The Schuylkill Township Planning Commission held their regular meeting on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at the Township Hall. Members of the Planning Commission present were Mr. Jack Claffey, Mr. Morris Quigg and Ms. Jan Potts. Mr. Jim Reading and Mr. Dan Keogh were not present. John Sartor and Mary Lou Lowrie of Gilmore & Associates were present as well as Township Manager Mary Bird. Supervisor Jim Morrisson was in the audience.
On motion made by Mr. Morris Quigg seconded by Ms. Jan Potts and passed, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the October 15, 2008 meeting.
It was discussed that Supervisor Laurie Williams wants Natural Land Trust (NLT) to come in and review the Township’s ordinances regarding open space and land. The Planning Commission agreed to invite NLT to the December meeting.
Reeves Property – Mr. Todd Pohlig stated that he doesn’t expect a decision/recommendation tonight and suggested a discussion regarding Gilmore’s review letter dated November 18, 2008.
Outstanding issues discussed were:
Page 7 – “Variance will be required for any structures (retaining wall) within the setback.” This issue is currently being discussed between John Snyder and Bill Brennan, township solicitor.
Page 8 – “The applicant shall clarify whether the Zoning Hearing Board was notified regarding the additional culvert.’ John Snyder advised that the Zoning Hearing Board is aware of the additional culvert.
Page 9 – “Label the inverts on the culverts.” Pohlig advised that an old plan was inadvertently sent over; the current plan does have labels on the inverts. They will provide new plan to Gilmore.
Page 11 – “Pipe calculations for the pipe running under Sedgley Lane, H4 to H1, are not provided.” Pohlig will add H4 to H1 to report, it was inadvertently left out.
Page 12 & 13 – “Verify calculations for stormwater BMP’s, inflow volume and runoff.” Jim will clarify in their report, possible typographical errors; will confer further with John Sartor.
Page 14 – “Basin outlet pipes shall be no smaller than 18” diameter. SWM A and SWM B both have 15” diameter.” Pohlig advised they will change the pipe size to 18” diameter.
Page 15 – “The applicant shall clarify whether a bioretention area is proposed.” Pohlig advised that the bioretention area is not on a revised plan.
Page 16 – “Lakewood Drive shall be revised and approval obtained for the proposed street name.” Pohlig will change the name of the street.
Page 17 – “Dead end streets prohibited. The revised plans show a dead end stub street from Eagles Pointe ending at the tract boundary.” Pohlig will put a note on the plans that the connection to the “stub street” will only be constructed when the adjoining property is built. The adjoining property (Mooney property) will be a separate subdivision plan that is to be submitted.
At this point in discussion Mr. Claffey asked if the Planning Commission should have the Board of Supervisors recommend one main access, two main accesses (East Philip Dr), or one main and one emergency access. John Snyder stated they did meet with the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and he stated that he felt the BOS in general supported two accesses. Mr. Claffey stated that he would like to hear from the Board of Supervisors about their thoughts on the accesses. Pohlig has complied with everything that the Planning Commission has brought up. Mr. Gerstenberger said he is against the second access on East Philip Drive, but states that this has been discussed many times and the Planning Commission seemed for it. Mr. Claffey stated that the township’s ordinance does not require a second access and that the commission had always been in favor of an emergency access and in August the commission voted in favor of the applicant’s recommendation to have two full accesses. Mr. John Meaney, township resident, stated that it is ultimately the Planning Commission’s decision on the number of accesses. Mr. Meaney asked the Planning Commission if they had a full picture of what the traffic truly will be, as he feels the traffic study that was done was not right. Mr. Meaney compared the traffic study that was done for the Anderson Farm development (36 homes) to Pohlig’s traffic study for this 51 home development. Mr. Meaney stated that the numbers for Pohlig’s study are drastically lower and they have more homes. Eric Kaufman of Gilmore stated that TPD’s traffic study numbers do match up, and that the Anderson Farm study is old (2001). Mr. Kaufman did address that there are some issues with TPD’s traffic study that are still being addressed.
Page 18 – “The landscape plan shows a biofiltration area which includes plantings in the right of way. A waiver will be required for these plantings.” This issue is moot due to the removal of the biofiltration area.
Page 20 – “Double Frontage lots.” This issue is acceptable as long as buffering is discussed between existing neighbors.
Page 21 – “Revised plans no longer show a trail. The applicant should discuss this issue with the Board of Supervisors. As Builts will be required for stormwater management areas.” The trail issue is moot due to Aqua PA not wanting a trail around the reservoir. As Builts will be provided with final construction down to the emergency access/stub road.
Page 23 – “The applicant shall clarify where the sequence was revised.” The sequence will be revised to include the stub road, East Philip Drive. If the access road is to remain at 32’ a section of the road will need to be raised to comply with the 2-year storm issues.
Mr. Claffey asked Mr. Snyder when they are going to provide just one plan for review, not an alternate plan, plans with revisions/waivers, notes, etc. Mr. Snyder stated that if a plan is submitted it can be denied solely on one issue, then it’s back to square one. A plan with alternatives/waivers/notes can be engineered and worked through. Mr. Snyder advised that when the Planning Commission grants preliminary approval with waivers then a final plan will be submitted. Mr. Sartor stated that they have not reviewed the alternate plan because waivers haven’t been granted. Preliminary plan does not have to match the final plan. Mr. Sartor advised the way they have been submitting the plans has never been done before. Mr. Snyder stated that he’s discussed this with Mr. Brennan. Mr. Claffey then asked why they would submit a plan with 32’ cartway widths when they want 28’. Mr. Snyder replied that a Board of Supervisors member had organized a citizens group against the plan, neighborhood opposition, township opposition, why would they submit a plan that doesn’t meet the ordinance, which is 32’. Mr. Claffey stated that they need to review the recent Comprehensive plan changes.
Page 25 – “The applicant shall obtain the written approval of the Township Fire Marshal regarding the fire hydrant locations.” Mr. Snyder said that they have made numerous written requests to the Fire Marshal regarding this issue and they have still not received a response.
Page 27 – “Top or bottom edge of slope (grading) shall be located at least 5 feet from property lines.” Mr. Snyder stated that this is currently before the Zoning Hearing Board awaiting a decision to allow grading within the 5 feet. Mr. Morrisson asked what would happen to the plans if this was not allowed. Mr. Snyder replied “a big lawsuit”, that a road cannot be constructed without grading within 5 feet of a property line. ZHB decisions are due by January 15, 2009.
Page 29 – “Accuracy of wetlands delineation shown on the plans. Awaiting a copy of the Jurisdictional Determination which will address the issue of wetlands on the property.” This issue is deferred to the Environmental Advisory Committee.
Pages 30 through 37 regarding traffic planning issues were skipped due to TPD not being in attendance.
Page 37 – “Applicant shall discuss the recommended size of these easements with the Township Road Master and revise plans accordingly.” Mr. Snyder stated that snow easements will be discussed at the final plan.
Page 39 – “The BMP Manual states that loading ratios must be considered. Therefore, the report shall be revised to show loading ratio compliance.” Mr. Snyder advised they met with DEP, that the loading ratios and BMP’s are in their report.
Page 39 – “The plans should be revised to show a detail of this connection”. Mr. Pohlig advised that they would prefer to hook up to a box culvert, but will connect to an arch culvert if necessary. ZHB may say that a box (rain tank) is not needed.
Page 41 – “Verify the areas for Lots 1 and 43.” Mr. Snyder advised they will be labeled as open space.
Page 41 – “Clarify where guide rail is proposed anywhere along Sedgley Lane.” Mr. Snyder advised that a guiderail will be installed along Sedgley Lane over the stream crossing.
Mr. Morrisson asked about revised plans. Mr. Snyder stated that they were talking about the flood studies, not the actual land development plans. Flood plans are separate from land development plans. Mr. Claffey asked if Mr. Kaufman of Gilmore and TPD could get together prior to the December Planning Commission meeting to discuss traffic on Route 23, East Philip Drive, and Whitehorse Road. Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Snyder agreed to arrange a meeting. Mr. Snyder advised that they are waiting on responses from Mr. Brennan regarding the Mooney subdivision plans and they hope to have it done and ready to submit at the December meeting.
Mr. Meaney questioned whether the by right plan shows an easement/right of way up to the Mooney property. Mr. Snyder said it does and proceeded to show Mr. Meaney the by rite plan. Ms. Potts questioned Mr. Kaufman regarding the accuracy of the traffic studies done. Mr. Kaufman stated that he will be meeting with John Wichner of TPD to work out the differences in both their traffic studies. Mr. Meaney stated that he measured the site distance from East Philip Drive on Whitehorse Road, he calculates 330 feet, which is on the low side of PennDots site distance scale. He questioned the safety of this for the amount of expected traffic. Such as, do the site distance requirements increase with increasing traffic volume. Mr. Kaufman confirmed that traffic could double or even triple and it has no effect on site distance.
Mr. Claffey stated that the Planning Commission normally waits until after the Zoning Hearing Board makes their decision to approve/recommend a plan. Mr. Snyder stated that he will not agree to go to January, there are no legal requirements stating that they have to wait for the ZHB. They only agreed to wait this long to appease the Board of Supervisors, and they do not want to wait any longer. Mr. Sartor advised that the Planning Commission can’t recommend a plan if there are outstanding zoning issues. Mr. Snyder still requested recommendation prior to ZHB decision so if/when the ZHB approves the plan, it’s ready to go to the Board of Supervisors. All parties agreed that the plans will only work if the ZHB approves. Mr. Claffey again confirmed that the Planning Commission normally waits on a decision until the ZHB issues their decision.
A Dorchester Way resident questioned the status of the crosswalk from Reeves property to the Meadows development that he presented at the September Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sartor stated that nothing has been done, that he doesn’t feel there is a need for a crosswalk there, as it is a very busy road. The resident stated that children and adults cross from the Meadows to Dorchester, that there is a definite need for some type of crosswalk to advise traffic of the crossings. He feels that someone is going to get hit trying to cross one day. Mr. Pohlig stated that they have not approached PennDot about a crosswalk. TPD also does not think a crosswalk at that location is a good idea. The Planning Commission also stated that if the Township endorses the crosswalk, should anything happen, the Township would be held liable.
Pending – No discussion – Exxon (Rt. 23 & Whitehorse Rd), Brackman Property, Magic Memories Daycare, Ratoskey & Trainor/Faggioli 330 Pawling Rd.
There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Yocom
Township Clerk
Next Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2008