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   June 10, 2008   CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M. June 10, 2008 Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, Sarah Peck, June Gorman, Rick Reis, Michael Churchill, Tom Comitta (arrived later), Surender S. Kohli, P.E., and Linda Csete. Call to Order: 7:35 P.M. Announcements Mr. Motel announced that three members of the Planning Commission and two Supervisors met with Turnpike and PennDOT representatives on June 5th to discuss the Phase Three road improvements at Atwater as well as improvement plans and issues for Whitehorse Road, Charlestown Road, Phoenixville Pike and Route 29 in the TND District. He said that the Turnpike Commission had previously completed the expansion of the two turnpike bridges over Phoenixville Pike and Morehall Roads in preparation for road widening in those areas. PennDOT's Phase Two improvements have since been completed in East Whiteland Township. About 1 1/2 years ago, the Planning Commission saw an opportunity to work with these agencies to include design aspects of the TND District in the Phase Three plans, and provided them with a wish list at that time. Mr. Motel said PennDOT presented road improvement plans that include a pedestrian walkway under the turnpike bridge on Morehall Road in response to the Township's requests. The walkway will be located on the eastern side of the tunnel, five feet wide, at grade, with a Jersey barrier. The Township hopes to develop a bioswale over the four retention basins that will be installed and include trees within the Turnpike right of way to help buffer the view of the rock slope seen at the end of Whitehorse Road. He said a large copy of the plan is posted at the Township office, and he invited anyone in attendance to stop in to view it. He also pointed out that all Planning Commission members had received the same map as an e-mail attachment. He said representatives from Trammel Crow attended, along with Tim Townes, PennDOT and the Turnpike Commission, including the engineer in charge of the slip ramp. He said both agencies were very cooperative and the meeting was very productive. Mr. Motel said Mr. Townes has provided good input into the discussions. Mr. Allen congratulated Mr. Motel on his perseverance in seeing these issues through. Mr. Allen noted that improvements in the area of Pogey's are not exactly what they would like at the northeastern corner, but further improvements can't be made unless the house in that area comes down. Mr. Motel stated that Phase Three is expected to start in 2009, although funding is not entirely in place. He noted, however, that planning needed to be done now, regardless of funding in order to have the opportunity to incorporate the Township's wishes in the plans. Approval May 13, 2008 Minutes Mr. Motel asked if there are any corrections or changes to be made to the May 13, 2008 minutes. Mr. Reis said the word "aside" in the first sentence, 6th paragraph of page 3 should be "asked". Mr. Churchill moved to approve the May 13, 2008 minutes, and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Review Gluchanicz Sketch Plan Paul Gluchanicz was present to discuss his revised sketch plan for a subdivision of his property at 2156 Charlestown Road. He said he was disappointed with the neighbors' reactions at last month's meeting that the former Fur Shop building shouldn't be considered for commercial use. He said he's not going to pursue a business use for it, agreeing that it could be argued that the previous non-conforming use was abandoned for longer than the permitted six month period. Mr. Gluchanicz said he submitted a new plan for a two-lot subdivision of the front parcel, separating the existing farmhouse and springhouse onto a new Lot 2. The Fur Shop building would be located on Lot 1, which also shows a proposed new residence, to which the Fur Shop would be an accessory structure. He said it would make sense that the buyer who could afford the property and would have use for that structure would want a larger home than the existing farmhouse. He said he's aware of a setback issue for the springhouse on lot 2 and fur shop on lot 1. Mr. Churchill asked if the plans had been distributed to the neighbors, and Mr. Gluchanicz said no, they were just submitted to the Township. Mr. Gluchanicz said the previous sketch plan attempted to use a portion of the back lot he owns as part of the net lot area calculation for the subdivision. This was the subject of some debate as it was deed restricted land. He has now reconfigured the subdivision so this lot is not used. Mr. Motel asked for the net lot area of Lot 2, and Mr. Gluchanicz said it's 81,458 square feet. Mr. Motel asked where the existing garage is located, and Mr. Gluchanicz said it's on Lot 1. He showed pictures of the various buildings on the property, pointing out that the tenants of the farmhouse need to share use of the driveway that also accesses the Fur Shop building on Lot 1. Mr. Gluchanicz addressed items on Mr. Comitta's review memorandum dated 6/5/08. With regard to comment #1, which outlines the permitted uses for the fur shop, he notes that the no-impact home business and home occupation uses are permitted for residents only. He pointed out that the Otts operated their fur storage business for many years and never lived on the property, yet now the ordinance requires residency. Mr. Allen said the Otts were operating under a non-conforming use. Mr. Motel said that with regard to the question of abandonment of the use, Mr. Gluchanicz would have to appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board. The Planning Commission wouldn't take a position until an application was made to that Board. Mr. Churchill said he could make an argument that the building has limited use under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Gluchanicz said he feels it has even less use than what is outlined by Mr. Comitta, stating it doesn't qualify for anything. He said currently he uses it as his own office. Mr. Motel asked if he has employees there, and Mr. Gluchanicz said no: most of his business is done in Florida. Mr. Gluchanicz said if the building can't be used, he will demolish it. He said the other buildings on the property are historic, but that one isn't. Mr. Motel asked for confirmation from Rosemary Philips, co-chair of the HARB. Mrs. Philips said that the Fur Shop building is listed on the Historic Resources list. The reason is that it is the oldest surviving example of adaptive reuse for commercial purposes in Charlestown. Mr. Gluchanicz questioned this, saying he was told only the driveway wall and spring house were historic. Mr. Motel said if it's listed on the Historic Resources Map, the question is settled. Mr. Churchill said if the goal is to preserve the building as a commercial facility, he needs to make a persuasive argument to the Zoning Hearing Board by first considering a use that is consistent with past use. Mr. Gluchanicz said his understanding from the last meeting was that the Planning Commission told him he could not use the building commercially, but the members disagreed that that had been communicated. Mr. Gluchanicz said he had wanted an adaptive re-use of the building with five employees. Mr. Motel said Mr. Gluchanicz will have to address traffic concerns and times of use with the zoning hearing board. He recommended showing the neighbors any zoning plans prior to the hearing as the Township does consider their comments. Mr. Gluchanicz asked, if he obtained zoning relief, would it be permanent? Mr. Kohli said it would be permanent as long as the subsequent use was consistent with the approved use. With every change in tenant, a new non-residential use & occupancy permit would be required to assure that the new tenant is within the guidelines of the approval. Mr. Allen asked if this holds true if ownership of the property changes, and Mr. Kohli said yes. Mr. Allen said that pursuing an adaptive reuse is a good approach. Mr. Gluchanicz said that the problem is that the user has to live on the property, so he would need to create a property worthy of making this use attractive to the resident. Mr. Motel asked if he would be building a new home on the property regardless of the fur shop building use, and Mr. Gluchanicz said yes, noting it's unlikely he would live there himself. Mr. Churchill said that an adaptive re-use is for the resident only, but Mr. Gluchanicz may be able to argue this with the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Motel said before going too far with costs, Mr. Gluchanicz may want to consider what he wants to use the building for and go to the Zoning Hearing Board. With regard to comment #3 on Mr. Comitta's review letter for the subdivision, Mr. Kohli said a grading plan will have to be submitted because more than three contours will be disturbed in order to grade for the new house. Mr. Gluchanicz asked for the Planning Commission's opinion on the sideyard setback issue between the fur shop and spring house. If the shop were converted to a guest house, the setback requirement would be 40 feet instead of 20 feet. Mr. Motel said he should determine what use he wants, get recommendations from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, and then go to the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Allen asked if there was any use for the springhouse. Mr. Gluchanicz said no, adding there's a well inside but it isn't functional. Ms. Peck asked why Mr. Gluchanicz is so sure the fur shop building would serve as an accessory structure to a new house better than to the existing farmhouse. He responded that the farmhouse is close to the road, and is a 200 year old, 1,800 sq. ft. rental property that wouldn't be a satisfactory residence for a person of means. Ms. Peck suggested that he consult with professionals in the marketplace before making any decisions on how to proceed. Mr. Allen asked about the right of way on the south side of Lot 2 that is shown as a 1,700 sq. ft. easement. Mr. Gluchanicz said he'll check with his engineer, as he believes the square footage is incorrect. Mr. Allen also noted the easement needs to show where it goes through the back lot. Mr. Motel asked the neighbors to the property for comments. Richard Findlay, 2217 Charlestown Road, said he was very impressed with how the Planning Commission has dealt with this complex issue, and that he understands the next step is to address the zoning hearing board on the question of uses. He asked if the neighbors must constantly monitor the agendas to determine when this matter will be discussed, and Mr. Allen said that's the best way. Mr. Kohli added that, for the zoning hearing board application, there is a requirement to notify the neighbors as well as advertise a public notice. Bob Swartley, 2172 Charlestown Road, asked if Mr. Gluchanicz was still considering a medical or dental use for the building. Mr. Gluchanicz said he wants some form of office professional use, whatever fits the requirements. Dr. Swartley said a medical office would need a parking lot, and Mr. Gluchanicz said there is one. Mr. Kohli said the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient parking. Mr. Allen said to use the building as a guest house, a variance would be required because it's located in the front yard. He recommended the Zoning Ordinance be reviewed very carefully. Mr. Churchill said if Mr. Gluchanicz goes to the zoning hearing board he should try to think of all possible relief needs up front. Mrs. Swartley asked, if Mr. Gluchanicz is talking about tearing down the building, why is he also talking about its use as a guest house. Mr. Churchill said they're discussing alternate uses if it is not torn down. Mr. Kohli said that it would be difficult to get demolition approval if the building can be adaptively re-used. Mr. Allen said he thinks the Township would encourage a re-use as long as the rules are followed. Mr. Gluchanicz asked for clarification of his understanding from last month that the Planning Commission said he couldn't re-use the building. Mr. Allen said that discussion was in regard to non-conforming use, not adaptive reuse. Brad Bomm, 2170 Charlestown Road, said he likes the idea of removing the smaller barn and creating one solid residential property that would make sense for a person of means. He said there's a similar situation further north on Charlestown Road, where a less impressive new home was built to complement an existing stone barn, and the property is still up for sale. He added that the swale along the road is unsightly. Mr. Churchill said it was a PennDOT requirement. Mr. Motel recommended that Mr. Gluchanicz speak with his attorney to crystallize what uses he wants for the property and to talk with the neighbors before going to the Zoning Hearing Board. Notaro-Johnston Lot Line Change Mark and Kristen Notaro, Mike Furey, Esq., and Merrill Johnston were present to discuss this lot line change plan for their properties. Mr. Furey submitted proof of neighbor notification to the Secretary. Mr. Furey pointed out the two property owners' lot locations on the plan as well as that of the surrounding neighbors. He said the proposal is for an even land exchange of approximately .076 acres, or 3,000 sq. ft., so the sand mound septic system for the Notaros would be properly located on their own lot instead of on the Johnston lot. The sand mound had been erroneously located there before the Notaros purchased the house, and when the problem was discovered they determined that the land exchange was the simplest solution. Mr. Motel asked if the Johnstons access their property from both driveways as shown on the plan, one off Charlestown Road and one off Hollow Road. Mrs. Johnston said they only use the Hollow Road access because the other is too dangerous. Mr. Kohli said the proposed lot line change will create more non-conformity in the already nonconforming side yard setback. This would require relief from the zoning hearing board. Mr. Furey said he believes the plan can be revised to eliminate the setback problem, and if not, they will go to the zoning board. Mr. Allen asked for clarification on Mr. Kohli's review letter, item #3, which states Lot 1's minimum lot size is four acres. Mr. Kohli said this is because it has an agricultural use. It was determined that the comment should have referenced Lot 2, not Lot 1. Mr. Churchill moved to recommend approval of the lot line change to the Board of Supervisors, and if a variance is required for the sideyard setback, to additionally communicate to the Board that they are in support. Ms. Peck seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. PennDOT/Turnpike Matters Mr. Motel spoke further about the meeting held on June 5th with PennDOT and Turnpike Commission representatives. He added that at a previous meeting with the Turnpike Commission, they discussed the replacement of the bridges over Yellow Springs Road, Bodine Road and Valley Hill Road. The Township had requested the PTC provide space for pedestrian and bike use over all three bridges and the Turnpike appeared to be accommodating that request. Exhibits C, D & E - TND Ordinance Mr. Comitta said he spoke to Brett MacKay from Chester Valley Engineers about the lot line change plan between the Allevas and Tom Fillippo, and said he's waiting for Dave Schula from Chester Valley to get back to him. Mr. Kohli said he met with them and they're still trying to determine where to relocate the lot line. Mr. Comitta said the question, then, is whether the Planning Commission wants to proceed with the needed ordinance amendments for the TND or whether they wanted to wait for this parcel to be finalized. Mr. Comitta reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment as follows: Include the northernmost of the two Tyler Griffin parcels in the TND Remove the Smurthwaite parcel from the TND Remove the Alleva parcel from the TND after the lot lines are determined Change Exhibit C, an aerial photograph, to correlate to the above changes Update Exhibit D, the overall TND Plan Change Exhibit E, the bike and pedestrian pathways plan, to correspond to PennDOT's plans Include the summary chart of TND regulations that weren't added when the TND ordinance was passed on April 7th. Mr. Motel and Mr. Allen both said they preferred to move forward with the amendments without waiting for the Alleva-Fillippo plan to be finalized. After some discussion, the Planning Commission determined they could make the change to remove the Alleva parcel from the TND district showing the lot lines as they currently stand. They will wait on a second amendment to adjust the Alleva-Fillippo lot line when other amendments are found to be needed, as this particular adjustment is not critical. Even if it was not amended, the small difference in the lot line would create an area too small to be developable. Mr. Motel moved to recommend adoption of an ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance as outlined above, and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Other Matters Design Review Committee Mr. Allen said the Design Review Committee (DRC) has changed its procedures so that minutes will now be approved at the subsequent meeting, and attachments will not be generally distributed but will be available at the Township Office for review. Mr. Comitta said corrected minutes for Meeting #2 will be distributed tomorrow. Mr. Motel asked if the citizens' website can post DRC information. Mr. Allen said the DRC meets the first Monday of the month between 8 AM - 10 AM in the Township Office. He said at the June 2nd meeting, they discussed the Spring Oaks site plan in detail and made some modifications to road locations to provide a better link from TND Area 1 to Area 2. Some internal road configurations were changed as well. Perry Morgan will work with Dewey Homes on these changes so they can be revised by the next meeting on July 7th. Mr. Motel said the only area under review presently is the Spring Oaks tract (Area 1). Mr. Allen asked for the status of Tom Fillippo's plans for an office building in Area 2. Mr. Churchill said his need is no longer immediate since he expanded offices in an existing garage on the Devault Foods property. Mr. Allen said at the PennDOT-Turnpike meeting on June 5th, PennDOT agreed to incorporate designs suggested by the Township for sidewalks, crosswalks, street lighting and stormwater basin design. However, the Township will be responsible for the difference in cost and for ongoing maintenance. Mr. Motel said that Traffic Planning & Design (TPD) will design the four stormwater basins, which then go to the Chester County Conservation District for approval. The next step is for the design to go simultaneously to the DEP and to the Township, so Perry Morgan can coordinate bioswale design efforts with TPD. Mr. Motel said the Design Review Committee needs to provide PennDOT with street light standards they can incorporate into their Phase III improvement plans. Mr. Allen had requested information from Mr. Comitta, who distributed information from Union Metal Corporation in Canton Ohio, which has a nostalgia series. He also referred to the lights at Main Street at Exton along Route 100 between the Longhorn Steakhouse and Raymore & Flannigan as another example. He said he requested the specifications for the lights Brandolini installed at Routes 1 and 322, and their manufacturer's representative is going to meet with the DRC to develop a spec for them. Mr. Motel asked if the light standards are black. Mr. Townes said on Swedesford Road near the Exton Mall in West Whiteland, the standards are painted black, and this type of epoxy dipped black pole may be acceptable along Route 29, but something more decorous might be desired inside the Whitehorse road area. He said there is a wide range in cost, but said if the poles for Route 29 aren't much more in cost PennDOT may be willing to cover the difference. Mr. Motel said painted poles would be suitable along Route 29, but they'll have to consider whether something better is needed for the intersections of Route 29 at Whitehorse Road, Charlestown Road, and the proposed boulevard off Whitehorse Road. Ms. Peck referred to Brooks Powder Coating in West Chester. Mr. Townes said the standards in Exton are probably powder coated. He offered to call some signal suppliers and get an idea of cost and to ask the difference between black painted, powder coated and galvanized poles. Mr. Motel said TPD wants the standards as soon as possible, and they'll provide specifications to the manufacturers. Mr. Townes said Rob Prophet of TPD will bid out the light standards and bill the Township for the difference. Mr. Allen asked what they should consider for a deadline, and Mr. Motel said by the July 8th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Allen said he'd like to ask Tom Comitta and Perry Morgan to make recommendations to the DRC, and they'll relate them to the Supervisors for a decision before forwarding to TPD. Ms. Peck suggested they stay with simple, tasteful designs that are not too ornate. Mr. Townes added that the ornate designs aren't available for long mast arms anyway. Mr. Churchill said even if different quality lighting standards are used depending on the location in the TND, there should be conformity in design. Mr. Motel said the Township representatives also told PennDOT they'd like to weigh in on signage in the area, so he asked the group to think about that. Mr. Comitta said he has information to give to Mr. Allen on signage. Mr. Motel said Perry Morgan will be working on the bioswale design and the crosswalks. PennDOT has indicated that pressed concrete sidewalks cause problems. Mr. Townes said they create maintenance problems, but he has a good specification he can provide for a 10-inch thick dyed concrete crosswalk. It's not too expensive, and the color goes through the concrete so chips and scratches don't show. Mr. Motel said this would be considered for the internal crosswalks, not those along Route 29. Mr. Motel thanked the Planning Commission members and others for their input prior to the meeting on June 5th. Tredyffrin Township Comprehensive Plan Mr. Comitta said Tredyffrin Township circulated its draft comprehensive plan to adjacent Townships last month, and the 45 day comment period expires on June 18th. He reviewed the plan and prepared comments on Charlestown's behalf, with regard to the Horseshoe Trail, the Turnpike Slip Ramp, and the office/business park at Atwater. The Planning Commission indicated their agreement that the Secretary forward the comments to Tredyffrin Township. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 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.