Newlin meeting

The Newlin Township supervisors are at odds with the township's Planning Commission over a proposed ordinance that would change the way horse farms are regulated in the township.
At their Sept. 9 meeting, all three supervisors took issue with the planners' review letter that recommended keeping the ordinance the way it is and having residents go before the Zoning Hearing Board for permission to have outside horses boarding at their farms (which is an extremely common practice).
Supervisors' Chair Janie Baird said the "Riding School, Horse Boarding Facility" ordinance proposed by the supervisors, in contrast, would make boarding "lawful and regulated."
Supervisor Rob Pearson agreed, calling the controversial ordinance "appropriate."
"It's pretty simple," he said. "Eighty-five percent of people under the proposed ordinance will meet the requirements and be grandfathered in. The other people are the ones who will have some issues and will go before the Zoning Board ... No ordinance will make 100% of the people happy."
He said that if the current ordinance were enforced across the board, many residents would need to go before the zoning board, to achieve the very same end result, and that would be "almost ludicrous" in terms of time, effort and expense. Although the applicants do need to pay a fee for a hearing, it doesn't come close to covering the township's expenses in terms of legal and court-reporter fees.
The third supervisor, Bill Kelsall, said he believes the when the planners rejected the proposed ordinance, they were working from incorrect information about the number of people who would have to request special permission.
The Planning Commission's two-page letter (the Commission members are Robert Shippee Jr., Bill Steuteville, Jack Bailey, Barbara Forney and Lee Trainer) gives three reasons why it objects to the proposed ordinance:
1. "The unique nature of the township and these particular facilities makes any single, by-right ordinance necessarily too inflexible."
2. Making stables a use-by-right "stands in stark contrast to all other commercial uses in the township. The Planning Commission questions the defensibility of offering by-right status only to commercial facilities involving horses, particularly in the heart of horse country."
3. The number of facilities not in strict conformity "may be considerably smaller than previously considered."
The Commission, realizing full well which way the wind was blowing, also predicted in its letter that the supervisors would reject its recommendation.
The whole dispute started earlier this year when some new residents bought a horse farm on bucolic Hilltop View Road. They brought in additional boarders, to the point that some neighbors are claiming they are operating a commercial equestrian business instead of a private stable (those definitions are germane) and are bringing additional traffic to their quiet one-lane road, only the southern part of which is paved.
The residents asked the township supervisors to enforce the ordinance and issue a cease-and-desist order to limit the commercial use of the farm unless the owners apply for permission from the township. The township supervisors, however, responded that if they strictly enforce the ordinance, they'd have to shut down many such equestrian operations in the rural township; they also say that the use has not changed significantly enough from the prior one to warrant a township hearing. That's what led the supervisors to develop the new ordinance.
Because the supervisors have not received any comments yet from the Chester County Planning Commission, which is also reviewing the proposed ordinance, they delayed taking action until their Oct. 14 meeting. Meanwhile, many township equestrians are confused and worried as to whether the new regulations would apply to their stables.
A testy exchange early in the meeting symbolized how divisive this issue has become in Newlin and how some residents are suspicious about the process that has been followed to write the proposed ordinance. During the public comment session, a resident stood up and accused the township supervisors of holding a private meeting in violation of the state's Sunshine Law. Mrs. Baird said it was not in violation because the board met with township solicitor John Good to discuss pending litigation -- the lawsuit that some residents are filing in connection with the matter -- and that is permitted under the Sunshine Act.
The resident, unsatisfied, asked if there was any reason why he shouldn't file a complaint about the meeting in district court "tomorrow morning."
Replied Mr. Good: "Feel free to."