveying it to the existing basin. Ms. Camp suggested to extend
clear operation and maintenance provisions to the existing basin, given that such agreements
were not standard when the facility was built in the 1990s.
Mr. Flynn asked about contractor parking. Mr. Stingle confirmed that contractor parking will
be provided in a designated area within the upper parking lot, as well as in one of the lots at
the Stetson Middle School. Mr. Flynn further asked whether the WCASD would request a
waiver from the land development fees. Ms. Sundquist clarified that the current request does
not involve fee waivers, but added that the WCASD had previously sought waivers from the
financial security requirements. She explained that the district typically relies on its status as
a public entity with secure capital accounts rather than providing financial guarantees in the
same manner as private developers. Mr. Embick suggested to leave this matter to the
Township solicitor.
Mr. Hatton asked about the number of students. Mr. Birster explained that the modular units
currently house approximately 60 to 70 students, who will be relocated into the new building
addition. He added that the new addition is designed with capacity for up to 35 additional
students, though there is no expectation for this increase to occur immediately. Mr. Hatton
asked whether the WCASD has concerns about potential student growth from the proposed
Stokes Estate residential development of 78 new homes. Mr. Birster provided that the
WCASD tracks new housing projects and have incorporated anticipated enrollment impacts
into the student count models and at this time, there are no capacity related concerns.
Mr. Embick asked about woodland and tree protection raised by the CCPC. Mr. Stingel
stated that no woodland areas will be removed as part of the project and where construction
occurs near existing trees, protective fencing will be installed.
Mr. Hatton asked about the requested waivers. Mr. Stingel recapped the request for existing
vegetation be used towards the buffering requirement and the request from the required
landscaping pertaining to parking islands requirements. He explained that while the
ordinance requires trees and shrubs in each island, the site’s parking lot features unusually
large islands already lined with trees, exceeding the number required by the Code.
Mr. Sennett made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the
preliminary/final land development application and requested waivers, subject to addressing
outstanding comments in the Township manager’s letter and the Township consultants
reviews with additional conditions that the operation and maintenance language for current
and previously built stormwater facility to be incorporated into the recorded documents and
that the parking lot to be made compliant with the Township requirements at the time of
resurfacing. Mr. Flynn seconded. Mr. Embick expressed his support for an ADA compliant
connector between the schools. He felt that it is appropriate and believed that the benefits
of such connection outweigh the cons. Mr. Sennett was not supportive of the connection
due to safety concerns raised by the applicant. There was no public comment. Mr. Embick
was opposed to the motion, and the motion passed. TS/KF (5-1).
2. Subdivision and Land Development Application – Stokes Estate (1013 Shiloh Road)
Mr. Embick summarized that the applicant, Fox Clearing LLC, proposes to construct a
residential development of 78 single-family detached homes and associated improvements
pursuant to the Flexible Development Procedure as permitted within R-1 Residential Zoning
District. The development includes four parcels with frontage along Shiloh Road and consists
of approximately 81 acres. The application is subject to conditions of the settlement
agreement dated November 18, 2024. Ms. Carter noted that a revised plan was received on
August 28, 2025, which is reflected in the written summary provided to the Commission. She
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 4
further explained that the Township consultants have not had an opportunity to review the
submission.
Ms. Camp noted that the current extension provided by the applicant expires on September
31st, and suggested for the Commission to provide a recommendation in advance of the
Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for September 15th. Mr. Embick emphasized that it
is the Commission’s decision on how to proceed. Mr. Sennett stated that the Commission is
somewhat constrained by the existing settlement agreement, and suggested to focus on
specific conditions, which have been drafted with the assistance of Ms. Camp, staff and
consultants.
Mr. Embick noted that in some instances, the Commission recommended denial while also
providing a set of conditions for the Board to consider should they choose to take a favorable
action on an application. Ms. Camp raised a question as to whether the Commission is
prepared to identify specific sections of the ordinance with which the plan fails to comply. Mr.
Embick believed that the application and the settlement agreement do not comply with Article
I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Environmental Rights Amendment). He
argued that the application fails to ensure protection of the constitutional values set forth in
that provision and provides no assurances that the development will avoid adverse impacts
to air and water resources. He emphasized that, under the Constitution, every level of
government has a duty to preserve these protected values and that the Commission, as a
public trustee, is obligated to act in defense of the public resources potentially threatened by
the proposed development. Ms. Camp explained that Pennsylvania appellate case law has
not interpreted the Environmental Rights Amendment in the manner previously suggested.
Ms. Camp advised that, in her view, if the Board of Supervisors were to deny the application
solely on that basis, such a decision would likely be overturned on appeal. She noted that
no appellate case law, including decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has
established an independent duty requiring applicants to prove compliance with the
Environmental Rights Amendment. Instead, Ms. Camp reported, municipalities have the
authority to incorporate standards reflecting these values into their own ordinances or
conditional use criteria. In such cases, applicants must demonstrate compliance during the
conditional use or land development process. However, she emphasized that it is not legally
permissible to impose such requirements independently or outside of established ordinance
provisions. She acknowledged that the Commission may choose to proceed differently, but
reaffirmed her recommendation based on existing case law. She further expressed concern
that the substantial effort invested in drafting conditions could be overshadowed if other
considerations were given greater weight.
Mr. Pingar argued that that many issues have not yet been evaluated because the revised
plans have not been provided. He further noted that while the applicants assert that they will
comply with all ordinance requirements, compliance has not been verified by the Township
consultants. Ms. Camp confirmed that in such cases, it is customary and legally appropriate
for the Board to approve the plan conditionally, with the understanding that a final approval
is contingent upon the applicant meeting all conditions outlined in consultant letters. The
consultants will then confirm that the conditions have been satisfied before the plan is
officially released. Mr. Pingar agreed that the Commission should ensure that the Board has
a clear and comprehensive set of conditions to guide its decision. Ms. Carter reminded that
it should probably be made clear to which submission the motion is applicable to considering
the revised plan submitted on August 28th has not been reviewed yet. The Commission
proceeded discussion on the list of draft conditions.
Ms. Camp raised a question regarding the naming of new streets. Ms. Carter suggested to
for each street segment have a unique name, rather than using directional prefixes. The
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 5
Commission agreed but emphasized that it shall be subject to approval by Chester County
Emergency Services.
Ms. Camp asked about a condition pertaining to the proposed roadway widths. She
explained that the Township staff and consultants expressed a concern regarding future
parking issues and suggested that 28 foot wide roadways will accommodate daily service
vehicles such as landscaping, utility trucks, as well as general parking needs of new
residents. Mr. Embick expressed support for recommending wider streets, while
acknowledging that the applicant may be unwilling to adjust lot layouts to accommodate this
change. Mr. Pingar also touched on flaws in the existing ordinance governing flexible
developments and advocated to address or revise these provisions in the future. Mr.
Federico confirmed that the settlement plan reflects 24-foot wide roadways, and provided
that parking on one side of the street as long as there is no overnight parking would be
reasonable and would allow for emergency vehicles as discussed with the emergency
management services. Mr. Pingar suggested not to allow any parking at any time if the
roadways are 24 feet wide. Ms. Carter noted challenges at enforcing no parking regulations.
Mr. Embick suggested as a recommendation for the roadways to be 28 feet to allow for on-
street parking on one side without time restrictions, and if the Board does not accept this
recommendation, he suggested that the provisions of the settlement plan would remain in
effect.
Ms. Camp requested clarification regarding traffic control personnel at the construction site
and questioned the specific location where such personnel should be stationed—whether
within the development itself or along Shiloh Road—to ensure effective traffic management
during construction. Mr. Embick wanted to see a plan that deals with traffic on a site as
construction unfolds and also control egress and ingress of vehicle off Shiloh Road. Mr.
Federico indicated that traffic control is generally guided by PennDOT Publication 213 and
noted that the traffic controls plans are not typically provided with the land development, but
alternatively are noted on the plan sheets. Mr. Federico suggested to add about flagging
personnel to be present on site to control access to the site during the school hours and no
closure of Shiloh Road, specifically for construction of sanitary sewer, during the school peak
periods. Mr. Embick noted that there is an expectation of thousands of trucks bringing infill,
therefore, it was important to control access to and from Shiloh Road to ensure safety. Mr.
Pingar brought up that there is no such thing as certified flagger and suggested to use the
word “qualified”.
Ms. Camp questioned whether the engineers should be required to inspect the retaining walls
within the first ten years. Mr. Pingar raised concerns pertaining to the maintenance of
vegetation growth on the walls, the lack of which can compromise their integrity. He
advocated that such maintenance shall be done in perpetuity. Ms. Camp recommended
clarifying that proposed inspections apply to the developer and subsequently to the HOA.
She further noted that while the developer may bear costs initially, expenses would ultimately
be transferred to the HOA. Altje Macy, Township engineer, announced that an engineer has
to sign off that walls structurally sound after they are built. She noted that in case of a failure,
deficiencies will be caught at that time. Ms. Camp suggested to place emphasis on ensuring
that obligations are clearly defined and enforceable, with the HOA assuming responsibility
after turnover. Mr. Flynn raised concerns about defining “major weather event” and felt that
it was essential to do so to avoid ambiguity in the future. Ms. Macy explained that a major
event for storm water management purposes would be a 100-year storm that is generally
designed for detention basins, and noted that limiting it to a storm size might not be proper,
because the walls are not meant to take on water. Mr. Embick stated that the main purpose
of the condition is to have a set schedule for wall maintenance and suggested for inspections
to occur on annual basis once construction is complete.
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 6
Ms. Camp noted that once the walls are certified as structurally sound, responsibility for
proper maintenance must be clearly outlined. Mr. Flynn emphasized the importance of
addressing Mr. Pingar’s comment that any vegetation on retaining walls should be promptly
removed and that no vegetation should be permitted to grow at the top of the structures. Ms.
Carter suggested maintenance schedule to be included on the plan set. Mr. Embick
suggested a stipulation that the Township engineer may recommend further evaluations
based on inspection results.
Mr. Embick clarified that the settlement agreement does not include provisions for preserving
any existing historic buildings and was in favor of recommendation to retain one historic
building. Ms. Camp did not think the applicant would be agreeable to that.
Ms. Camp asked to clarify conditions related to signage and trail usage. Mr. Embick verified
that the intent is to restrict the use of motorized vehicles on the trails. Mr. Pingar added that
the trails shall only be used by pedestrians.
Mr. Flynn asked about the definition of a “deep-rooted tree.” Ms. Carter suggested to provide
additional language for clarity. He further felt that it was important that the property owners
are aware of restrictions related to the nearby pipelines. Ms. Camp noted that title companies
often prepare deeds inconsistently, making enforcement unreliable, so she suggested for the
notification to be incorporated into the HOA documents. She noted that HOA documents are
distributed to all homeowners regardless of whether their lot directly abuts the pipeline.
Matthew Pusey, 1007 Old Hawthorne Drive, emphasized that while inclusion in the HOA
documents is valuable, many buyers will not read those documents in full. He recommended
recording a separate document for each affected parcel—similar to a stormwater
management agreement—so that it appears in the title search and cannot be overlooked.
This would complement both the HOA disclosure and any deed references, ensuring that
buyers are unmistakably informed of the pipeline’s location and restrictions. The Commission
acknowledged that associated easements for stormwater facilities, retaining wall
maintenance, or pipeline access would also appear in title searches, but supported the idea
of additional clarity.
Andrew Holstein, 913 Shippen Lane, recommended to include the information that already
appears on pipeline warning markers. He argued that potential buyers should be aware not
only of the pipeline’s presence but also of what materials it may transport and the age of the
infrastructure. The Commission discussed whether such language could be incorporated,
noting that existing conditions already require notification that a lot or dwelling is located
within 25 feet of a pipeline containing hazardous material. While concerns were raised that
specifying exact substances could invite disputes, it was suggested that disclosure language
could mirror the pipeline markers by using phrasing such as “including but not limited to.”
Mr. Flynn raised a question whether property owners within 25 feet of the pipeline would be
permitted to do construction. Mr. Embick felt such construction would depend on compliance
with zoning requirements and stormwater management regulations. He noted that if a
proposed improvement met the standards, it could be allowed; otherwise, it would be
prohibited.
Ms. Carter raised a concern pertaining to a lack of cap on the amount of impervious coverage
per lot. Ms. Camp emphasized the need for a clear, enforceable allocation of impervious
cover per lot to avoid ambiguity. She noted that the preferred approach is to require the
applicant to list proposed impervious cover allocations for each lot which would represent the
absolute cap for improvements on that lot. She felt that it would allow both the Commission
and the Board of Supervisors to evaluate the fairness of the proposed limits across all 78
lots. Mr. Embick agreed that precise impervious cover allocations for each lot shall be
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 7
provided and that the applicant must confirm whether these limits were incorporated into the
overall stormwater management design. Mr. Pingar stressed that whatever limits are
ultimately shown on the final plan must be treated as binding restrictions. He inquired
whether the applicant had accounted for a maximum impervious cover per lot in their overall
stormwater management plan. Ms. Macy noted that the design was based on average lot
sizes, including homes and driveways, rather than individualized lot-specific allocations. Ms.
Camp suggested to add that the plan should include a table identifying the allowable
impervious cover for each lot, and stated that the Township engineer would be tasked with
verifying that the overall stormwater management design accommodates the allocated
impervious cover per lot, in addition to the impervious surfaces associated with roads and
other infrastructure. She felt that this approach is a way to ensure that the system is designed
comprehensively, avoiding the need for separate stormwater systems on individual small lots.
Mr. Pusey raised a concern that the Commission is asking a developer to come up with the
impervious coverage calculations. He asked how future homeowners will be held
accountable to that considering these allocations are not specified in the Township ordinance.
Ms. Camp explained that allocations will be noted on the recorded plan. Mr. Pusey further
raised concerns that allowing the developer to dictate these allocations could result in future
homeowners facing unexpected restrictions and applying for variances to exceed allocations.
He suggested for the Commission to dictate what that number should be to avoid burdening
the future homeowners. Mr. Pingar clarified that the Commission is asking the developer to
provide calculations, so that the Township confirms that the stormwater facilities are designed
to handle these allocations. He felt that the Township can come to an understanding on what
that reasonable amount shall be based on the review of the applicant provided calculations.
Mr. Embick suggested to consider additional conditions related to the recent documents
submitted by the applicant. He noted that a letter from Enterprise Products dated November
3, 2023, outlined five conditions related to submission of final development plans to the
Enterprise’s Encroachment Department and compliance with encroachment guidelines. Mr.
Embick recommended that these five conditions be incorporated. He further referred to an
email from Janette Fluke, a representative of Buckeye, regarding the Exton Station drainage
plan and suspected there shall be similar communication related to the subject application.
Mr. Embick further referred to a letter from Aqua, dated April 12, 2023, which noted the need
for a standard builder extension agreement and a main extension plan before water service
could be provided. Ms. Carter confirmed that these requirements would be addressed during
construction and therefore did not necessitate a new condition. Mr. Embick raised questions
regarding periodic studies, including annual Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI)
studies and investigations for bog turtle habitats. Ms. Macy stated that the applicant would
be required to comply with state and Army Corps of Engineers permit reviews, including any
upland buffer and habitat protections. She added that because these environmental
protections are already governed under regulatory oversight, additional conditions will be
unnecessary.
Mr. Pingar recommended a condition moving the curb returns back from the edge of the road,
increasing the distance from the centerline to the curbs from 10 feet to 14 feet. Ms. Camp
noted that the settlement plan already included a design for the curbs. Mr. Pingar insisted
that adding this recommendation would improve consistency and safety. He felt that while
the proposed change is minor and does not significantly alter the overall layout.
Mr. Pusey expressed overall support for the development but raised concerns regarding
proposed flag lots, some of which are adjacent to his property, and which he felt were added
to the plan without adequate public input. He believed that the flag lots were not compliant
with the Township Code and questioned whether the proposed width of access easement
Planning Commission Minutes – September 3, 2025 8
can accommodate emergency vehicles. He further suggested alternative locations to flag
lots at the northern end of the property, which he felt could better comply with guidelines and
neighborhood character. He expressed support for the Commission’s recommendation to
widen the roadways to 28 feet, citing Rustin Walk as an example where narrower roads have
caused parking and emergency access issues.
Mr. Holstein reiterated his previously voiced concerns about a lack of landscaping and
screening along the perimeter of the tract, including at the rear of his property. He noted that
the northern area of the development, specifically near Road D, was intentionally left without
homes due to safety issues and a “choke point,” and stressed that this area should not be
considered as alternate to flag lots. His primary concern was the lack of vegetation and
screening along pathways and property lines adjacent to existing homes. He also
emphasized that existing residents should not have to sacrifice privacy due to inadequate
landscaping, particularly along the northern end of the property where he felt that the current
vegetation is insufficient. Mr. Holstein urged the Commission to request for the developer to
include evergreen plantings along property lines bordering existing homes, ensuring
screening year-round rather than relying on seasonal shrubs or leaving gaps caused by
pipelines.
Ms. Camp reiterated that the Commission does not have a legal basis to issue a denial and
noted that at the previous meeting, the applicant committed to complying with the consultants’
review letters, which address outstanding code requirements. She explained that because
the applicant has agreed to meet these conditions, it is understood that the relevant sections
of the code will be satisfied, thus, the applicant’s agreement to comply with the consultant
reviews implies that they are meeting all applicable code standards. Mr. Sennett expressed
that if the Commission makes a positive recommendation, even with conditions, it suggests
that the Commission favors this development, but he did not believe it to be the case.
Mr. Pingar made a motion that the Commission recommends denial of the application based
on noncompliance with the latest Township consultants’ review letters and failure of the
applicant to demonstrate that it has or will take adequate measures to protect the public
health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties when subdividing and developing the
property. Alternatively, if the Board is inclined to approve the application, the Commission
recommends that the Board should impose certain conditions as drafted by Ms. Camp,
Township staff and Township consultants as amended at this meeting, at a minimum. Mr.
Flynn amended the motion to incorporate the conditions at a minimum. Mr. Sennett
seconded. There was no public comment, and the motion passed. RP/TS (6-0)
Public Comment
None.
Reports
1. Mr. Hatton summarized the August 18th Board of Supervisors meeting.
2. Mr. Embick summarized the September 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting.
Adjournment (TS/RH) 6-0
The meeting adjourned at 9:34 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Liudmila Carter
Secretary
Revised: October 3, 2025
No.
(Origination
year-month)
Chapter Section/Name Description of Changes/Status Source
22024-09 170 Zoning/Other TBD Considerations for pipeline safety JE
32017-08.4 170 Zoning 1509 Storage
PC worked with Mr. Snook to revise existing storage regulations to address modular storage units and self-storage facilities, self-storage units, warehouse, junkyards, trailers, boats,
human or animal remains, RVs, generators, and temporary accessory storage. The last revisions were made in May 2021. MC will review the draft, make changes as needed and bring it
back to the PC for review and comment.
PC (EA)
42023-12.5 170 Zoning 1618 Renewable energy systems Consider specific setbacks for accessory ground-mounted solar; bldgs and structures on historic resources list; conflicts with SW ordinance; setbacks are too extreme?; MC
52023-12.1 170 Zoning 2400 Historic Preservation Draft ordinnace has been completed and currently under Historical Commission's review. HC
6unk. 149 SLDO 300 Application Procedures
Numerous administrative updates related to plan submission, # of copies required (currently 16 hard copies), correct outdated terminology. Also want to include standards for plan
revision which don’t exist now to better formalize review procedures/timeline. MD
72023-09 149 SLDO 500 Sketch Plan Sketch plan requirements and process can be imporved MC
82017-09.1 149 SLDO 910 Street Construction
1. Revise to remove the reference to “PennDOT Seldom Used Specifications 1983” and more appropriately Reference PennDOT Publication 46.
2. 149-910.D: This section could be revised to remove the reference to Bituminous Surface Course ID-2A. This section should be completely re-written to include a modern specification
of the Superior Asphalt Paving System (Superpave).
Bob Flinchbaugh provided draft language that was reviewed by Mark Gross in 2021.
MT (KM)
92017-05 170 Zoning Article IX Flexible Development
1. When the Flexible Development option was added to the Ordinance, it included an extensive Open Space description -170-907. It was decided to refer the Open Space requirements
in all other districts to this section in order to avoid repetition.
2. 170-904.C There are no lot size limits in Flex. For single-family dwellings, the only control of lot size is the requirement that there can be only 4 lots per acre in the area used for single-
family dwellings (smallest lots could be just under 11,000 square feet).
3. 170-904. E. (3). (10) Setbacks - The only setback regulations for dwellings in Flex are 30 feet behind the curb line and 30-foot separation between structures. This applies to decks,
sheds, and even dwellings. (Not to swimming pools, however.)
PC (EA)
10 2023-10 170 Zoning 1511 Establishment of future right-of-
way widths for streets Consider changing the language to only regulate dedicated ROWs ZHB Solicitor
11 2017-09.12 170 Zoning 1600 Supplemental Regulations
1. Parking has become popular for compact cars, oversized vehicle, electric vehicle, seniors citizen and new or expecting parents, multi-family, and residential uses. (rideshare parking);
2. Truck Turning Templates are not required by ordinance and should be added to the preliminary/ final plan set requires. All vehicles for emergency response, delivery, trash, and
recycling should be provided to major applications.
3. Consider adding MS4 Assist Regulations Recall the Maneri Property 1126 Kolbe Lane, Rustin and Crebilly CU
4. Consider adding Drive Thru Regulations Recall Dunkin’ Donuts
MT (KM)
12 2023-03 170 Zoning 1603 Accessory uses and structures
1. Attached vs. Detached structures connected via breezeway – how do we want to define them and how it relates to the size of garages and setbacks;
2. 1603.B Uses accessory to agriculture: Potential to revise the language to make it more specific; "50% of products";
3. Consider provisions for enclosed garden structures (high visibility on all sides);
4. Consider clarifying the definition of ADU; permanent food preparation facilities; laundry areas?
MC
13 2023-05 170 Zoning 1605 Home occupations
1. Consider adding beekeeping as permitted minor home occupation;
2. Consider increasing the size of the sign for major home ocupations at the intersection of two major roadways;
3. Revise 1605.A(1) that states "within the dwelling"; occupations within detached structures ?
MC
14 2023-10 170 Zoning 1614 Bus shelters Connection to existing sidewalk, pedestrian facility req. MC
15 2019-03 170 Zoning 1700 Off-street parking 1. Times, circumstances, streets, locations, rideshare parking locations (WE);
2. Handicapped parking - increase the number of req. handicapped spaces due to increase in aging population (BOS) Twp
List of Potential Amendments
16 2017-08.5 170 Zoning 1513.B Interior circulation and streets
minimum widths Consider reducing the minimum paved width of streets on low traffic volume streets. PC (EA)
17 2019 -1 170 Zoning 201 Definitions
1. “Boarding home(s)”;
2. “All usable space within a dwelling unit without netting out any space unless it is not capable of being lived in.” (Examples of spaces to exclude: hvac closets, unfinished basements,
unfinished attics);
3. Business or trade school;
4. Commerical vehicle and equipment;
5. “building area” and “floor area” to include more details about “breezeway”
6. Definition of impervious surface; consistency with SW ordinance (pervious pavement, gravel areas and etc.)
7. Consider adding entertainment, fast-food, and/or restaurant (parking requirements);
8. The definition of “Lot Area” and “Tract Area” are treated differently in Zoning. Definition of lot area (proposed): The acreage contained within the property lines of a lot, as defined in
the deed or as shown on an approved subdivision plan. Such acreage shall be exclusive of the following:
A. Any area used for gas, oil, natural gas, electric, or communications transmission facilities, whether below or aboveground, that do not serve the lot or lots traversed.
B. Any area within a street or other transportation right-of-way, existing or proposed.
C. Any area within a permanent drainage easement.
D. Every lot created by subdivision shall have a contiguous and uninterrupted area equal to 75% of the minimum lot area required by the applicable zoning district, which is
unencumbered by wetlands, one-hundred-year floodplains, steep slopes and/or stormwater management basins/facilities.
PC
18 2023-08 149 SLDO 201 Definitions 1. Definition of land development; minor land development (?);
2. Add definition for specimen trees MC
19 2023-04.1 170 Zoning 2103 Hearings (ZHB) Notice to multi-family dwellings, condos process (multiple units) ZHB Solicitor
20 unk. 170 Zoning 401 Floodplain Regulations Based on comments received during review in 2017, PC members indicated a desire to make some changes with Beth Uhler’ assistance
21 2019-04 149 SLDO 405 Commencement of development Add times and days of the week, 149-404? PC
22 unk. 170 Zoning 907 Open space standards While there are requirements for some portion of the Open Space be useable for active recreation, storm water management often occupies a significant area. Revising the open space
definition and regulations has been suggested. Establishment of an Open Space fund, clarification of in lieu of fees
23 2001-08.2 149 SLDO 915 Driveways PC has suggested on several occasions that the Board adopt a freestanding driveway ordinance. MT (KM)
24 unk. 149 SLDO 924 Existing trees §149-924.D which would require a separate tree protection plan. MT (KM)
25 unk. 149 SLDO 925 Landscaping requirements and
standards
1. Add provisions for setbacks and size of trees from power lines;
2. Street Trees within 5 feet of property and within 10 feet of side lot lines; Rustin Residential: §149-925-I.5 – Street Trees within 10 feet of side lot lines. (I.5) MT
26 2017-09.5 149 SLDO Administrative Preliminary or Final
Waivers
Modern applications contain so much information that the boundary between preliminary and final has become almost negligible as far as engineering detail. Rarely have I seen a
request for a waiver from preliminary to prelim/final denied. MT (KM)
27 2001-08.1 170 Zoning Buffers & Screening - MU and R-3
Districts Present regulations generally require buffers between districts rather than between uses. (Except for commercial vs residential). PC (EA)
28 2017-09.11 149 SLDO Design standards Consider adding a Belgian Block Section of Code with detail. MT (KM)
29 unk. 170 Zoning Uses - M-U District Possibility for problems in MU and R-3 districts where residential and non-residential uses are permitted. The MU District is presently developed as residential except for one tract (5
acres?) currently industrial, which could be redeveloped for any use permitted in the C1 District.
30 2025-10 170 Zoning or Other Chickens and chicken coops Complaints about chicken coops with no setbacks and number of chickens; noise and nuisance. MC
31 2025-02 170 Zoning Biosolids Land application of biosolids: prohibiting application in environmentally sensitive areas and close proximity to water sources, while also requiring landowner permission, adherence to application rates and quality
standards, all regulated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. JE
31 2025-02 170 Zoning Envt. Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) JE
32 2025-03 170 Zoning Mobile food vendors Several requests to have food vendors at gas stations. MC
33 2024-04 170 Zoning 1514 Outdoor Lighting Growing use of commercial holiday light installation and asociated complaints with blinking, flashing, color changing of the lights. MC
§ 27-803. The Keeping of Chickens. [Ord. No. 477, 5/11/2021]
§ 27-804. The Keeping of Ducks. [Ord. No. 477, 5/11/2021]
1. The keeping of chickens shall be allowed by right as an accessory use by permit, in all
residential districts, subject to the standards in this section. Chickens on existing farms or
hobby farms are exempt, regardless of the zoning district in which the subject property is
located.
2. Any person wishing to engage in his accessory use by permit shall submit an application for
zoning/accessory use permit to the Zoning Officer for review and approval, with the fee for
same to be established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Approval shall be subject
to the following standards:
A. For the first 4,000 square feet of any property, up to three chickens are allowed. An
additional chicken is permitted for every additional 2,000 square feet. A maximum
number of 10 chickens may be kept at once on a parcel.
B. No person shall keep or maintain a rooster.
C. The chicken coop shall be located in a backyard only, a minimum of 10 feet from any
lot line, and shall sufficiently contain the chickens. Any chicken not contained shall be
considered "running at large."
D. An outside run shall be attached to the coop 10 feet from any lot line, and sufficiently
contain the chicken; and any chicken not contained shall be considered "running at
large."
E. All feed, water, and other items for keeping chickens shall be secured to prevent rats,
mice, and other vermin from infesting.
F. Chicken feces must be properly collected, stored, and disposed of in a manner that
prevents malodorous smells, nuisances, or other hazards. (Chicken manure may be
composted and added to gardens or yards if done within out creating no malodorous
smells, nuisances, or other hazards.) The minimum setback for chicken waste collection
and storage shall be 10 feet from the property line.
G. The selling of chickens or chicken products for commercial purposes is prohibited.
H. Slaughtering and butchering is prohibited.
I. No chickens shall be kept in townhouse communities, apartment communities, or
mobile home parks.
1. Subject to the standards in this section, it shall be a lawful to maintain ducks as an accessory
use by permit in any residential zoning district. Ducks in agricultural zones and on any
existing farms or hobby farms are exempt, regardless of the zoning district in which it is
located.
2. Any person wishing to engage in this accessory use by permit shall submit an application for
zoning/accessory use permit to the Zoning Officer for review and approval, with the fee for
Township of North Fayette, PA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/NO3691 on 2025-10-03
§ 27-805. The Keeping of Bees. [Ord. No. 477, 5/11/2021]
the same to be established by resolution for the Board of Supervisors. Approval shall be
subject to the following standards:
A. Ducks shall only be kept on properties that are one acre or larger.
B. No person shall house more than five ducks on a single residential parcel.
C. Ducks shall be kept in the backyard only. All enclosed shelter with adequate protection
from weather and predators is required. The shelter shall provide at least three square
feet per duck. All duck keeping facilities shall be setback at least 50 feet from lot lines.
D. Any duck contained on an owner's property considered "running at large."
E. All feed, water, and other items for keeping shall be secured to prevent rats, mice, and
other vermin from infesting.
F. Duck feces must properly collected, stored and disposed of in a manner that prevents
malodorous smells, nuisances, or other hazards. (Duck manure may be composted and
added to gardens or yards if done within out creating no malodorous smells, nuisances,
or other hazards.) The minimum setback for duck waste collection and storage shall be
10 feet from the property line.
G. Ducks shall be kept for personal reasons only. The selling of ducks or duck products for
commercial purposes is prohibited.
H. Slaughtering and butchering is prohibited.
I. No ducks shall be kept in townhouse communities, apartment communities, or mobile
home parks.
1. Subject to the standards in this section, it shall be a lawful to maintain an apiary as an
accessory use by permit in any residential zoning district. Bees agricultural zones and on any
existing farms or hobby farms are exempt, regardless of zoning district in which it is located.
2. Any person wishing to engage in this accessory use by permit shall submit an application for
zoning/accessory use permit to the Zoning Officer for review and approval, with the fee for
the same to be established by resolution for the Board of Supervisors. Approval shall be
subject to the following standards:
A. For 4,000 square feet of any parcel, up to two hives are allowed; Each additional 2,000
square feet of any parcel is permitted two additional hives. A maximum number of six
hives may kept per property.
B. Apiaries shall be maintained in the backyard of the property and prohibited from being
located in the front or side yard of any property. Any hives shall be set back a minimum
of 15 feet from any lot line. Beekeeping facilities shall not be within 50 feet of a
swimming pool of permanently kenneled animal.
C. Flyway barriers shall be required if a beekeeper is unable to direct bee flight pathways
Township of North Fayette, PA
§ 27-804 § 27-805
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/NO3691 on 2025-10-03
above six feet across the beekeeper's property. Flyway barriers shall be six feet in height
and within five feet distance from the hive. No flyway barriers are required for hives on
porches or balconies at least 10 feet above grade.
D. Bees shall be kept for personal use only. The selling of bees or bee products for
commercial purposes is prohibited.
E. No bees shall be kept in townhouse communities, apartment communities, or mobile
home parks.
Township of North Fayette, PA
§ 27-805 § 27-805
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/NO3691 on 2025-10-03
Chapter 180
PEDDLING AND SOLICITING
ARTICLE I
Transient Retail Business
§ 180-1. Definitions.
§ 180-2. License required; conditions of
issuance; fee.
§ 180-3. Exceptions.
§ 180-4. License application.
§ 180-5. Issuance of license; custody,
display and exhibit.
§ 180-6. Prohibited acts.
§ 180-7. Supervision; records and
reports.
§ 180-8. Denial, suspension and
revocation of license; appeal.
§ 180-9. Violations and penalties.
ARTICLE II
Mobile Food Vendors
§ 180-10. Purpose.
§ 180-11. Definitions.
§ 180-12. License and fee required.
§ 180-13. Mobile food vendor rules.
§ 180-14. Enforcement.
§ 180-15. Denial or suspension of license.
§ 180-16. Violations and penalties.
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Borough Council of the Borough of Zelienople as indicated in article
histories. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Sidewalk display and sales — See Ch. 232, Art. II. Use of pushcarts — See § 260-100.
Borough of Zelienople, PA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
ARTICLE I
Transient Retail Business
[Adopted 5-13-1974 by Ord. No. 538; amended in its entirety 12-11-1995 by Ord. No. 715 (Ch. 13,
Part 1, of the 1995 Code)]
§ 180-1. Definitions.
§ 180-2. License required; conditions of issuance; fee.
No person shall engage in any transient retail business within the Borough without first having obtained
from the Chief of Police a license, for which a fee, which shall be for the use of the Borough, shall be
charged, said fee to be in such amount established from time to time by resolution of the Borough Council.
§ 180-3. Exceptions.
A. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated, unless a different
meaning clearly appears from the context:
LEGAL HOLIDAY — New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
PERSON — Any natural person, partnership, association, corporation, or other legal entity.
TRANSIENT RETAIL BUSINESS —
Engaging in peddling, soliciting, or taking orders, either by sample or otherwise, for any
goods, wares or merchandise upon any street, alley, sidewalk or public ground or from
house to house within the Borough; or
(1)
Selling, soliciting or taking orders for any goods, wares or merchandise from a fixed
location within the Borough, on a temporary basis, which shall include, but not be limited
to, such activities conducted at the time of special occasions or celebrations, for seasonal
purposes, or for yearly holidays.
(2)
B. The singular shall include the plural; the plural shall include the singular; and the masculine shall
include the feminine and the neuter.
A. No license fee shall be charged:
(1) To farmers selling their own produce.
(2) For the sale of goods, wares and merchandise donated by the owners thereof, the proceeds
whereof are to be applied to any charitable or philanthropic purpose.
(3) To any manufacturer or producer in the sale of bread and bakery products, meat and meat
products, or milk and milk products.
(4) To children under the age of 18 years who take orders for and deliver newspapers, greeting
cards, candy, bakery products, and the like, or who represent the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts or
similar organizations.
(5) To any honorably discharged member of any of the armed services who complies with the Act
of 1867, April 8, P.L. 50, 60 P.S. § 61, as hereafter amended, supplemented, modified or
reenacted by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania,1 and who procures from the Prothonotary
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-1 PEDDLING AND SOLICITING § 180-3
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
§ 180-4. License application.
Every person desiring a license under this article shall first make application to the Chief of Police for such
license. He shall, when making such application, exhibit a valid license from any state or county officer if
such license is also required. The applicant shall state:
§ 180-5. Issuance of license; custody, display and exhibit.
Upon receipt of such application and the prescribed fee, the Chief of Police, if he shall find such application
in order, shall issue the license required under this article. Such license shall only be issued after a waiting
period of 72 hours from the time of the application therefor. Such license shall contain the information
required to be given on the application therefor. Every license holder shall carry such license upon his
a certificate pursuant to the Act of 1867.
(6) To the seeking or taking of orders by insurance agents or brokers licensed under the insurance
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(7) To a person who has complied with the provisions of the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable
Purposes Act, 10 P.S. § 162.1, as hereafter amended, supplemented, modified or reenacted by
the General Assembly of Pennsylvania. [Amended 10-10-2011 by Ord. No. 814-11]
(8) For taking orders for merchandise, by sample, from dealers or merchants for individuals or
companies who pay a license or business privilege tax at their chief place of business.
(9) To vendors participating in Borough-authorized events and paying the related fee to the event,
during the dates of said event. [Added 8-31-2015 by Ord. No. 841-15]
B. But all persons exempted hereby from the payment of the license fee shall be required to register with
the Borough Police Chief and obtain a license without fee, provided any person dealing in one or
more of the above-mentioned exempted categories, and dealing with other goods, wares or
merchandise not so exempted, shall be subject to the payment of the license fee fixed by this article
for his activities in connection with the sale of goods, wares and merchandise not in such exempted
categories; provided, further, the Borough Police Chief may similarly exempt from payment of the
license fee, but not from registering with him, persons working without compensation and selling
goods, wares or merchandise for the sole benefit of a nonprofit corporation; provided, further, every
license issued under the provisions of this article shall be issued on an individual basis to any person
or persons engaging in such business; every individual shall obtain a separate license, issued to him
in his name, and the license fee hereby imposed shall be applicable to every such individual license,
except that a representative of a charitable organization may obtain licenses for the applicants.
[Amended 8-31-2015 by Ord. No. 841-15]
A. His criminal record, if any.
B. Name and address of the person by whom he is employed.
C. Type of goods, wares and merchandise he wishes to deal with in such transient retail business.
D. Length of time for which license is to be issued.
E. Type and license number of the vehicle to be used, if any.
1. Editor's Note: The Act of 1867 (60 P.S. § 61) was repealed 11-24-1992 by P.L. 717, No. 108.
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-3 PEDDLING AND SOLICITING § 180-5
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
person if engaged in transient retail business from house to house or upon any of the streets, alleys,
sidewalks or public grounds, or shall display such license at the location where he shall engage in such
business if doing so at a fixed location. He shall exhibit such license, upon request, to all police officers,
municipal officials, and citizens or residents of the Borough.
§ 180-6. Prohibited acts.
No person in any transient retail business shall:
§ 180-7. Supervision; records and reports. [Amended 8-31-2015 by Ord. No. 841-15]
The Borough Police Chief shall supervise the activities of all persons holding licenses under this article.
He shall keep a record of all licenses issued hereunder and shall make a report thereof each month to the
Borough Council.
§ 180-8. Denial, suspension and revocation of license; appeal. [Amended 8-31-2015 by Ord. No.
841-15]
The Borough Police Chief is hereby authorized to deny, suspend or revoke any license issued under this
article when he deems such denial, suspension or revocation to be beneficial to the public health, safety or
morals, or for violation of any provision of this article, or for giving false information upon any application
for a license hereunder. Appeals from any suspension, revocation or denial of a license may be made to
the Borough Council at any time within 10 days after such suspension, revocation or denial, and a hearing
shall be held within 30 days of the petition for appeal. No part of a license fee shall be refunded to any
person whose license shall have been suspended or revoked.
§ 180-9. Violations and penalties.
Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any provision of this article shall, upon conviction
thereof, be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than $600 plus costs and, in default of payment of said
fine and costs, to a term of imprisonment not to exceed 30 days. Each day that a violation of this article
continues shall constitute a separate offense.
A. Sell any product or type of product not mentioned in his license.
B. Hawk or cry his wares upon any of the streets, alleys, sidewalks or public grounds in the Borough.
C. When operating from a vehicle, stop or park such vehicle upon any of the streets or alleys in the
Borough for longer than necessary in order to sell therefrom to persons residing or working in the
immediate vicinity.
D. Park a vehicle upon any of the streets or alleys in the Borough for the purpose of sorting, rearranging
or cleaning any of his goods, wares or merchandise or of disposing of any carton, wrapping material,
or stock, wares or foodstuffs which have become unsalable through handling, age or otherwise.
E. Engage in any business activity, except by prior appointment, at any time on a Sunday or legal
holiday or at any time before 9:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on any day of the week other than a Sunday
or legal holiday.
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-5 ZELIENOPLE CODE § 180-9
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
ARTICLE II
Mobile Food Vendors
[Adopted 5-10-2021 by Ord. No. 876-21]
§ 180-10. Purpose.
The general purpose of these regulations is to promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity,
and general welfare of the citizens of the Borough of Zelienople by requiring that new and existing mobile
food vendors provide residents and customers with a level of cleanliness, quality and safety. It is also the
intent of this regulation to establish reasonable guidelines and restrictions for mobile food vendors and
encourage the safe and convenient use of the Borough's public right-of-way.
§ 180-11. Definitions.
As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated, unless a different meaning
clearly appears from the context:
APPLICANT — Any person or business who applies for a license under the provisions of this article.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — Any sworn officer of the Borough of Zelienople Police Department.
MOBILE FOOD VENDOR — A food establishment that is located upon a vehicle, or which is pulled by
a vehicle, where food or beverage is cooked, prepared, and served for individual portion service such as a
mobile food kitchen.
RESTAURANT — An establishment where meals are generally served and eaten on premises; prepares
and serves food and drink to customers in return for money, either paid before the meal or after the meal is
provided.
§ 180-12. License and fee required.
A. No person shall operate as a mobile food vendor within the Borough without first having obtained
from the Chief of Police a license, for which a fee, which shall be for the use of the Borough, shall be
charged, said fee to be in such amount established from time to time by resolution of the Borough
Council. The license is required whether or not a fee is required.
B. No person shall commence operation of a mobile food vendor in the Borough of Zelienople unless
the required license has been obtained by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture. Mobile food vendors must show proof of inspection by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as required by state law.
C. All licenses from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture shall be
prominently displayed at all times during operation of a mobile food vendor.
D. Upon request from the Chief of Police, a mobile food vendor must show proof of general liability
insurance in the amount of $100,000 per individual and $300,000 per occurrence.
E. Any mobile food vendor operating without the required license(s) shall be deemed in violation of this
article, and the mobile food vendor shall be subject to penalties and fines as provided within this
article and otherwise provided by law.
F. The Chief of Police shall be authorized to deny, revoke or suspend operations for any mobile food
vendor found in noncompliance with the established requirements.
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-10 PEDDLING AND SOLICITING § 180-12
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
§ 180-13. Mobile food vendor rules.
G. Exemptions. Mobile food vendors are exempt from the Borough license fee while participating in the
following activities:
(1) Operating in support of a nonprofit organization.
(2) Operating in connection to an approved special event in which the mobile food vendor is a
registered participant.
(3) Operating in support of a Zelienople Borough based business event.
(4) Operating in support of a residential area event such as block party.
A. No mobile food vendor shall hereafter sell or offer for sale any products or services within 500 feet
of the designated boundaries of any Borough-organized, Borough-sponsored or Borough-sanctioned
event or activity to which vendor access is restricted or regulated, provided that this restriction shall
not apply to a mobile food vendor who receives a written permission from the event organizer
sponsoring the event to operate within the boundaries of any Borough-organized, Borough-sponsored
or Borough-sanctioned event or activity.
B. No mobile food vendor on public property or within the public right-of-way shall provide or allow
any dining area, including but not limited to tables, chairs, booths, bar stools, benches, and standup
counters.
C. For mobile food vendors on public property, including the Borough's right-of-way, the Borough
reserves the right to temporarily move a mobile food vendor if the approved location needs to be used
for emergency purposes, snow removal, construction, or other public benefit or if the location is
required for a Borough-sponsored event.
D. Borough trash receptacles may not be used by mobile food vendors. All mobile food vendors must
provide a waste bin and a recycle bin which shall be removed by the mobile food vendor at the close
of the mobile food vendor's business day and shall pick up and remove all papers, wrappers, bottles
or other refuse dropped by the customers thereof within 30 feet of the vicinity of the mobile food
vendor. Under no circumstances shall a mobile food vendor use containers or receptacles for the use
of the general public.
E. No mobile food vendor shall make or cause to be made any unreasonable or excessive noise.
F. A mobile food vendor may not operate on or within any Borough Park, Borough-owned parking lot,
defined parking spaces on/along roadways or other property owned by the Borough of Zelienople,
unless approved as part of a special event or approval from Borough Council.
G. No mobile food vendor is permitted to park or stop to serve customers within a 150-foot radius of any
principal customer entrance to any restaurant or food establishment serving food products within the
Borough. This restriction may be waived by the Borough in connection with an approved special
event.
H. No operator of a mobile food vendor shall park, stand, or move a vehicle and conduct business within
areas of the Borough where the mobile food vendor has not been authorized to operate.
I. Mobile food vendors are permitted to park and serve customers on private property, only if given
express written consent of the property owner and such written consent is kept in the mobile food
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-12 ZELIENOPLE CODE § 180-13
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
§ 180-14. Enforcement.
vendor. Mobile food vendors using private property are subject to all distance regulations applying to
special events and restaurants.
J. No mobile food vendor shall hereafter sell or offer for sale any food or nonfood products and services
in a manner that would substantially obstruct a public right-of-way, impair the movement of
pedestrians or vehicles, or pose a hazard to public safety.
K. No mobile food vendor may park within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, or in any no-parking or unloading
zone.
L. Mobile food vendors may not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and mobile
food vendor facilities must be removed from public property by 10:00 p.m. each day.
M. All mobile food vendors shall be attended by at least one operator who is at least age 18 at all times.
N. All mobile food vendors occupying a public space must be in operation within 30 minutes of
occupying the space.
O. No mobile food vendors shall use electric, water or wastewater facilities of the Borough without the
written consent of the Borough Manager.
P. No liquid waste or grease is to be disposed on the ground around vegetation, in storm drains or onto
the sidewalks, streets, or other public spaces. Under no circumstances shall grease be released or
disposed of in the Borough's sanitary sewer system.
Q. Unattended vehicles prohibited. No mobile food vendor shall be left unattended and unsecured at any
time food is kept in the mobile food truck. Any mobile food vendor which is found to be unattended
shall be considered a public safety hazard, shall be ticketed in accordance with existing Borough
ordinances and may be impounded.
R. A mobile food vendor operating outside of an approved route, at an unauthorized location, or beyond
the hours for which the operation has been permitted shall be deemed operating in violation of this
article and may be subject to enforcement action.
A. Authority is hereby conferred upon the Chief of Police to promulgate rules and regulations with
respect to the specific matters for which such authority is herein granted and to change and modify
any and all such rules and regulations from time to time in the manner provided by law, subject to the
approval of Borough Council, provided that such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with
the provisions herein and local, state and federal law. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be
available in the Borough office.
B. When it appears to the Chief of Police that the operation of the mobile food vendor poses an
immediate and imminent threat to the public health and safety that will occur if the mobile food
vendor is not immediately closed, the Chief of Police shall have the power to order the immediate
closure of the mobile food vendor until such time that the violations complained of have been
corrected or the Borough Council or other appropriate hearing board overrules the determination of
the Chief of Police.
C. Nothing set forth in this section may limit the pursuit of other appropriate actions or proceedings at
law or in equity available to the Borough.
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-13 PEDDLING AND SOLICITING § 180-15
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
§ 180-15. Denial or suspension of license.
§ 180-16. Violations and penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of an offense and for every such
violation, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000 and
the costs of prosecution and, in default of payment of fine and costs, to undergo imprisonment for not more
than 90 days.
A. Operation may be denied or suspended by the Chief of Police for any of the following reasons:
(1) The mobile food vendor or any of its principals fail to satisfy any qualification of requirements
imposed by this article, or other local, state or federal laws or regulations; or
(2) The mobile food vendor or any of its principals have engaged in operating without a valid
license; or
(3) The mobile food vendor is operated in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance or safety
hazard; or
(4) The mobile food vendor, its principals or agents repeatedly violate any of the provisions of this
article.
B. Notice of denial, revocation or suspension will be sent via first-class mail to the name and address of
the applicant for license with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. If no
applicant for license with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is on
record, the notice shall be sent via first-class mail to the registrant of the vehicle license plate or hand-
delivered to the vendor. Upon notice of denial, revocation, or suspension, an aggrieved party may
appeal to the Borough Manager by submitting a written notice of appeal to the Chief of Police within
10 days following the date of the adverse action.
C. The provisions of this section are not exclusive. This section shall not preclude the enforcement of
any other provisions of this article or state or federal laws and regulations. The Borough of Zelienople
may impose additional requirements to protect against health hazards related to the operation of a
mobile food vendor.
Borough of Zelienople, PA
§ 180-15 ZELIENOPLE CODE § 180-16
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/ZE2514 on 2025-10-03
