Boarders by right or by special exception?

The saga over Newlin's proposed "Riding School and Horse Boarding Facility" ordinance took an unusual twist this week, with the County Planning Commission first opposing and then recommending the changes.
Those of you who were patient enough to slog through my lengthy account in last week's column may remember that although the township supervisors wrote the ordinance, they didn't approve it at their September meeting because they were waiting for comments from the Chester County Planning Commission. (The township Planning Commission advised against adopting it.)
Well, the county comments have arrived. In fact, two sets of county comments have arrived. The first letter (Sept. 11) didn't favor the changes, but the second one (Sept. 19), which superseded the first, did.
In the first letter the County planners supported the township Planning Commission's position that having a stable with boarders (a very common use here in horse country) should continue to be a special exception rather than a "by-right" use. People who have boarders at their stables would have to seek a special exception in front of the township's Zoning Hearing Board.
"While the minimum lot size for this land use remains at not less than ten acres and the minimum acreage per horse in increased from the current regulations, riding schools and horse boarding facilities can involved substantial structures and require extensive stormwater management facilities. This amendment also potentially introduces a new commercial land use into the Township's zoning ordinance ... Therefore, we suggest that the Township consider retaining this land use as a special exception, because this will permit the Township Zoning Hearing Board to impose reasonable conditions on plan applications," reads the letter, over the signature of Ronald T. Bailey, the commission's secretary and executive director
The second letter, however, said the proposed ordinance complies with the guidelines of the County's comprehensive plan, Landscapes2, and recommended that the township adopt the ordinance. The letter made no mention of the earlier concerns about "substantial structures," "extensive stormwater management facilities" or commercial uses, stating instead that "horse riding, horse boarding and other related activities can be common elements of agricultural and rural areas."
The next township meeting is Oct. 14, and doubtless this matter will be on the agenda.
(For more background on what sparked this controversy, you can call up last week's piece online.)