ADAMS TWP — Supervisors heard from residents Monday night in four public hearings for four ordinances.

A newly proposed steep slope ordinance attracted the attention of several residents. The township defines a steep slope as having a 1-foot rise over a 4-feet run, or a 25 percent grade.

Those interested in excavating for a steep slope would need to provide the township with specifications, a reason for the slope and professional assessment of the excavation, if the ordinances were adopted.

“We are requiring a very detailed analysis to be performed,” said Ron Olsen, township engineer.

The developer will be responsible for the cost of the professional assessment. Olsen added a geotechnical engineer should be on site while earth is being moved.

Olsen said the ordinance is specifically designed to prevent landslides during and after development. Olsen said while the township has not had any major landslides, it could still be at risk in the future.

“We have not had any serious problems,” Olsen said. “But … we are proceeding at risk.”

Resident Tim Stack lives along Forsythe Road. He told supervisors the proposed ordinance carries a lot of weight with it.

“(It's) an ordinance that when constructed properly could greatly benefit the current and future residents of Adams Township,” Stack said.

Stack told the board both Supervisor Russell Ford and Planning commission chairman Martin McKinney have talked about complaints from citizens about changes to the environment within the township.

“They stated that the township was going to do something about this problem,” Stack said. “Now it's time to walk the walk.”

Robert Crouthamel, who lives along Pearce Road, told supervisors he believes the ordinance could “level the playing field between good and bad developers.”

“I don't have a problem with the grading ordinance,” Crouthamel said. “But I use the term grading ordinance very specifically.”

Crouthamel said he's concerned the ordinance wouldn't protect existing slopes because it's proposed as a replacement for existing restrictions stipulated by subdivision ordinances. Crouthamel said replacing what's in place — instead of adding to it — is counterproductive.

“The most stable existing slope is one that isn't touched,” Crouthamel said. “We don't have to do this at the expense of protecting our existing slopes.”

Stack also argued the ordinance could be more strict.

“The township is at a crossroads,” Stack said. “To endorse this regressive ordinance instead of enacting the strictest slopes ordinance legally allowable is not only irresponsible but negligent.”

Jeff McCormick asked for a clarification on a provision that suggests a 10-foot distance between a slope and a buffer yard. Specifically, the ordinance states, “…final slopes shall be set back 10 feet from the adjacent property lines, street rights-of-way or edge of buffer yards.”

“Is it (an) additional 10 feet before they can cut? Or can they cut into the buffer?” McCormick asked. “I think it needs to be clarified.”

Olsen agreed the statement could be interpreted many ways. Supervisors determined the comment should be clarified.

Changes to an existing fence ordinance now allow the installation of vinyl fencing and addresses “estate” fences over 3 feet tall.Mary Snow asked for clarification on a revision that chain-link fencing is not permitted. Snow argued such a rule prohibits people from being able to install inexpensive fences.“You can no longer have a dog kennel, is what that says to me,” Snow said.Township Manager Gary Peaco said dog kennels fall under a separate code use.Snow said she also is concerned about a provision that a property could have only two types of fencing in its side yard or near a property line.“The main intent is that you don't put five different types of fence along the property lines,” Peaco said.Township solicitor Michael Gallagher said existing fences will be grandfathered in. Properties falling in agricultural security areas maintain their classification.

Revisions to an existing sign ordinance changes “monument signs” to “ground signs.” Property owners need permits to both install and make changes to signs. Multi-tenant developments can have a free-standing sign with business names.Gallagher added revisions are now applicable to all zoning districts.Gallagher said the deep space antenna tower ordinance would hold the spot of a dispute between municipalities or the Public Utility Commission about what entity regulates the installation of antenna towers.Gallagher said the dispute will be determined in court sometime in the future. In the meantime, the township can pass an ordinance that regulates where towers are installed.“What we're trying to do right now is enact a stop-gap ordinance,” Gallagher said. “We can't prohibit them, but we can restrict them.”

Ford commented on the slope ordinance before the hearing closed.“We're on no deadline to approve this,” Ford said. “Whatever's going to be put in place is better than what we had.”Ford also said township planning commissioners should be present at future public hearings regarding ordinances. Ford asked why there were so many questions about the ordinances if it had gone through the planning process.Supervisor chairman and planning commissioner Thomas Franceschina told Ford the public has limited access to ordinances prior to public hearings. Ordinances become available to the public after they're drafted in order to prevent a drawn-out planning process.Planning commissioner Liz McMeekin was present and verified Franceschina's explanation regarding the public's access to proposed ordinances.“They can't see the proposed draft ordinance,” McMeekin said. “This is their first opportunity to (speak).”All four ordinances were on Monday night's township agenda.Supervisors unanimously approved revisions to the fence, sign and DAS ordinances.The slope ordinance was tabled while comments made by residents could be addressed.