A beautiful part of southeastern Pennsylvania

June 13, 2006     June 27, 2006   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. June 13, 2006 Present: Michael Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Wendy Leland, Sarah Peck (arrived later), Rick Reis, Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta, Melanie Lammers, Recording Secretary, and those on the attached attendee list. Call to Order: 7:32 PM Announcements Mr. Allen gave an overview of the Board of Supervisors meeting, stating the ordinance to amend the Official Map was rescinded, and the Springs Development Conditional Use and various Zoning/Hearing applications were moving forward. Mr. Allen announced he wanted to hold the approval of the May 9, 2006 minutes until both Sarah Peck and Andy Motel could be present. No one objected to holding off on the approval. Mr. Allen announced that the draft Sound Barrier ordinance is not yet on the agenda, because they are awaiting input from legal counsel. Approval of Minutes - tabled Applications Frank A. Piliero - Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan Frank A. Piliero, Stacy Fuller, Esq. and Bob Plucienik, P.E. were present to discuss Mr. Piliero's plan last revised 4/27/06 for a five lot subdivision for his 39 +/- acre property at Green Lane and Valley Hill Roads. Ms. Fuller indicated she received the review letter from Ed Theurkauf and said she had no remaining issues. She said she just received Mr. Kohli's review letter and discussed via phone with Mr. Kohli how to address his concerns. She expects to resolve any issues in time to be back before the Planning Commission in July for a final review of the plan and to seek a recommendation for approval. She said she could address any concerns the Township might have tonight, but due to just receiving Mr. Kohli's review letter, was not prepared to address those items. Mr. Allen referenced the run-off issues in Mr. Kohli's letter, stating they are a main concern. Ms. Fuller said she has not received a copy of the May 24th review from the County. Mr. Allen said the County review referenced a water line easement, but it is not known if it even ties in anywhere. Mr. Allen said he did not think the County letter contained any major issues. Mr. Kohli said the plan has not changed, and Mr. Allen agreed, stating the only big issue is the stormwater management. Ms. Fuller said she feels confident they can address that issue. Mrs. Gorman questioned the difference between items #6 and #13 of Mr. Kohli's letter. He explained they are both referencing the sewage facilities planning module. Ashford Subdivision (Bala Investments) - Preliminary Plan Elizabeth Witmer, Esq. and Dave Norcini were present to discuss the Preliminary Subdivision plan and conditional use application for the Ashford subdivision. Ms. Witmer, Esq. referenced the motion made at the last meeting regarding the Homeowners Association documents and homeowner agreements. She said they have drafted a deed restriction note to be placed on the plans that shows the limit of disturbance regarding where to place the tree protection line on plan page #7, and drafted provisions that will go in the Homeowner Association documents. She said they now seek a recommendation on the conditional uses. She said Sean O'Neill, Esq., representing neighbors Dave Capetola and Barbara Camp, has the following concerns: Mr. O'Neill wants the buffer area to be more of a conservation area than what has been proposed. She said she strongly objects to this, because the trees are to be just a buffer, not a conservation area. She agrees the homeowners should not be able to erect sheds in that area, but should not be restricted when it comes to wood piles or bird houses and the like. Mr. O'Neill wants the buffer trees to be perpetually maintained. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Comitta to change the species of tree from White Pine to a species better suited for buffering. Ms. Witmer was fine with another species such as Cyprus, etc. as long as it did not encroach more on the backyard than what is already being done. The proposed enforcement is set up as a hierarchy, starting with the homeowner, escalating to the Homeowners Association, and then to the Township. If, 90 days after receiving notice of a violation, the Homeowners Association and/or Township have not taken action, the homeowner would have the right to private enforcement. Mr. O'Neill objects to the 90 days but Ms. Witmer thinks the 90-day timeline is reasonable. She said Mr. O'Neill wants attorney's fees included as well, which she feels will only serve to encourage the neighbors to sue their neighbors. Ms. Witmer said tonight she is asking for a recommendation for Conditional Use and would return to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation of the Preliminary Plan. Mrs. Gorman told Ms. Witmer that although she has been given direction twice, she waited until the last hour to send the Planning Commission any information. Mrs. Gorman said she does not think Ms. Witmer has produced anything worthwhile in more than a month and wants to know why. Ms. Witmer responded that a lot of work has been done and listed the accomplishments, saying they are down to the little details. Mr. Allen said that until today, none of the Planning Commissioners knew they were not going to see a final draft tonight. Ms. Witmer said the two parties have been unable to come to terms with everything. She said she just wants a recommendation on how far (not physically) the protection on this buffer should go. Mr. Allen asked to hear from any neighbors. Mr. Capetola said the language on maintenance of the buffer was added as a result of a dialogue with the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen disagreed. Mr. Capetola said these trees are lining the buffer area, and that all he is asking is that they be replaced if they die. Mr. Allen said it was not added as part of a restricted buffer. Mrs. Gorman said the trees were put there because the developer had to replace a prescribed number of trees. They said they had the option of placing them just outside this buffer, but it was not a requirement. She said there has to be a limit of responsibility. She does not agree with them having to be perpetually maintained. Mr. Capetola said he does not understand why the trees would be required, but then not mandated to be maintained. Mr. Allen told this homeowner that he is getting more than the ordinances normally provide. Mr. O'Neill, Esq., counsel for Mr. Capetola, suggested a compromise. He asked that they have a restriction regarding removal of the trees unless they are dead or diseased and to replace the screening if dead or diseased. Mr. O'Neill said he would like to address his client's concerns. He said the idea that there can be structures in the woods, whether or not they have a foundation, is a concern. He explained his idea of hierarchy, with which Mr. Allen disagreed. Mr. Allen said the Planning Commission has gone a long way to even providing the buffer and wants a document to protect it. Mr. Allen indicated the following note changes should be made: Note 11: Tree paint is no longer the standard practice. Note 12: The operation of heavy equipment is not to be permitted. Note 13: The heavy application of fertilizer to aid in their recovery, needs to be changed. Mr. Allen had issues with Notes 17 and 20, but those issues did not exist on the more recent plan that Ms. Witmer presented this evening. Ms. Witmer said they are seeking approval for Conditional Use and for the protection for the buffered area with the tree plantings and the hierarchy (Homeowners Association/ Township/ Private), and the 90-day period for the Homeowners Association and/or Township to take action, subject to the applicant's representative drafting the documents necessary to enforce the motion made at the May 9th meeting with regards to buffering. Mr. Allen moved to recommend approval of the above-outlined motion, and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Allen called the vote, and all were in favor. Springs Development - Final Minor Subdivision Plan Mark Hodgeman of Springs Development was present to discuss a lot line change plan dated 5/22/06 for two lots on Pikeland Road. Mr. Hodgeman said he is returning to the Planning Commission with a Conditional Use approval in hand, and said he will comply fully with the review letters received from the Township consultants on the subdivision plan and is asking for a recommendation for final approval this evening. The applicant said the Chester County Health Department agreed with the results for on-site sewer feasibility. Mr. Kohli said the Chester County Health Department needs to provide their approval in writing. Mr. Allen referenced #5 and #8 of Mr. Comitta's review letter dated June 7, 2006 with regard to street trees, plantings on steep slopes and landscape screening. The applicant said he would have no problem addressing these concerns. Mrs. Leland moved to recommend approval of the minor subdivision plan as long as the review letters are adhered to, and granting the exception of the two-foot setback for trees on Hollow Road. Further, the required Chester County Health Department letter must be received prior to meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Allen called the vote, and all were in favor. Bruder Preliminary Subdivision Plan James Bruder, Joseph Hunt, Yerkes Associates, and George Broseman, Esq. were present to discuss Mr. Bruder's subdivision plan dated 4/28/06 for his property on Whitehorse Road. Mr. Broseman said tonight he wanted to introduce himself and his client and the thinking behind this plan in order to start getting some feedback from the Township. He said he would welcome a meeting with Tom Comitta's office for ideas on how to make this plan work best. Mr. Allen said there is a fundamental flaw with this plan, that the applicant must first go through the Conditional Use process. Mr. Broseman did not agree. Mr. Allen said rather than proceed with a review of this plan, Mr. Broseman could provide an overview on it, but should not get into the details. Mr. Kohli asked that it be on the record that this should be considered a Sketch Plan; therefore, the Preliminary Plan review process is not in effect, and the clock has not started on this application. Mr. Broseman gave an overview of the plan. He explained that he believes there will be a benefit gained by doing this plan rather than separating out the three parcels and developing them individually as the current ordinance allows. Mr. Broseman said they would like to meet with the Township planners to see what could be done to keep the three tracts together as one development. Mr. Allen said the County is opposed to driveways coming out onto Whitehorse Road, as they are currently shown on the plan, and Mr. Kohli agreed. He said they would not want to have so many driveways on that high traffic road. Mr. Kohli suggested that the driveways come on to a common long driveway so there is just one access to the public road. Mr. Bruder said the genesis of this plan came out of the Official Map discussions, and although the Official Map ordinance amendment has been rescinded, he has already invested a lot of money in this project and would like to move forward. He said his plan is not to develop these properties right away. Mr. Allen said the legal issue of whether conditional use approval is required needs to be worked out first. He requested Mr. Broseman give the 1977 easement documents to Jim McErlane, Esq. and Gary Bender, Esq. for review. Both Mr. Allen and Mr. Broseman agreed that the applicant should meet with the Township planner to discuss other options. The applicant's engineer, Joseph Hunt of Yerkes Associates, Inc. responded to the Bog Turtle issue by stating they are aware of the issue and intend to address it. Mr. Comitta said he will contact Mr. Hunt to schedule a meeting. Frank and Tina Daly Conditional Use Application Wendy McLean, Esq., and Frank and Tina Daly were present to discuss their conditional use plan to construct an addition on their home at 1880 Pickering Road. Ms. McLean displayed the plan and added they are also going to the Zoning Hearing Board on Thursday for some variances. The applicants want to build an addition with a parking area added to their existing residence, so they can walk into the house from the parking area, instead of having to walk up a high bank to get into the house. Ms. McLean feels all the Comitta and Associates review letter issues and the variance comments can be addressed. They have hired John Milner as the architect for the project and plan to have everything in compliance. Mr. Dave Fiorello said the soils are problematic, but the flood plain is not near the proposed construction area. They are outside of the flood plain of the creek but are in soils identified as high groundwater soils. Mr. Fiorello said they did tests down eight feet without hitting any groundwater. Mr. Kohli said they need to do a soil profile. Mr. Fiorello said there was a lot of clay. Mr. Kohli said they need to look at the soil study to identify the potential impact. When asked for the plans for the existing root cellar, Ms. McLean said the applicant is having it removed. Mr. Daly said they have not had water in the root cellar. Mr. Allen confirmed they want the parking area where the existing stormwater detention system is. Mr. Allen said they went down eight feet, but what they propose will go down 7.5 feet. Mr. Fiorello said he will recheck the numbers, but said they tested below the detention system. Mr. Reis asked where they are in relation to the 100-year flood level. He said the bottom floor is roughly 5-6 feet above the 100-year flood level. Ms. McLean said they are scheduled to have the Conditional Use hearing opened next week. Mr. Allen had the following questions with regards to Mr. Kohli's review letter: Note 3: The stormwater management system should be sealed. Mr. Allen asked if that would be done, and Ms. McLean said they will do whatever Mr. Kohli requires. Mr. Allen asked where the stormwater is discharged to. Mr. Fiorello said it is discharged across the road. Mr. Allen asked where the well and septic system are. Mr. Daly said the well is behind the house and the septic system is across the street. Mr. Allen said they both need to be shown on the plan as well as a listing of the Conditional Use items being requested. Note 10: Resolved with Mr. Kohli. Note 16: Mr. Allen asked how this would be addressed and Ms. McLean said as a variance request with the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Reis asked what will happen to the water being redirected from the back of the house. Mr. Fiorello said it will be directed to the stormwater management system and detained prior to run-off. Ms. Peck asked what they are looking for from the Planning Commission. Ms. McLean said they will work through the engineering details with Mr. Kohli, but in the meantime, they would like to get in front of the Board of Supervisors for Conditional Use. Mr. Reis said his only issue is the sight distance of the driveway. Mr. Fiorello said it could be addressed without being part of the Conditional Use. Ms. Peck moved to recommend approval for Conditional Use, and Mrs. Leland seconded. Mr. Allen called the vote, and all were in favor. Traditional Neighborhood Development Planning Ms. Peck said for the record that she is going to recuse herself in voting on this issue due to a pending possible development relationship between Jack Loew and herself. Mr. Allen provided some background on the Planning Commission's TND planning efforts. He said the full ordinance review is scheduled for the June 27th meeting. He said Jack Loew is out until July 4th, so they plan to come back on July 11 for an additional review. Mr. Allen wanted to go over any obvious missing items from the draft ordinance or anything not understood about how it is written, etc. He asked anyone taking vacation time to get their comments in to Mr. Comitta as soon as possible so he can get another draft out by the meeting on the 27th. All comments should be copied to the other Planning Commission members. Mr. Allen had the following comments: Change wording from SHOULD to SHALL. He suggested they say what they want here rather than leave it open for interpretation. This ordinance is almost two documents married together. One is explaining what a TND is and the other explains its use. Language needs to be worked out. There appears to be a fair amount of redundancy in the document. He said he does not agree with or understand some of the measurements. He said they need to be discussed. Mr. Comitta said he needs to think about the definition for dwelling unit accessory. He said it needs to be added in on page 4-B-2, after letter C. Mr. Allen said the TND zoning district is written as an overlay. He said he thought they had decided to make it the primary use and asked Mr. Comitta if there is an advantage one way or the other. Mr. Comitta said it is currently set up to overlay the existing zoning district, but it could be done either way. Mr. Allen said they should talk about this further. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Comitta how much detail is typically given and how it works. Mr. Comitta said he would bring examples to the meeting on the 27th. He said he would send them out in advance of the meeting so there can be time to review them. Mr. Allen asked about the absolute formula for the mix. Mr. Comitta said he decided to make it 80%. Mr. Allen thought 80% was too high and Mr. Comitta said he would take a look at it. He said he could break out the maximum percentage for each type of housing. Ms. Peck suggested allowing for single family detached units, but provide for mixed space by requiring a varying of the footprint size, height or other features. Example: The house next door has to be higher or lower than its next door neighbor. This will cause different roof lines, etc. Mr. Kohli said the proposed building height limit is 48 feet. Ms. Peck said that is a good thing and would allow for high pitched roofs. Mr. Kohli noted that the roof is measured at the midway point of the roof, not the peak. Ms. Peck said perhaps a percentage of higher peaked roofs could be used in order to produce a more interesting roof line. General Discussion Devault Area Mr. Comitta asked what requirements there might be for a hotel/motel use once the slip ramp goes in. He suggested they start to look into something south of the Turnpike. He said he made an attempt at what hotel/motel requirements might be in the NC-1 and I/O districts and what the parking would look like. Ms. Peck asked if the Township still has to have a requirement for a hotel use even if the Regional Plan gets passed. Mr. Allen said possibly, as unfortunately East Whiteland did not join them in the regional group and would have provided for this use. Mr. Allen said the Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission to examine Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs). Mr. Allen asked if this should be included in this same general area of Devault. Ms. Peck asked if the Township is vulnerable if it does not have provisions for CCRCs, and Mr. Comitta said it needs to be considered. Horses Mr. Allen said Aliena Gerhard was asked to research zoning requirements for horses. Ms. Gerhard said Rutgers is the place to start. She said the main focus shouldn't be the usage per acre, but more the use of the land and how often the horses are on it. She said one way to find out more about this is to consult with the Chester County Conservation District. Mr. Allen asked if she could find an expert on horse management and she agreed to do so. Adjournment: Mrs. Leland moved to adjourn the meeting, and Ms. Peck seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2006, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School. Respectfully submitted, Melanie Lammers Recording Secretary     CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. June 27, 2006 Members Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Michael Allen, Vice Chairman, Michael Churchill, June Gorman, Wendy Leland, Sarah Peck Also Present: Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete Call to Order: 7:35 P.M. Announcements - None Approval of Minutes May 9, 2006 Mrs. Gorman had the following corrections to the May 9th minutes: Page 1, Last sentence of first paragraph under "Pigeon Run Greenway Grant Application" change "16+ Coleman Property" to "16+ acre Coleman Property". June 13, 2006 Mrs. Gorman had the following corrections to the June 13th minutes: Page 2, last paragraph, first sentence change "setup" to "set up" Page 3, 2nd paragraph, first sentence change "until the last second" to "until the last hour" Page 3, 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence, change "proscribed" to "prescribed" Page 3, 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence, change "option of placing them in this buffer" to "option of placing them just outside this buffer" With these corrections, Ms. Peck moved to approve the May 9, 2006 and June 13, 2006 minutes, and Mr. Allen seconded. All were in favor. Work Session: Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance The Planning Commission held a work session to review and discuss the draft Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance prepared by Tom Comitta to apply to the RC zoning district in Devault as an overlay. Items reviewed included: Thomas Comitta Associates Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment consisting of Article 2 - Definitions, and Article 4-B, Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Overlay District, last revised June 23, 2006 Rick Reis email dated 6/17/06 providing comments on the draft ordinance. Thomas Comitta Associates Memorandum dated 6/20/06, Examples of Design Guidelines for Traditional Neighborhood Development, including: Design Guidebook for Kemblesville, Franklin Township, Chester County Draft Manual of Written and Graphic Design Guidelines, West Bradford Township, Chester County Design Guidelines for Brookview, Claymont, Delaware The draft ordinance includes additions to "Definitions" under Article 2 of the SLDO and the addition of an Article 4-B entitled "Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Overlay District. Comments from the Planning Commission members and consultants on the draft ordinance were as follows: Article II - Definitions More terms will be added once the ordinance is reviewed and revised, which will clarify what needs to be included. Definitions now shown in various places throughout the ordinance will be moved to this section. Article IV-B - Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Overlay District Mr. Allen asked how specific the ordinance should be. In the three examples being provided by Mr. Comitta, they vary from providing explicit directions on the various design elements to having a more general approach. Mr. Comitta noted that West Bradford's ordinance is more general, and it's up to the developer to produce the specifics. Mr. Motel and Mr. Churchill said the details should be worked out toward the end of the process with the developer's input. Mr. Allen was concerned that without sufficient direction, undesirable materials or elements could be included in the design. He also cautioned the Planning Commission not to assume that the owners of the two RC parcels will be the ones developing the properties, as ownership could change to a lesser known entity on either tract. Mr. Comitta suggested this Article be separated from Article IV to avoid confusion, and will renumber it in a later draft. Section 400-B Purpose Planning Commission members agreed the purpose statement is excellent. Section 401-B.A There was some discussion on Mr. Reis's email that suggested either replacing the RC District entirely with the TND District, or applying the RC District with TND as an overlay to a broader area. Mr. Motel favored doing away with the overlay and changing the zoning of the two RC District parcels to TND District. Ms. Peck favored keeping the overlay, but said the ordinance language should be written to make the TND option more attractive to the developer. Section 401-B.B The minimum gross acreage of 40 acres for a TND was discussed, with the suggestion that smaller tracts contiguous to existing TND's be permitted to develop under TND zoning as a conditional use. Mr. Kohli said the term "contiguous" should be defined, as to whether that includes parcels separated by a road. Section 402-B.A.1 Mr. Comitta suggested separating the TND ordinance into two separate overlays, one for the RC District and the other for the B-1 District. The TND criteria for the RC district would have more residential elements, and the criteria for the B-1 district would allow more commercial uses. Section 402-B.A.2. This item, permitting no-impact home based business, was moved to Section 402.B.2 as an accessory use. Some clarification is needed on the definitions of no-impact home-based business, minor home occupation and major home occupation. Section 402-B.B and 402-B.C There was discussion on how the three home occupation designations should be permitted, either as accessory uses or by conditional use. Mr. Motel suggested expanding the permitted uses in the live-work units, and making more uses by-right rather than by conditional use. Mr. Churchill suggested allowing retail and commercial in some areas and not others, for example, with wording allowing live-work units in the neighborhood center, then defining neighborhood center. This wording would allow live-work units without going through conditional use approval. Ms. Peck agreed, adding that this would make some number of live-work units mandatory for the development, which enhances the development's attributes of a TND. Ms. Peck suggested that the number of live-work units be determined as a percentage of the total retail space, and retail a percentage of the total residential space, in order to assure sufficient retail space in the development. Mr. Churchill said the percentage of retail/commercial is of the gross acreage, so that retail is in addition to residential, as a bonus. Mr. Allen said clarification is needed on whether the total acreage devoted to retail and commercial uses (2%) refers to the square footage or footprint, with the determination that it refers to the footprint. Mr. Churchill questioned whether 2% is a high enough percentage. Mr. Motel said they should focus on placing commercial where it will work in the community, along busier roads, and place less emphasis on a percentage. Ms. Peck said she feels the range should start at 5%, not 2%, and that live-work units should be no more than 50% of total retail units. Mr. Churchill and Mr. Allen agreed it makes more sense to link the percentage of live-work units to retail rather than to residential units. Section 403-B.A. The maximum gross density for development was tentatively decided as 2.25 dwelling units per gross acre. Section 403-B.B. The percentage of single-family detached dwellings was decreased from 80% to 65%. Mr. Allen said a clearer definition is needed for multi-family dwelling. Mr. Motel suggested language requiring a percentage of alley-loaded units, percentage to have porches, etc. for the four housing types, including single family detached, twin, townhouse, and "flat", which is two units under one roof. A variety of porches, porticos and stoops may be considered rather than requiring porches for all single units. Mr. Churchill noted that the type of unit drives the lot size, which is just as important as the housing type itself. There was discussion on how definitive to be on the permutations of lot size, configuration, parking (garage or alley) and building type. The Kembelsville design guidebook achieves a high degree of specificity, but it was questioned whether that would work for Charlestown. It was generally agreed that 50% of the single homes be served by alleys, and 100% of the townhomes. Section 403-B.C and 403-B.D Tot lots were moved from 403-B.C.2 to 403-B.C.3 to be included in the Greens rather than in the active recreation areas. Mr. Motel said the greens should be designed so that children don't have to cross roads to reach them, and language should be added that they be bounded by dwelling units on two sides, preferably three. Section 404-B.A Mr. Allen suggested following Kembelsville's requirements for a mix of lot sizes for single family, twins, and flats ranging from 5,000 - 9,000 square feet. Mr. Comitta will work out variations and provide definitions for each housing type. Mr. Churchill suggested a range for each housing type so the units aren't all at their minimum size. Section 404-B.B.3 The lot width of 80 feet for multi-unit dwellings was thought to be too wide and should be reduced. Section 404-B.C Mr. Motel said the front yard requirement of 10 feet for all residential dwellings other than multi-family should have more variation. The frontage for multi-unit dwellings was changed from 20 feet to 12 feet. The reference to two-family dwellings will be removed. Section 404-B.D Maximum impervious surface coverage should be reviewed for townhouses, shown as 75%, which may be difficult to achieve. Section 404-B.E The maximum height for buildings was left at 42 feet after some discussion. The higher footage allows for more aesthetic steeper roofs. A concern over allowing more height in this district than in the FR district was lessened, in consideration that public water is available in the proposed district for fire suppression, and the buildings will be sprinkled. Section 405-B This section, General Design Principles, will be moved to the front of the ordinance. References to "multi-unit" will be changed to "multi-family" or "single family attached" as appropriate. Section 405-B.G There was a question on whether a use can be changed after the plan is approved, as a property owner may feel he has the right to convert his dwelling into another of the permitted uses since he bought into a mixed-use community. Section 405-B.M.2 Minimum sidewalk width should be changed from 4 feet to 4.5 feet. Appendix The sheet previously prepared by Thomas Comitta Associates, "Key Design Elements" will be added to the appendix, as will various photograph examples of TND elements. The discussion wrapped up with reviewing the process in general. The Planning Commission agreed that the three sets of design guidelines from other TND plans was helpful, and Mr. Allen said further into the process it would be useful for Mr. Comitta to sketch out a plan for the proposed TND in Devault. The next step will be further revisions of the ordinance by Mr. Comitta, to be distributed to the Planning Commission members for discussion by a subcommittee, comments from all members to be circulated via e-mail, and a further revised draft for discussion at the July 25th meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2006, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154. 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.