The Salisbury Township Planning Commission is discussing possible changes to the township zoning ordinance pertaining to shade trees and the grading of lots.

Discussion of the two topics, as well as that of age-restricted housing, is expected to continue at the next planning commission meeting 7 p.m. March 9.

Discussion of shade trees is also expected to be on the agenda of the environmental advisory council 7 p.m. Feb. 17.

Planners met Feb. 9 via the Zoom online format and expect to do so again in March.

Participants are to preregister for the planners’ meeting and the environmental advisory council meeting.

Those wanting to preregister may do so on the township website: https://www.salisburytownshippa.org.

Shade trees, lot grading and age-restricted housing were discussed by planners because Salisbury Township Zoning Officer Kerry Rabold is taking a look across the board at township zoning ordinances in an effort to collate them and make sure they are in-sync and in accordance with overall township policy.

Working with Rabold is Salisbury Township Consulting Engineer David J. Tettemer of Keystone Consulting Engineers, Inc.

“We’re trying to get all of our ordinances in order,” Rabold said during the nearly 1 1/2-hour discussion at the Feb. 9 planners’ meeting.

The planning commission is not required to act on changes to the zoning ordinance. Any changes to the ordinance must be reviewed in a public hearing, which needs to be advertised in advance, before being put up for a vote by the township board of commissioners.

Rabold and planners reviewed the on-lot grading ordinance.

“For grading, we’re trying to define what it is,” Rabold said. “Now we actually spell things out.”

“There are issues with public utilities in the right of way. As part of the updating of SALDO [Subdivision And Land Development Ordinance], we’re going to look at all of that,” Tettemer said.

“Dave and I have been going through the construction ordinance and we’ll have that for you in March,” Rabold said.

“Right now some of the definitions don’t match. And we want to have all of them match,” Rabold said.

“We had a grading ordinance before, but most of it was gray,” Rabold said.

“The existing grading ordinance doesn’t have any teeth in it as far as maintaining the improvements,” Tettemer said.

“It gives the township a little bit extra in the requirements for the improvements,” Tettemer said of changes under consideration.

“I think you have it pretty well-covered,” planning commission chairman Charles Beck said.

“Next month, we’ve been asked to add some stuff for age-restricted housing development. But that’s for next month,” Rabold said.

“The definition of land development is something you should consider because that will come to you or be handled in-house,” Tettemer said.

“We tried to define land development a little better,” Tettemer said.

“That definition will carry through in our ordinance,” Rabold said.

“If it’s a single home on an existing lot then it won’t have to come before you,” Tettemer said.

“Communication towers have gotten exceptions. They didn’t want to have a situation where a municipality can hang them up,” Salisbury Township solicitor and planning commissioner solicitor Attorney John W. Ashley said.

Planning commission member Jessica Klocek asked about the ramifications of a lot extending into an adjoining municipality.

“We can’t enforce something on the South Whitehall portion,” Ashley said. “It’s one of the weird makeups of the many municipalities that Pennsylvania has had over the years.”

“There needs to be some way to regulate it and consider it all,” Rabold said.

“I think you can reword the requirements for impervious surfaces and building coverage,” Tettemer said.

“You could include the entire lot for your calculations,” Ashley said.

“I was trying to figure out how to calculate it,” Rabold said.

“I will look into that and see if there’s any case law,” Ashley said.

Regarding the shade tree ordinance, Rabold said, “It wasn’t very specific and enforceable.”

“For shade trees, if they’re part of an approved development, they have to maintain it for 20 years,” Rabold said.

“There are a lot of shade trees that are missing,” Rabold said.

“It’s hard to enforce,” Rabold said of the shade tree ordinance.

“There’s a maintenance section. If you harm a shade tree, whether intentional or not, you will have to replace it,” Rabold said.

Concerning tree removal, planning commission member Mark Kijak asked, “Is there a size consideration?”

“We decided to remove the size limitation,” Rabold said.

Two trees per year can be removed by a property owner.

Planning commission vice chairman Richard Schreiter recommended planning commission member Richard Hassick, a tree expert, who was not in attendance, be asked for input concerning the tree ordinance.

Rabold said she and Tettemer are also reviewing township fees.

“We’re working on all of our fees now across the board in our department. We have to take into consideration our administrative fees.”