| Home |
|
| Board of Supervisors |
|
| Planning Commission |
|
| Township History |
|
| Roads Department |
|
| Planning Commission Agenda |
|
| Announcements and Public Notices |
|
|
| Township Newsletter |
| Township Facts |
|
| Other Resources |
|
| Forms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MINUTES
OF NOCKAMIXON TOWNSHIP August 2, 2005 ROLL CALL: Members Present: Attendees: Township Engineer: Steve Baluh OPEN MEETING: Chair Phyllis Hamilton opened the August 2, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting with a salute to the flag at 7:30 PM . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by A. Lyons, seconded by M. Kulp, to accept the June 7, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0-1 with B. Sadow abstaining. He was not present at the meeting. A motion was made by, M. Kulp, seconded by C. Bahnck, to accept the July 5, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0-3 with B. Sadow, A. Lyons and D. Haubert abstaining. They were not present at the meeting. B. Sadow recuses himself from the meeting at 7:35 PM . SUBDIVISIONS:Prime Properties, Inc. a.k.a. Park View Estates Mike Malloy, from Eastburn & Gray, represented the applicant Prime Properties, Inc. He introduced Kirk Clauss from Schlosser & Clauss Consulting Engineers who reviewed the Wynn Associates letter and the EAC letter with the Planners.He commented that the Township has requested that this plan be moved along in a timely manner and is hoping for a recommendation for preliminary approval tonight. Kirk Clauss and the Planners reviewed the Wynn Associates letter of July 26, 2005. 1. Agrees: The Jurisdictional Determination by the Army Corps of Engineers confirmed additional wetlands on the property. 2. Will Provide: The applicant will not provide recreation land as requested by the Planners but will pay a fee in-lieu-of. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Planners that due to the placement of the recreation land within the subdivision a fee would be accepted. 4. Waiver request: Lot #5 has become an irregular lot due to the depth to width ratio in excess of the maxiumum 3:1. The other lots in the subdivision conform with the Ordinance. It was the consensus of the Planners to approve this waiver. 5. Will Comply: Proposed internal street name ‘ Teresa Lane ’ has been approved by the Ottsville Post Office on July 5, 2005 . 6. Waiver request: The applicant requested waivers for road improvements curbs and sidewalks along Fink and Foellner due to the wetlands and water courses. S. Baluh noted that cartway widening will be difficult due to the wetlands along the side of the road. They will be maintaining the existing road (10’) from the pond to the intersection, where the wetlands are located, instead of widening to 14’. It can be widened at the intersections of the egress areas of the new road. They are proposing to overlay of the full frontage of the site. Fink, which is a gravel road, will be reconstructed and rebuilt. As part of the condition of the two-lot subdivision, they are softening the bend in front of the estate lot and widening that area. They are installing swales and stabilizing stormwater drainage where they can. S. Baluh commented that the Planners could require the applicant to install sidewalks on the roadways where wetlands are not an issue. He explained that the depth of water in the basins is based on the 10 and 100-year storm events (2’ and 3’ depth allowed, maximum depth of 3.35 and 4.05 feet proposed respectively). The basin is now on one lot and the applicant can meet the requirements by increasing the size of the basin to decrease depth. The Ordinance requires fencing for the deeper basins. He does not know if there is a compelling reason for the Township to grant a waiver. R. Balbirer questioned if a mini-lake could be created as opposed to the existing pond. Mr. Clauss commented that he cannot do anything with the pond since it is considered ‘wetlands’. Steve noted that a second pond could be created. M. Kulp questioned the depth of the existing pond, which is considered wetlands and cannot be fenced. A resident, E. Yeske asked why they could not reconfigure the lot line in order to make a shallow basin. It was the consensus of the Planners to grant the waiver for the proposed drainage basin. S. Donovan asked why the waiver had been granted before reviewing the EAC and P-Hydro letter. M. Kulp commented that no motion had been made. K. Clauss commented that the applicant Will Comply with the remaining items in the Wynn Letter. 7A thru C - Will Comply: The applicant will consider paying their fair share of a traffic light at the intersection of South Park Drive and SR611. S. Baluh commented that the amount of traffic that this subdivision will create at this intersection is very small. K. Clauss is not committing himself or the developer to a $25K contribution. Tinicum Twp. will have to be contacted since the intersection is in their township. 8A thru P - Will Comply: Additional testing and calculations are needed. The Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Report will be revised to include alternate methods. 9A thru D – Will Comply: Awaiting a review letter from BCCD for proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures to be implemented during earthmoving. Applicant must obtain a NPDES Permit for discharge of stormwater runoff during construction activities. 10. Will Comply: The water impact study has been reviewed and there is enough water to support this development, however, there is still one well in question. S. Baluh requested additional information for DW-10, 39 Fink Drive . In several other developments a ‘well protection agreement’ was enacted due to the impact on the drilled wells. Funds will be set aside should problems arise with these wells. 11A thru I - Will Comply: Approval for the Sewage Facilities Planning Modules must be received from BC Dept of Health, BC Planning Commision, Nockamixon Township and PADEP. These issues were also addressed by the EAC and P-Hydro. 13. Will Comply: Streetlights are proposed at the intersection of Teresa Lane with Foellner and Fink. In addition, colonial style lampposts are proposed at each driveway along Teresa Lane . The Planners will take under advisement. Sally Jo Reid commented concerning the wetlands that are located on the property for the proposed subdivision and how it will effect widening of the two roadways. She also spoke about the proposed sewage systems and their impact on the area. S. Baluh will review the planning Module Component 4B along with BCDH & BCPC. The final recommendation will be the Township Supervisors. Alternative systems will be addressed on their application and the feasibility to this area. PADEP will be the final determination. There are some concerns with the new A/B systems. 14. Will Comply: The ultimate right-of-ways have been previously set aside as easements for Foellner Lane and Fink Drive . Applicant will provide a legal description and Teresa Lane will be built to PennDOT specifications. 15 thru 19. Will Comply: The applicant will be providing the necessary paperwork to comply with the following: drainage easements, deed of consolidation, and Development/Financial Security Agreement. They will address the engineering and drafting detail reviews, and additional comments may be generated upon submission of revised plans and supplemental information. R. Balbirer wanted to know if the school district had been contacted with regard to bus schedules. K. Clauss had phoned the district, but had not received a response.
K. Clauss reviewed the EAC report. The applicant addressed the concerns listed in this report most of which had been discussed during the review of the Wynn Associates letter. B. Keyser voiced his concerns with regard to stormwater runoff and the Stormwater Management Report. Mr. Clauss commented that the proposed basin will act as in infiltration device leaving groundwater on site. S. Baluh explained that additional information is needed with regard to BMP’s and that testing to determine their design is currently pending. The Township is not comfortable with the stormwater issue until all information is received for review. S. Donovan questioned whether they will be addressing P-hydro. K. Clauss commented that it is currently being reviewed. A motion was made by A. Lyons, seconded by D. Haubert, that the Planners would not grant preliminary approval for Park View Estates. The motion carried 5-1-0 with M. Kulp voting nay. B. Sadow returned to the meeting at 8:40 PM .
Brian McArdle Dennis Litzenberger, land surveyor, reviewed and updated the Planners with regard to the 2-lot subdivision. The applicant, Brian McArdle, was also in attendance. Each lot now has its own driveway and the lane lot has been reconfigured in order to preserve the tree line. Resource mapping was completed for steep slopes and the Waters of the Commonwealth study was completed along with stormwater management. The Planners reviewed the Wynn Associates Letter of July 25, 2005. 2. Have Applied: Natural resource mapping and calculations may require revision subject to wetland determination discussed below. This will be reflected on the plan based on the Jurisdictional Determination. 3. Will Comply: Recreation land is not proposed. A fee in-lieu-of will be paid by the applicant. 4. Waiting for Review: Comments will be forthcoming for the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). 5. See Item #2. Applicant will comply by establishing a drainage easement and include on the record plan. 6. Will Comply: Per the request of the Planners at the March 1, 2005 meeting, the applicant widened lane for Lot 2 to allow existing trees to remain on the property. 7. Will Comply: Design details will be added to the plan for the driveway paving. 8. Requesting Waivers: If road improvements are waived, a fee in-lieu-of in the amount of $3,000.00 per new building lot is required. After inspection of the roadway it was determined that there were no issues or problems with regard to road improvements on this side of the road. Applicant agreed to pay fees. 9. Will Comply: The applicant to provide additional calculations with regard to Stormwater management report. 10. Will Comply: Awaiting approval from BCCD. 11. Will Comply: Wells are to be drilled before final approval of the plans. Well permit will be obtained from the Zoning Officer. 12. Will Comply: Applicant to check status of the Sewage Facilities Planning Modules for sand mound sites. 13. Will Comply: Property monumentation and lot pins to be installed prior to plan recording. 14. Will Comply: Area within the ultimate right-of-way of Frogtown is offered to the Township as an easement. Legal description has been submitted and will be reviewed upon conditional approval of the plan. 15. Will Comply: Development/Financial Security Agreement to be executed between applicant and Township. 16A thru C, Will Comply: Engineering/drafting comments will be addressed by the applicant. It was noted by D. Litzenberger that a letter from BCPC had been received. P. Hamilton commented that there are still several items that need to be resolved for this subdivision. D. Litzenberger requested preliminary approval, with conditions. A motion was made by C. Bahnck, seconded by A. Lyons , to grant preliminary approval based on the outstanding issues in the Wynn Associates Letter of July 25, 2005. The motion carried 6-1-0 with D. Haubert voting nay.
John Salventi/Thomas W. Purviance D. Litzenberger, land surveyor, presented the plan. One of the applicants, J. Slaventi, was also in attendance. The parcel consists of one 13.3 acre lot. Lot 1 is 7.7 acres and contains an existing dwelling and outbuildings with frontage along Brennan Road . Lot 2 is 5.1 acres with existing agricultural business (greenhouse). It has frontage along Mountain View Drive and Brennan Road . No new construction is proposed. The applicant wants to separate the residential use from the business use. Testing has been completed (July) for a new sewage system on Lot 1 but is not shown on the plan. A holding tank is proposed for Lot 2 since no suitable soils were found for a sewage system. The Planners reviewed the Wynn Associates letter of July 28, 2005. 1. S. Baluh commented that the agricultural buildings and parking areas are ‘existing non-conforming’ with respect to required building set-backs. The buildings are appropriately setback from the proposed boundary line between Lots 1 and 2. 2. Will Comply: Waivers have been requested from Environmental and Cultural Impact Assessment Report, road frontage improvements (cartway widening, curb, and sidewalk), street trees, stormwater management and erosion controls. Township should determine if a fee in-lieu-of road improvement is applicable as no new building lots are being created. S. Baluh suggested that a note be put on the plan that any future development on the lots has to meet the road improvement requirements per the Ordinance. It was noted that a narrative summary of the proposed development should be submitted. 3. Waiver Request: Brennan Road is a private road and the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all new lots front on a street that has been or will be dedicated to the Township. Lot 1 will only have access to this road and is in noncompliance. S. Baluh suggests that a waiver request be submitted in writing and approved by the Township. 4. Irregular lot line configuration due to location of existing greenhouse buildings. Township should determine if the lot configuration is satisfactory. 5. Will Comply: Required building setback along Brennan Road should be revised, measured from the edge of the cartway, and shown on the plan. 6. Will Comply: Steve suggested that the applicant create either a shared access easement through the greenhouse so they can continue to use if sold separately, or put a note on the plan stating ‘if either lot is sold, Lot 1 has to have driveway access to Brennan Road’. 7. Will Comply: A holding tank is currently proposed due to no suitable soils found on Lot 2. The Ordinance requires that they establish a ‘controlled fill site’ for future replacement of the holding tank. This will have to be identified on the plan and the health department will approve the location of the fill site. 8. Will Comply: Installation of concrete monuments along the ultimate right-of-way of Mountain View Drive . Property pins along the proposed boundary of Lots 1/2. 9. Will Clarify: Verify and include the PennDOT right-of-way on the plan. If the ultimate right-of-way for the Township is larger, then we would anticipate dedication of that area. 10. Revise: Zoning data should reference “VC” (Village Commercial) No action was taken by the Planners.
The meeting reconvened after a five minute break. LAND DEVELOPMENT: Korman Land Development, Revised Preliminary William Benner, attorney for the applicant, presented the revised preliminary plan. Mr. Benner introduced the applicant Ms. Allison Korman of Korman Associates. It has been some time since the Nockamixon Crossing Shopping Center land development has been brought before the Planning Commission. There were several major issues which are now resolved and the preliminary plan notes including: the elimination of the WAWA use in its entirety; a new smaller plan which includes a supermarket, a drugstore and a pet store. It has been filed on the existing zoning as a new submission with fees. A Jurisdictional Determination has been done with regard to the wetlands. Should the settlement with the Township occur, and parties execute the agreements, this plan will be processed under the stipulation settlement the agreements as opposed to a new application. It may become a revision to the previously filed plan. Robert D. Irons of Bohler Engineering who is the Project Engineer explained the changes that occurred on the plan including retail stores, parking (313 spaces), landscaping, and buffer areas. The 34% reduction of the retail area from 100K to 66K sq.ft., on-site sewer and water, swales to capture stormwater for deflection to basins, and BMP’s. With the reduction of the retail area they are anticipating less traffic during the morning and afternoon peak hours, and on Saturday. John R. Wichner, P.E., Traffic Planning and Design (TPD), Inc. gave an overview of the uses for the shopping center and the affect on the traffic pattern. The changed traffic patterns in the parking area may eliminate the need for a grading easement. A signal modification would be necessary for the SR412/SR611 intersection and there is a pedestrian crosswalk proposed at this intersection. It was noted that a new application may be needed from PennDOT for the Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP). Concerns were raised by B. Sadow with regard to tractor trailer deliveries to the stores and the 90˚ turns that would be necessary. J. Wincher agreed to study the traffic patterns further. R. Balbirer requested a survey of the proposed intersection from St. John’s Church through SR412/SR611 to (Harrow Station) Tower Road . A narrative was suggested to encompass all changes proposed with this shopping center. Other concerns were the location and ease of access to the bank and the placement of sidewalks which should be shown on the plans even though they may not be constructed at this time. The applicant, Ms. Allison Korman presented the ‘farm style’ architectural design to the Planners. W. Benner commented that the BOS is satisfied with this design and, unless there is a contrary feedback as they go through the settlement process that this stipulation settlement agreement will incorporate this rendition. P. Hamilton explained that the applicant should contact the Township Zoning Officer due to the specific considerations involved with a retail center. The Planners reviewed the Wynn Associates letter of July 27, 2005. S. Baluh commented, as a point of clarification, that this letter was prepared in anticipation of the settlement agreement. Should the settlement agreement not be accepted, some of the comments could be subject to change or have a different interpretation. 1A thru F, and 3. Requires No Action: W. Benner commented that these remarks are descriptive only. 2. Will Comply: Identifies the needs for architectural elevations for the shopping center. A proposal showing the elevations has been presented. 4. Will Comply: Applicant will establish buffer yards. 5A. Will Comply: The necessary road improvements will be completed. 5B. Not Applicable: This concerns off-site easements. 5C. Will Comply: S. Baluh explained that the Township has to sign off for the traffic signal before PennDOT submission. M. Kulp commented that the revised signal design should include preemption as requested by Ottsville Fire Co. 5D, E and F Will Comply: All deal with the traffic signal at the intersection of SR412/SR611. 6. Will Comply: They will submit plans with regard to access and water supply to the servicing fire company for fire fighting purposes and will cooperate with their response. 7A, B and C Will Comply: These are stormwater comments and they will provide the information requested. The applicant questioned if a split rail fence with wire is acceptable around the basin it will be included on the plan. S. Baluh commented he had no problem with that type of fence. 8. Will Comply: Will apply for an NPDES permit from BCCD for earth disturbance. 9. Will Comply: Applicant will enter into a well protection agreement. Since elevated levels of TCE have been found in wells on SR412/SR611, there will be regular testing of wells as required by BCDH. No determination has been made where well is to be drilled. It was noted three wells have been drilled on this site which tested negative for TCE. 10. Due to the limitation of the septic flow, the pizza restaurant has been eliminated. P. Bent commented that each retail store needs to present a business plan which should include calculations for septic flow. 11. Will Comply: Additional lighting to be installed at the site entrances. 12. Will Comply: Offer ultimate right-of-way of SR611 for dedication to the Township along with one original and two copies of legal descriptions. 13. Will Comply: Development/Financial Security Agreements should be executed between applicant and Township. 14. Will Comply: Sidewalks to be extended to connect crosswalks at the intersection of SR412/SR611. The right-of-way for sidewalks will also be noted on the plan. 15 thru 19. Will Comply: The drafting issues in #18 will be addressed. S. Donovan requested an Environmental Impact Assessment. W. Benner commented that none would be forthcoming. B. Sadow explained that this is a revision of a three year old plan and will be based on the settlement agreement to be presented to the Township Supervisors. S. Baluh added that the EAC has received limited information and limited direction at this time. J. Peterson questioned if there is a turning lane for the South entrance. It was explained that there is an increased radius (50’) for that right turn. It was the consensus of the Planners that the revised plan has significant improvement, no action will be taken at this time.
NEW BUSINESS:There was no new business.
OLD BUSINESS:Mr. David Schriml, Arbor Resources Response to letter of July 7, 2005 Mr. Schriml, petroleum landsman, attended the meeting to respond to the letter sent by the Planning Commission. He addressed questions with regard to the drilling equipment, leasing of property, safety and environmental issues. He suggested that if the Planners have additional issues they contact Ms. Andrea Sullivan at (989)705-3418. She is a Regional Geologist, Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan and has approved many of Arbor’s well sites and is familiar with Arbors operations. P. Bent requested that a permit application be submitted to the Township with any pertinent State and Federal requirements in order to proceed with drilling. Arbor will comply with all the issues that are of concern to the Zoning Officer. Mr. Schriml requested approval of the ‘non-surface development oil and gas lease’, not to drill on Township property, but to utilize in a well location. A motion was made by C. Bahnck, seconded by R. Balbirer, to recommend that the Township Board of Supervisors procure a ‘non-operational lease’ with Arbor Resources for grounds (property) of Nockamixon Township . The motion carried 7-0-0.
Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Recovery of Subsurface Oil and Gas Deposits B.C.P.C. – Gas and Oil Lease Zoning Amendment Review – May 4, 2005 The Planners reviewed the proposed ordinance for recovery of subsurface oil and gas deposits. C. Bahnck noted his concerns with restricting wells to the Quarry(Q) and Industrial(I) districts. After remarks from Arbor Resources, he does not believe it is detrimental to the environment and would recommend removing the restrictions. P. Hamilton agreed with C. Bahnck and that drilling can be done safely. R. Balbirer commented on the Solicitor’s letter of March 31, 2005 with regard to ‘conservation-type restrictions’ as noted in Item#1. S. Baluh explained that it refers to permitting drilling in Q & I, except where property has a conservation easement. Taking the zones out would also remove this restriction. This does not regulate leases only actual constructed wells. Several Planners commented that Item#4 needs clarification with regard to visual restrictions. S. Baluh commented it should be defined or eliminated to explain how the well heads should be screened. C. Bahnck commented that Chapter #146 explains how this should be handled but doesn’t know how it should be screened. Acreage should be restricted and/or defined and meet criteria for setbacks. M. Kulp is looking out for the best interest of the entire community. Do we want to allow the drilling heads to be on grounds, anywhere in the township, as long as it is 330’ (state regulations) from a property line? R. deSocarras commented that there are gas lines running through the township and doesn’t believe that there will be many wells heads, due to past history. M. Kulp is also concerned with the odor that is added to natural gas. No recommendation was made by the Planners with regard to this proposed ordinance. It was the consensus of the Planners to change the zoning ordinance designation and obtain clarification on the items discussed.
Proposed Amendment to Nockamixon Twp. Zoning Ord. The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Planners. R. Balbirer voiced his concern with regard to the possibility of ‘spot zoning’ and would it be challenged in the courts. S. Baluh explained that multiple properties are concerned, not just one. The entire village of Revere is being considered. A recommendation is needed from the Planners in order to move forward. A motion was made by M. Kulp, seconded by A. Lyons, to forward to the Supervisors, based on the Solicitor’s letter of June 30, 2005 , the proposed amendment to Nockamixon Township Ordinance Rezoning of property from VC to R for the Revere Village only. The motion carried 6-1-0 with R. Balbirer voting nay.
SKETCH PLAN: Sal Lapio Homes – 17 lots William Benner, attorney for the applicant, presented the revised sketch (concept) plan of July 12, 2005 . The applicant is anticipating additional engineering and Planner comments. M. Matczak, representing Sal Lapio, and Evan Pellegrino, engineer, were also in attendance. Mr. Benner based the following comments on the January 20, 2005 review letter from Wynn Associates which included: establishing the limit of the wetlands; the amount of open space and/or active recreation; the configuration of the p-loops which were shown on the plans; the relocation of the access road from SR611. The applicant has secured a Jurisdictional Determination. Plots have been reconfigured with regard to the P-loops. The proposed public street with access from SR611 now bisects the property and serves as a stub street with a temporary cul-de-sac in the event the Diamond Property would be developed. It was noted by the Planners that this property is the site of a landfill. S. Baluh commented that one of his concerns was Lot #13, a flag lot, and the close proximity of the driveway to the property boundary/tree line. B. Sadow noted that no planning module is shown on Lot #16/near Tabor Road . Mr. Benner commented that this lot is being evaluated for an on-lot sewage system. R. Balbirer questioned if a bathroom facility is being considered on the recreation lot. Since there is no stipulation that an on-lot septic system is required, no testing has been done. The Planners voiced concerns with regard to the location of the driveway for Lot #13 based on final grading, the double cul-de-sacs, and the wetlands. Lot #14 and Lot #10 should be revisited due to the waterways on the site. S. Baluh suggested that the applicant may want to consider reconstructing a cul-de-sac with an island. The property could be assigned to a landowner for maintenance. S. Donovan questioned if the EAC and P-hydro reports would be addressed. This is a revised plan they would no longer be feasible. E. Gawronski requested the status of the original seven-lot subdivision since it is still open. An open-ended extension has been granted by the applicant. It was suggested by the Planners that the applicant submit a revised preliminary plan to the Township.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. CORRESPONDENCE: A. Park View Estate – Extension letter through Nov 16, 2005 – July 6, 2005 B. Del Val Soils – Well Monitoring Easton & Tabor Rd (Sal Lapio) July 5, 2005 C. B.C.P.C. – Transportation Enhancements Program Grants – July 11, 2005 D. B.C.P.C. – B.C. Municipal Waste Management Plan Revision – July 18, 2005 E. B.C.P.C. – Gartner Building Group/Preliminary Plan Review – July 15, 2005 F. David Brill Land Development – Extension letter – July 28, 2005 G. GRWA – Annual Meeting, Sept 12, 2005 – July 26, 2005 H. Wynn Assoc. Sub/Land Development Plan Status – July 26, 2005 S. Baluh commented that the Quarry permit renewal has been received by the Township and will be discussed at the next Planning Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by B. Sadow, seconded by A. Lyons, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:30 PM . The motion carried 7-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Arlene Eichlin Recording Secretary
|
