IN THE MATTER OF THE

1. The Applicant is Central Dauphin School District of 600 Rutherford Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109.

2. Applicant is the owner of the subject property pursuant to a Declaration of Taking filed on June 29, 2001 entered to Docket Number 3035-S-2001 of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. A copy of the Declaration of Taking was admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 1.

3. The subject property consists of nearly 100 acres and is zoned Flexible Rural Agriculture (FRA) and partly Rural Residential (RR). The property is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Linglestown Road and Piketown Road.

4. The Tax Parcel Number for the subject property is 68-022-001.

5. Applicant received conditional use approval from the Supervisors of West Hanover Township, as confirmed in a letter dated January 22, 2002. A copy of the January 22, 2002 letter was admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 2.

6. Gary Bannon, a registered, licensed architect with E.I. Associates testified on behalf of Applicant as an expert in design and construction of school projects.

7. Mr. Bannon’s Curriculum Vitae was admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 3.

8. Mr. Bannon testified as to the use and design of the property for a high school building, athletic fields and related facilities.

9. Admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 4 was the Special Exception Plan which shows the existing features and improvements on the subject property, including Beaver Creek along the western property line of the property, current improvements including a house, outbuildings and a pond accessed over a private road.

10. Mr. Bannon testified that the Applicant intends to keep the existing facilities and may use them for an environmental center.

11. Mr. Bannon testified that Piketown Road will be realigned at its intersection with Route 39 to meet concerns of West Hanover Township, Lower Paxton Township, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation regarding the safety of that intersection.

12. Current Piketown Road is subject to flooding and Mr. Bannon testified that the realignment project will involve elevating the road which will decrease the flooding. In connection with that realignment a stream crossing will also be eliminated.

13. Mr. Bannon identified wetland areas on the plan which are marked in blue which will be impacted by the realignment of Piketown Road.

14. Mr. Bannon testified that the realignment of Piketown Road will have no impact on water or sewer facilities in the area and will not affect neighboring property owners.

15. Mr. Bannon then discussed the variance plan, which was admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 5.

16. That plan shows environmental protection overlay districts containing the acreage as follows:

Slope Protection Overlay District (SPOD) 4.77 acres

Hillside and Slope Protection Overlay District (HSPOD) 1.93 acres

Lake and Pond Protection Overlay District (LPPOD) 2.51 acres

Wetland Protection Overlay District (WPOD) 16.76 acres

1. Of those environmental protection overlay districts, only the colored areas as depicted on Applicant’s Exhibit Number 5 will be impacted by the construction.

2. The most significant impact on the environmental protection overlay districts result from the realignment of Piketown Road.

3. Mr. Bannon testified that environmentally, relocating Piketown Road is better because it removes an existing road and stream crossing and all wetland areas will be contiguous and west of Piketown Road.

4. Mr. Bannon testified that the athletic fields at the southern portion of the property are necessary to have the minimum requirements for high school use, and if fields are not located there, students would have to be bused elsewhere for athletics.

5. Mr. Bannon testified that there will be no competition football field/stadium constructed on the property.

6. Jeffrey Staub, a registered professional engineer since 1982 testified on behalf of Applicant. His Curriculum Vitae was admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 6.

7. Mr. Staub identified Applicant’s Exhibit Number 7 which is a Memorandum concerning the acreages of the various environmental protection overlay districts impacted by the proposed project.

8. Of the 4.77 acres within the SPOD, only .75 acres are impacted and that is by the realignment of Piketown Road.

9. Mr. Staub also testified that of the 1.93 acres within the HSPOD, 1.49 acres are impacted.

10. There are no affected portions of the 2.51 acres covered by the LPPOD.

11. Of the 16.76 acres within the WPOD, Mr. Staub testified only 4.55 acres are impacted.

12. Mr. Staub concluded his analysis of impacted acres indicating that of the 10.79 acres in the wetlands, only 2.49 acres are impacted.

13. Mr. Staub identified Applicant’s Exhibit Number 4 as being a document prepared by him concerning the floodplain.

14. Only 1.40 acres are in the floodplain and the impact on the floodplain results solely from the realignment of Piketown Road and the widening of Piketown Road in accordance with Township requirements.

15. Mr. Staub testified that Piketown Road could not be realigned without impacting the environmental protection overlay districts.

16. Mr. Staub testified that not all of the hydraulic studies are completed with regard to calculations of the 100 year floodplain, however, he doubts that there will be an increase in the flood height because in total there will be less fill in the floodplains after realignment of Piketown Road than currently exists.

17. In any event, with regard to the realignment of Piketown Road, Mr. Staub testified that the design will be modified, if needed, to guarantee a zero increase in the flood heights and a zero increase in flood velocities of Beaver Creek.

18. Mr. Staub testified that in his opinion there might be a slight decrease in the 100 year flood height upstream north of Route 39, and that there definitely will not be an increase in the 100 year flood height upstream.

19. Mr. Staub testified that wetland mitigation would occur in the area where the bridge currently crosses Beaver Creek, which will be removed in connection with realignment of Piketown Road.

20. Edward Van Blargan, a professional engineer who has conducted approximately 500 wetland delineation studies, testified on behalf of Applicant. His Curriculum Vitae was admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 8.

21. Mr. Van Blargan did a wetlands delineation study on the site and flagged the wetland areas.

22. He testified that wetlands are identified by hydric soils, wetland plant community, and visible wetland hydrology.

23. Mr. Van Blargan identified the WPOD areas on Applicant’s Exhibit Number 5 which contain the wetlands.

24. Mr. Van Blargan testified that the wetlands along the southern boundary of the property have been mowed for hay and it is, therefore, difficult to delineate and at best, on a scale of one to ten, with one being the lowest quality wetland area, the areas along the southern boundary are rated one.

25. Mr. Van Blargan testified that filling in of wetland areas at the southern portion of the property will have no greater environmental adverse effect than developing an upland area.

26. Mr. Van Blargan testified that the wetlands along the western boundary of the property area are a higher quality and would rate them approximately a four and a half on a scale of one to ten.

27. If the special exception and variance were granted, Mr. Van Blargan testified that wetlands mitigation would have to be completed to the requirements and satisfaction of PADEP and the Army Corps of Engineers.

28. Although a specific plan is not yet developed, Mr. Van Blargan testified that the Applicant does not intend to pay into a fund and that it would probably do a combination of mitigation around the stream, the back of the pond and perhaps at the southwest corner of the property where the road is to be removed along the stream.

29. Applicant agreed to provide one to one onsite wetlands mitigation for officially identified wetland areas, and that it would do the wetlands mitigation in areas adjacent to existing wetlands.

30. Admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit Number 9 was a transcript from the conditional use hearing which addresses many of the variance criteria.

31. The Township’s representative testified that relocation of Piketown Road is desirable from the Township’s perspective and it supports the relief necessary to accomplish that realignment project.

32. The Applicant agreed with the following conditions if the special exception and variances were granted:

(a) To provide one to one onsite wetlands mitigation of officially delineated wetland areas adjacent to existing wetlands;

(b) That there will be no increase in the flood height of Beaver Creek;

(d) That any disturbed HSPOD areas will be leveled and not permitted to erode; and

(e) Approval of a Land Development Plan and issuance of any required permits.

1. In response to questioning from Patty Estheimer, Mr. Van Blargan admitted that there would be some impact on the southern wetland areas by filling in the middle area which would disrupt the functionality of the adjoining wetland areas. However, he testified that because the wetlands are of such low quality the mitigated areas may actually be an improvement to the overall wetland quality on the property.

2. Notice of the public hearing held on March 14, 2002 was properly advertised, notice was posted at the municipal building, the subject property was properly posted and all adjoining property owners were notified by certified mail.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Section 195-72.(B)(2)(b) permits utilities and public facilities and improvements, such as streets, in the floodplain district so long as the requirements of Section 195-77 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to special exceptions and floodplain districts are addressed and satisfied.

2. The twelve factors set forth at 195-77.A. of the Zoning Ordinance were addressed by Applicant and those factors and Applicant’s document demonstrating satisfaction thereof are incorporated herein by reference.

3. Accordingly, the requirements for permitting the special exception for the realignment of Piketown Road within the floodplain have been satisfied.

4. Applicant needs a variance from certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to complete its project which includes construction activities within the three of the environmental protection overlay districts.

5. Specifically, Section 195-79(C) of the Zoning Ordinance does not permit the proposed uses within the SPOD; Section 195-80(B) does not permit the proposed uses within the HSPOD; and Section 195-82(C) does not permit the proposed uses within the WPOD.

6. Section 195-199 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code allow the Zoning Hearing Board to act on requests for variances and to grant such requests under certain conditions of hardship and may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.

7. There are unique physical circumstances or conditions of the subject property, including exceptional topographical and physical conditions of the property along Beaver Creek, and the presence of many environmental protection overlay districts which interfere with the ability to utilize the property as a public high school campus as permitted by the conditional use approval granted by the Township.

8. The unique physical circumstances or conditions of the subject property have not been created by the Applicant.

9. Variance from the limitations and uses within the environmental protection overlay districts, if approved, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property nor be detrimental to the public welfare.

10. The variance from the environmental protection overlay district restrictions, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth as agreed to by Applicant, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and represent the least modification possible for the regulations in issue.

11. With regard to the requested variances from the restrictions of the environmental protection overlay districts, the quantum of proof required to establish an unnecessary hardship is less than in a use variance case in accordance with the holding of Talkish v. Zoning Hearing Board of Harborcreek Township.

12. Under the holding of that case, when evaluating the unnecessary hardship with regard to a dimensional variance involving only a reasonable adjustment of open areas and open space requirements, the Zoning Hearing Board may consider multiple factors including economic detriment if the variance is denied, characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and other applicable factors.

13. Approximately one-fourth of the WPOD acreage is impacted by the project.

14. Only a little over one-fifth of the identified wetlands are impacted and of those, a large portion of the acreage is wetlands of low quality.

15. There are four areas of HSPOD lands, most of which are impacted. However, Applicant agreed to the specific condition that those areas be regraded in such a way that erosion will be eliminated.

16. Approval of the request for a special exception to permit construction and realignment of Piketown Road and grant of the requested variances would be subject to the reasonable conditions specifically agreed to by Applicant, as stated above under the Findings of Fact.

DECISION

In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in view of the evidence and testimony presented to the Zoning Hearing Board, it is the Decision of the Board that the requested special exception and variances from the limitations of the environmental protection overlay districts contained in Section 195-79(C), 195-80(B), and 195-82(C) of the Zoning Ordinance are hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Applicant shall provide one to one onsite wetlands mitigation of officially delineated wetland areas adjacent to existing wetlands;

(2) There will be no increase in the flood height of Beaver Creek;

(3) There will be no increase in the flood velocity of Beaver Creek;

(4) Any disturbed HSPOD areas will be leveled and not permitted to erode; and

(5) Approval of a Land Development Plan and issuance of any required permits.

[BOARD MEMBER SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON PAGE 12]

DATE: WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD

Brian F. Jacobeen, Chairman

Ruth C. Shields

Norma J. Gruber

Neil Shatto

DISSENT: