What's new? (Home) Search this site Official Twp. Site About Charlestown  Index to Gov't Info  General Info  Organizations  The early days  Photo Albums Surplus & Needs Neighborhood links Notify me of updates About this site  FAQ  People are saying..  Our purpose  About us  Techie stuff  Contacting us Established June 2, 1997 by citizens for citizens Awards March 16, 1998 Website of the Week Daily Local News August 13, 1997

A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania Fans of the World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies   May 13, 2008   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. May 13, 2008 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, Sarah Peck (arrived later), June Gorman, Rick Reis, Michael Churchill, Wendy Leland, Tom Comitta, Gary Bender, Esq., Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Linda Csete and those on the attached list. Call to Order: 7:38 P.M. Announcements - none Approval April 8, 2008 Minutes Mr. Motel asked if there are any corrections or changes to be made to the April 8, 2008 minutes. There were no changes. Mr. Allen moved to approve the April 8, 2008 minutes, and Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Six were in favor. (Ms. Peck arrived at this time.) Review Great Valley Business Campus Sketch Plan John Panizza and Bob Smiley of Genterra Corporation were present to discuss the revised sketch plan for the Great Valley Business Campus. Mr. Smiley explained they are seeking feedback on the sketch prior to filing a conditional use application for construction in steep slopes for the 53 acre property on the corner of Yellow Springs Road and Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Smiley said they were last in front of the Planning Commission in November 2007 at the request of the Commissioners, who wanted to see the buildings in the northwest corner of the site shown on the plan. He said the plan being discussed this evening is the same plan, with eight buildings, including the existing historical house. They intend to rehabilitate the house for use as an office with 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. Smiley pointed out the proposed buildings on the plan, including an 83,000 sq. ft. flex building at the southeastern corner along Phoenixville Pike, and a 2-story, 14,000 sq. ft. office at the southwest corner. The other five buildings at the northwestern portion of the site are proposed as flex/warehouse buildings that are intended to have lower traffic needs. Mr. Smiley said two new access roads are proposed in addition to improvements to the existing driveway to the historic house. One is further east of this existing driveway along Phoenixville Pike, and the second provides access to the five northern buildings from Yellow Springs Road. Mr. Smiley said that In total, 93,900 sq. ft. of office/warehouse space is proposed, with 475 parking spaces shown in accordance with the Township ordinance. The flex uses require conditional use approval, and the office uses are permitted by-right. Conditional use will also be needed for construction in steep slopes, which are defined as between 15-25% slope. Areas of the site with very steep slopes, over 25%, will be avoided, and none of the buildings themselves are in the slopes. He said this is the plan they intend to submit as part of their conditional use application. Mr. Smiley said they've met with East Whiteland Township about the southwestern corner of the site, which shows a proposed building straddling both townships. He said East Whiteland Township prefers that the building be moved so that it is located entirely within one township or the other. To locate in East Whiteland, a zoning change would be needed, as the present zoning is R-1. Mr. Panizza said if they're willing to do a zoning change, he would prefer to locate the building in East Whiteland, but suspects this is unlikely. Mr. Motel asked what the setback requirement is in East Whiteland, and Mr. Smiley said he believes it is 40 feet. Mr. Panizza added, however, that they told East Whiteland if they would change their zoning, he would adhere to Charlestown's more stringent 100 foot setback requirement. Mr. Churchill said previous sketches showed several high retaining walls. Mr. Smiley said there are still retaining walls, but they've been reduced to the four foot range. They're needed in order to stay out of the very steep slope areas. He said more detail on the walls will be provided during the conditional use process. Mr. Allen asked if there were any retaining walls in front, and Mr. Smiley pointed out two that range from zero to four/six feet. Mr. Motel asked if the five upper buildings will be part of the conditional use application, and Mr. Panizza said yes, confirming that the project will not be phased. Mr. Motel said that driving Yellow Springs Road from Charlestown Oaks to Phoenixville Pike is a slalom and he has concerns about traffic going in and out of a new road off Yellow Springs to access the proposed flex buildings. If these buildings are for contractors' uses, there will be various types of trucks accessing the site for heavy equipment storage. Mr. Panizza said they plan to size the buildings and garage bays for smaller equipment. Mr. Churchill asked if there is any possibility of a single user for the upper area, and Mr. Panizza said it's possible but he can't be sure it would happen. Mr. Motel agreed that a single user would be desirable, as they would want one or two buildings rather than five. Mr. Panizza said a single user might invite tractor-trailer traffic. Mr. Motel asked if office use was considered for the northwest area, and Mr. Smiley said there would be five to ten times the amount of traffic. Mr. Allen asked about the 83,000 sq. ft. flex building in the southeastern portion of the site, and how the parking would work, since it's shown in front of where trucks would enter. He also asked why so many spaces were shown. Mr. Smiley said they're showing the worst case scenario for parking, which would be the highest amount required if the building was all office and no warehouse. Mr. Panizza said they wouldn't build more parking than necessary. Mr. Allen said the historic house on the site is on the Township's historic resource map, as is a building on an adjacent parcel. He asked how they will screen the adjacent structure. Mr. Panizza said there is an existing buffer than will remain in place. Mr. Smiley said the buffer isn't heavily wooded and could be augmented. Mr. Allen said there is a sight line issue traveling south on Yellow Springs Road toward Phoenixville Pike, and he'd like to see the sight lines shown on the plan. Mr. Smiley said the sight lines can be met, but agreed to show them. Mrs. Gorman said that regardless of the sight lines, there may not be time for larger vehicles to stop. Barbara Rufe, 113 Victoria Court, asked why a second entrance from Phoenixville Pike isn't considered instead of an access from Yellow Springs Road. Mr. Panizza said they considered this but couldn't avoid encroachment on Very Steep Slopes or justify the added expense. Mr. Smiley said they would end up duplicating a winding road similar to Yellow Springs within the site. Mr. Motel asked if the slope would be exceeded regardless of road configuration. Mr. Kohli informed the applicants that since the interior roads are driveways, they are allowed up to 16% slope. Mr. Panizza said they'll look at this again, and if they can stay within the 16% and not have to move the 83,000 sq. ft. building, they'll consider it. Mr. Kohli asked about outside storage, which is not permitted. This would include trucks parked overnight. Mr. Smiley said there would be no outside storage. Mr. Allen asked about the outline of a footprint next to the historic house. Mr. Panizza said that indicates where a porch and wall had been located. Mr. Allen asked for confirmation that the house contained 4,000 sq. ft., and Mr. Smiley said yes, as it is a 2-story building. Mr. Allen said the parking for the historic house is over 100 feet away from it, while parking for one of the other proposed buildings is about 30 feet away from the house. Mr. Panizza said they can't move the parking closer due to water constraints and slopes. Mr. Allen said since the house is a Class I historic structure, it needs sensitive treatment. He said the parking configuration is impractical. Mr. Allen said the parking lot size is driven by the building size, and suggested the 14,000 sq. ft. building be reduced. He said the grading shown across the front of the 83,000 sq. ft. building has a differential that won't work, and would only allow building access through the center of the structure. Mr. Panizza said that detail will be provided during the conditional use process. Mr. Allen said this site contains Steep Slope Conservation Area land, and that although it can be used, it can't be used indiscriminately or be overly graded. He suggested the applicants re-read the ordinance on this matter. Mr. Allen asked how far the 83,000 sq. ft. building is above Phoenixville Pike, and Mr. Smiley indicated it was 23 feet. Mr. Allen said that with recent approvals of the Pet Hotel and Holy Antiochian Orthodox Church further east on Phoenixville Pike, the Township is trying to make this area as aesthetic as possible, and is concerned this development will be unattractive. Mr. Churchill asked how much smaller the building would have to be to not require conditional use approval for steep slopes. Mr. Smiley said he wasn't sure this could be done, and Mr. Panizza added that the parking area is the problem. They will re-examine the amount of parking to determine if they are showing in excess of what will be needed. Mr. Churchill said the site can't accommodate the square footage of the building without a lot of grading, and that the use should be reduced. Otherwise, they would have to grade for parking whether it's installed or not. Mr. Allen said the 83,000 sq. ft. building is not sensitive to the site and is in conflict with it. A second access could be created from Phoenixville Pike if this building were reduced in size, thereby eliminating the need for the Yellow Springs Road access. Mr. Smiley said they would look again at this possibility now that they're aware a 16% slope can be used. Mr. Kohli said there are flood plain considerations, including a stream, swale, and riparian buffer in the western area of the site. Mr. Churchill said the Planning Commission has pointed out a number of concerns on the plan, most of which had been raised at previous meetings. He said the use should be reduced to make the project more manageable. Reduce the size of the 83,000 sq. ft. building to allow for an internal access to the upper buildings. This would be more to the Township's preference, and other accommodations could be made to satisfy both parties. Mr. Panizza said they will look at the parking around the historic house to see if it can be made more sensitive and functional, they'll check the driveway requirements for the northwest quadrant, and see if their parking space calculation was high and can be reduced. He said if a second Phoenixville Pike access can be designed, they'll consider whether the Yellow Springs Road access could be emergency access only. Ms. Peck said the applicant indicated they had a builder interested in the 83,000 sq. ft. building, and asked what the market demands in terms of floor plate and size. Mr. Panizza said three components to consider are access around the building, the depth of the building, and the parking field behind the building, which needs to accommodate maneuvering space for tractor-trailers. Ms. Peck asked if they are anticipating a single user or multi-users. Mr. Panizza said he didn't know at this time. Ms. Peck said the buildings in the upper area have no relation to one another. Mr. Panizza said he doesn't disagree. Ms. Peck said she'd like to see the buildings in a more residential style that would work with the grade and relate better as a community. She asked what the market is for these buildings. Mr. Panizza said the potential user would be a local contractor who lives locally and is outgrowing his existing space. She asked what this is based on, and Mr. Panizza said he's spoken to commercial real estate brokers. She asked if they are indicating the size needed, and Mr. Panizza said they are recommending divisions of 3,000 sq. ft. Mr. Churchill said he was concerned about how the retaining basin would look in the southwest corner. He said the one in Mr. Panizza's Deerfield development is unsightly and thinks this one will be as well. Mrs. Rufe said Yellow Springs Road is the primary access road to the Charlestown Oaks development, and an access into this site from Yellow Springs will impact the residents tremendously. She asked why this particular site is being considered for development, and how is it considered in light of the recent open space referendum and the Township's drive to preserve land. Mr. Motel said that development is going to continue regardless of open space efforts. Since Mr. Panizza owns this particular site, and it is zoned for the use he desires, he has the right to develop it accordingly. The Planning Commission's role is to provide feedback. Mr. Churchill said the Township Comprehensive Plan has never considered this particular site for open space. It's a commercially zoned site with flex uses surrounding it. He added that the Planning Commission is concerned with the intensity of use. Michael Branfield, 2217 Yorktown Court, said both he and Mrs. Rufe are on the Homeowners Association board for Charlestown Oaks. He said he wished to emphasize the traffic concerns, particularly in bad weather. Mrs. Gorman said many people take bikes up and down Yellow Springs Road, and asked if the applicants would consider a way to allow a bike access through their site to possibly come out on the emergency access to Yellow Springs Road She added this would be a real public service. Mr. Panizza asked if a subcommittee consisting of a couple of planning commission members and residents would be willing to work with them to try to do some improvements on Yellow Springs Road if he finds a second access from Phoenixville Pike is unfeasible. Mr. Panizza asked what the requirement is for a resubmission, and the Secretary said the ordinance states two weeks, although the Planning Commission prefers three weeks when possible. Gluchanicz Sketch Plan Paul Gluchanicz was present along with Neal Camens, P.E. of Chester Valley Engineers and Elizabeth Witmer, Esq. to discuss his sketch plan for a subdivision of his property at 2156 Charlestown Road. Mr. Camens said they submitted three different sketch plans for discussion on the property formerly known as Ott's Fur Shop and the parcel directly behind it, totaling 8.2 acres. He said all the existing structures on the Fur Shop parcel are accessed directly from Charlestown Road. The second parcel of 3.2 acres is a wooded flag lot. He explained that Mr. Gluchanicz wanted to preserve the existing house, continue office use of the stone barn (Fur Shop), including some improvements, and replace the existing garage structure. He said the proposed lot line change would create a buildable residential lot for a single family home. Mr. Camens displayed architectural renderings of the stone barn, for which they propose an addition in the back. The front view would remain unchanged. The 20-22 foot wide addition in the back would allow for relocating the mechanical equipment from the basement and the inclusion of bathrooms, staircases and handicapped access. The staircases would replace those in the main building. Mr. Allen said use of the barn for a business would be a non-conforming use, and Mr. Kohli said any non-conforming use would have to be similar to the original use. Mr. Gluchanicz said he has a direct mail advertising business. Mr. Kohli added that this use was previously approved. Mr. Gluchanicz said he will want to allow for another use someday in the future. Mr. Kohli said to be approved, it would have to be a similar no-impact use. Ms. Witmer said the proposed expansion of the structure is under 25% and is permitted for a non-conforming structure. Mr. Kohli said he didn't think there would be a problem with the expansion. Mr. Camens then showed a rendering of the proposed garage structure, which would replace the existing, unattractive 3-car modular garage structure now on the site. The new garage would have five bays and would be a barn-style building with a second floor to be used as an in-law suite. Mr. Camens then showed the three alternative sketches for the lot line change as follows: Sketch #1: Three-lot Subdivision: showing each structure (existing house, proposed garage/in-law suite and proposed house) on a separate lot. Mr. Gluchanicz said he may have misunderstood what Mr. Kohli was asking for when preparing this sketch. Mr. Kohli said he had advised the applicant there couldn't be two existing single family dwellings on one lot. There is already an existing house on the front lot and now a garage with upstairs residence is proposed. Mr. Churchill asked if there would be separate ownership of the garage/residence, and Mr. Gluchanicz said no, the house, barn and garage would all on one deed. Mr. Kohli asked if the residence above the garage was anticipated as a rental, and Mr. Gluchanicz said no, he was looking at it as a guest or in-law suite. This sketch was eliminated from consideration. Sketch Alternative B - 2 Lot Subdivision: Shows the lot line between lots #1 and #2 moved forward to add area to Lot #2. All the existing structures would remain on Lot #1. The proposed house on Lot #2 could be located out of steep slopes and meet setback requirements. Mr. Motel asked if he had approval for the driveway for Lot #2 from Charlestown Road. Mr. Camens answered no, because they propose to share the existing driveway from lot #1. Mr. Allen asked about the deed restriction on Lot #2, and Ms. Witmer read aloud from the deed, indicating that the deed stated this lot was not permitted to have any structures on it. Mr. Kohli added this was a condition of approval of the Philips-Hall subdivision. Ms. Witmer said her interpretation of the ordinance is that the restricted area is not netted out during the net lot area calculation, so a house can be built on the area not included in the original 3.1 lot area but is now added due to the lot line change. Sketch Alternative A - 2 Lot Subdivision: Shows the same lot line change as Sketch Plan B. The only difference is the location of the house on Lot #2 in an area of steep slopes, which would require conditional use approval. Ms. Witmer said this location makes the house less visible as it would be tucked into the hill. It would be further from the Bomm residence, not obstruct the views from the Country Lane homes, and provide a nicer view from the new house. Mr. Motel said it would be helpful to show the location of the neighbors' homes. Mr. Camens distributed an aerial photo showing these locations. Ms. Peck asked if an in-law suite is permitted on lot #1. Mr. Churchill said an in-law or guest suite is permitted because it shares utilities with the primary residence and doesn't permit a full kitchen. If it were a separate independent living unit, the tract containing both houses would have to meet the lot minimum size for two lots, i.e., 160,000 net square feet. Ms. Peck asked about the addition on the commercially used stone barn, which is a non-conforming use. She asked how long it had been used commercially, and Mr. Gluchanicz said since 1940 when it was built. She asked what the continuing aspect of this use is, and Mr. Kohli said any similar kind of successive no-impact use, with one or two people, may continue. The building can be expanded up to 25%. Mr. Gluchanicz said he envisioned any future use as a professional office use with low traffic. Mr. Motel invited comments from those present. Casey Duffy, 2 Country Lane, asked for clarification that Lot #2 is deed restricted against building a house, and Ms. Witmer again read from the deed that no structure is permitted on that parcel. She said the house would be built on the new portion of ground added to Lot #2, not to the area that had been restricted. Mr. Duffy said his understanding of a no-impact business is that you can operate a business from your residence, but in this situation, the owner doesn't live on the premises but is using the barn as an office and is talking about future use as a professional office. He said Mr. Gluchanicz proposes to expand the non-conforming use and add a five-car garage and in-law suite to the property and he is shocked by all that is proposed. Robert Findlay, 2171 Charlestown Road, said the neighbors will get together and collect their views and send written comments to the Township. Mr. Motel addressed Mr. Duffy's comments as follows. Use of the stone barn is an existing non-conforming use, and he has a right to continue a similar use following the close of the fur shop. Ms. Witmer added that this is called a constitutional right to natural expansion of a free-standing non-conforming use. Mr. Motel said there is no requirement that the person operating the no-impact business be a resident. Mr. Motel said with regard to the residence above the proposed garage that it is permitted provided it is not a fully functional separate dwelling from the main house. This structure is replacing an existing structure on the property. Mr. Gluchanicz asked if there would be an issue if he proposed a workshop over the garage, and Mr. Kohli said no, that would be permitted. Mr. Motel said that the proposed house on Lot #2 is not going to be built on the deed restricted portion of the parcel, but the Planning Commission still needs to confirm that the deed restricted acreage can be included in the net lot area calculation. Mr. Churchill said with regard to the location of the proposed house on Lot #2, in or out of steep slopes, that he needs to visit the site and hear from the neighbors before commenting. He said when there is an option outside of employing conditional use, a great deal of justification is needed in order to gain approval. Mr. Motel asked Mr. Gluchanicz for permission for the members of the Planning Commission to visit the site, and he agreed, asking them to park at the stone barn. Mr. Findlay said his understanding is that what's at issue now is the application to move the lot line. He asked why there is any justification to do so when the Township is so committed to preserving open space. He said the applicant should be permitted to do what he can within the existing lot lines, and asked if the Planning Commission was open to the change. Mr. Motel said the Township is not permitted by law to deny the application unless the applicant can't conform to the ordinance. Mr. Churchill pointed out it may be possible to subdivide the existing 5 acre Lot 1 into two parcels now and build a second house. Even if possible, it may not be an improvement on this proposal. Mr. Findlay said Charlestown Road in this area is a slalom, as Yellow Springs Road was described earlier. There are dangerous curves and black ice in wintertime. He's concerned about any additional traffic from this site. Mr. Findlay said that three to four years ago, he received a legal opinion from the Township that a non-conforming use ends when ownership changes. Mr. Allen said this is not correct, but there is a question of abandonment of the use. After six months of discontinuation of a non-conforming use, the property reverts to the underlying zoning. Mr. Kohli added that Mr. Gluchanicz's present use was reviewed by the Solicitor. Mr. Findlay said that in between the Otts ownership and Mr. Gluchanicz ownership of the property, there was another owner for approximately one year. Mr. Churchill said the consequences of not being able to continue a use for that building could be quite negative. Mr. Findlay responded that it could be used as a residence. Mr. Findlay said the Planning Commission doesn't deal with hypotheticals, and he sees Mr. Gluchanicz's plan as a backdoor attempt to develop the land. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission members are not na ve. Ms. Witmer said her client went before the Township in good faith to obtain approval before beginning to operate his business from the barn. Mr. Motel said Mr. Gluchanicz has rights for use of the fur shop building though he must conform to the law. He said he should be treated respectfully as a neighbor, and noted that the feedback this evening was for productive commentary purposes only and no vote was being taken at this time. Mr. Findlay referred to the other property owners present, saying they were all neighbors and communicated with each other openly. In this instance, they received no communication directly from Mr. Gluchanicz, just a notification from the Township of this evening's meeting. Ms. Witmer said they will notify the neighbors later in the process when they know how they wish to proceed. Mr. Motel said the Township notifies abutting neighbors of sketch plans as a courtesy. Judith Swartley, 2172 Charlestown Road, said they were told they could view the plans at the Township Office but that was all. Betty Scott, 17 Country Lane, said her property is affected by both lots of the proposed subdivision. She said the neighbors were all told by a realtor that the stone barn would be used for horses, so none of them took any action when Mr. Gluchanicz purchased the property. Mr. Motel said regardless of where the information on the horses came from, there was no action anyone could take. She said there was no courtesy extended from Mr. Gluchanicz and he didn't return their phone calls. She voiced concerns about water runoff and property values. Mr. Motel said that the review process is just beginning, and the neighbors are here at the start. He encouraged them to stay involved. Tomoka Findlay, 2171 Charlestown Road, said no-impact businesses are not permitted to have a sign advertising the business and expects that any future business will likewise not have a sign. Mr. Motel said the Township's sign ordinance is very restrictive, but noted the Fur Shop did have a small sign. Mr. Duffy said the main concern was over a greater commercial use of the building. Brad Bomm, 2170 Charlestown Road, said the second lot was not expected to be built on. Mr. Motel said there will be no structure on that portion of Lot #2. Ms. Witmer said there is no restriction against subdivision of that lot. Mr. Churchill said the question of whether the deed restricted acreage can be included in the net lot area calculation for the new house remains to be answered. If it was a conservation easement, the answer would be no, but with a deed restriction, they need to research the question. Mr. Bomm expressed disappointment that the Township would consider allowing the additional house considering its open space position. Mr. Motel said they have been appropriately aggressive with regard to open space, but in this case, Mr. Gluchanicz has enough acreage to add improvements to his property. Mr. Allen said the Planning Commission is looking at the equivalent of a 3-lot subdivision in the form of two lots, and they need to address this. He further noted that they can't go by what an applicant states he intends to do on a property, that this information can't be relied upon for decision making. Dr. Robert Swartley, 2172 Charlestown Road, said his property will be directly affected because his swale drains Charlestown Road. A future professional office will need a larger parking lot. Also, he said his property extends to the Bomm property and he leaves that area fallow for a large deer herd. If driven out of their habitat they will be chased onto Charlestown Road and someone will get killed. He stated concerns over sight distances, speeders, and winter icing conditions. Adding traffic to the existing driveway will exacerbate these problems. He asked the Planning Commission to give all this a lot of thought, stating that the proposal is not a good use of the land. Mr. Duffy said that the buildable area on the proposed Lot #2 is only 1.3 acres when excluding the restricted 3.2 acres. Mr. Motel said this question must be resolved, as to whether the restricted area can count toward the net lot area calculation. Mr. Motel said he understands the level of the neighbors' concerns. He thanked the applicant for the presentation this evening, and advised him to communicate openly with his neighbors throughout the process. Updates Zoning and SLDO Definitions Mr. Reis indicated that the Definitions subcommittee is making progress and will hold another meeting soon to continue work. Design Review Committee Mr. Allen said the Design Review Committee has held two meetings and that meetings are now scheduled for the first Monday of each month between 8:00 A.M. - 10:00 A.M. at the Township Office. He said minutes will be circulated for each meeting, and he'll provide regular updates to the Planning Commission. At certain points, the applicant will come to the Planning Commission for formal presentations; however, Mr. Allen requested that Planning Commission members keep abreast of DRC discussions and reports and provide ongoing feedback to the process. TND Subcommittee Updates - Turnpike Mr. Motel reported that Turnpike representative Mark Raup will meet with the subcommittee at the Township Office on May 20th at 9:00 A.M. to discuss the Township's request for pedestrian/equestrian/bike lane over the bridges on Yellow Springs, Valley Hill and Bodine Roads. He said the design for Bodine Road is near completion and it is unlikely a lane can be added. Design for Yellow Springs Road, however, is in the early stages and is the most likely bridge for a special lane. Valley Hill Road is intermediate in terms of design progress and it may be possible to add one there as well. He and Mrs. Leland will attend representing the Planning Commission, and he'd like one other member to join them. Supervisor Kevin Kuhn will also attend. Exhibits C, D & E - TND Ordinance Mr. Comitta circulated a memo detailing proposed revisions to exhibits C, D & E of the TND Ordinance. He said the Solicitor advised that the Planning Commission should review the proposed changes and make a recommendation to the Supervisors to amend the TND ordinance to include these exhibits. One outstanding question is the final lot line change between the Fillippo and Alleva properties adjacent to Spring Oaks. There was a question as to whether the Smurthwaite parcel and soon-to-be reconfigured Alleva parcel are to be included in the TND zoning district. Mr. Comitta confirmed that both of these parcels are not to be part of the TND, and the exhibits will be adjusted to reflect this. The Planning Commission will hold their recommendation until the June 10th meeting, when it is expected that the Alleva-Fillippo lot line will be determined. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda M. Csete Planning Commission Secretary   Home      Site Overview      Contact Us Please report any problems with this site by clicking here. Site development, maintenance and funding by Township resident Jacob D. Merriwether. Hosting by PLH Worldgroup Communications, Inc.