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
|
November 13, 2007 November 27, 2007
CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION
GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M.
November 13, 2007
Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, June Gorman, Rick Reis, Sarah Peck, Wendy Leland, Surender Kohli, P.E., Ed Theurkauf, Tom Comitta (arrived later), Linda Csete, and those on the attached list.
Call to Order: 7:30 P.M.
Announcements
Mr. Allen said the Planning Commission should plan for a tour of the Township in the Spring. He said he visited the Dixon (Ashwood) and Scipione (Highlands) developments across from one another on Pikeland Road this past weekend. Ashwood was developed as a cluster plan with 40% open space and smaller lots, and the Highlands was developed as a conventional subdivision with larger lots and no designated open space. He noted that he saw families playing in the open space at Ashwood, but saw no one outside at the Highlands. Two negatives at Ashwood included trees in the play area that take too much space away from it, and the sidewalk that infringes on the play area. A positive at the Highlands is the tear-shaped cul de sac with a center island. He said no tire marks are seen in the island, which had been a concern. He also noted that with the open space design, Ashwood is hardly seen from the road, whereas the Highlands homes are very visible, and in particular the back of one house stands out prominently on a knoll.
Approval of Minutes
October 23, 2007 Minutes
Mr. Allen made the following correction to the minutes:
- Page 2, 3rd sentence under Design Review Committee should read "ability to draw" instead of "ability to drawn";
- Page 3, 3rd paragraph, should read "recommended that if the applicant" instead of "recommended that if the planner".
With these changes, Mr. Allen moved to approve the Oct. 23, 2007 minutes and Mrs. Gorman seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Five were in favor. Mr. Reis abstained as he didn't attend the October 23rd meeting.
Review
George Meyer Sketch Plan for 6 lots on 23 acres, 2227 Bodine Road
Brett MacKay, P.E. of Chester Valley Engineers and George Meyer were present to discuss Mr. Meyer's sketch plan for a subdivision of his 23 acre property on Bodine & Seven Oaks Roads.
Mr. Motel indicated that several Planning Commission members visited the site since the last time the plan was discussed.
Mr. Motel said Page 1 of the sketch plan shows the driveway alignment off Bodine Road positioned opposite Foster Road, and asked for comments. Mr. Reis said the alignment may only be desirable if a four-way stop is approved. Mr. Motel said he did see speeding on Bodine Road, but felt the sight distance was generally good. Mrs. Leland commented that the sight distance at the existing driveway to Mr. Meyer's home is poor. Generally the Planning Commission felt the alignment across from Foster Road is an improvement over the existing driveway location to access the new lots. (Mr. Comitta arrived at this time.) Mr. Meyer indicated this is his preference as well.
Mr. Allen noted that the driveway for Lot 5 runs down the Transco pipeline, which may not be permitted. Mr. Kohli said it can cross the pipeline in a perpendicular fashion but not run the length of the pipeline. Mr. MacKay said they can move this driveway.
Mr. Motel asked for the rationale of the fee-simple flag lots instead of a shared driveway with rights of way, giving lots 4 and 5 as examples. He said Lot 4 owns the right of way to the main road, and wouldn't need a 50 foot road frontage. Mr. Kohli said the ordinance allows only 3 driveways on a private road, and the road must be less than 1,000 feet long. One of the parcels must own the private road, usually the end parcel. He said the 50 foot frontage need not be along the public road but may be along the private road. The intent is to minimize the number of access points to the main road.
Mr. Theurkauf said an alternative would be a cul de sac road with one point of access instead of the two now shown. Mr. Meyer said he hasn't priced a cul de sac, but thinks that with additional stormwater management needed he could lose one of his lots. Ms. Peck said she thought it could work and could be of a similar cost than the private roads now proposed. She said a cul de sac road would make the lots more marketable as well, and Mr. Meyer agreed. Mr. Motel said he'd like to see a cost comparison. Ms. Peck suggested eliminating the curbing to save money, and Mr. Motel noted this was done for the Ashford subdivision. Mr. Kohli said it would be a flush curb, with water going to a swale, all maintained privately. Mr. Theurkauf said they may be able to decrease the width of the street with a rolled curb. Ms. Peck asked for the narrowest that would work, and Mr. Kohli said an 11-12 foot lane with 6 inch curbs on each side for a total of 23-24 feet. Mr. Meyer said he'd prefer a country-style cul de sac if he didn't lose one of the lots, as he feels this would be aesthetically nicer. Mr. Reis suggested a through road from Seven Oaks Road to Bodine Road.
Mr. Motel asked if anyone preferred the conventional lot development sketch over the open space plan, noting that he preferred the open space plan. Mr. Reis said the only issue with it is the proximity of the McClure house. Mr. Meyer said that house is 150-200 feet from the property line. Mr. Reis asked if the woods would remain on the Meyer tract, and Mr. Meyer said he planned to leave the trees except where it would be necessary to remove them for driveway accesses.
Mr. Kohli noted that Lot 3 won't have room in the back for structures, such as a pool, because it is located close to the setback.
Mr. Motel said the existing stone wall along Bodine Road makes an attractive curtain and would prefer the entrance to the subdivision be subdued to remain in character with it. Mr. Meyer agreed he wants to retain the ambiance of a country road. Mr. Motel asked if he is planning to develop the property, and Mr. Meyer said no, he wanted to create the subdivision for the value it represents for his family, but doesn't want the environment around his own home to be disturbed for the time being.
Mr. Motel asked Mr. Theurkauf whether the open space figures meet the 40% requirement. Mr. Theurkauf said he didn't review all the numbers but noted the open space is shown on individual lots. Mr. Kohli said the open space plan requirements disallow this. Mr. Theurkauf said he doesn't view this plan as a cluster plan but a variant of a conventional lot subdivision. Mr. Motel said it would require conditional use approval, and asked Mr. MacKay if they had looked at a cluster option. Mr. MacKay indicated no.
Mr. Motel said the 40% open space requirement is usually managed by a Homeowners Association and is not shown on individual lots. Ms. Peck said the open space could look the same and still be part of the lots. She said an HOA doesn't work with a five lot subdivision because of the cumbersome nature of the documents, which include covenants and by-laws, the requirement to have HOA officers, hold public meetings, keep minutes, and file tax returns. Mr. Theurkauf said there are other options, such as dedicating the open space to the Township or to a conservancy group.
Mr. Meyer said his 24 acre parcel, with its 18 usable acres, is too small to do a true cluster plan, and asked if he could develop a conventional lot plan but negotiate the requirements so it gives the look and feel of an open space plan. Mr. Motel said yes, adding that the township would want deed restricted open space. Mr. Allen said he would need to prove during the conditional use process that the conventional plan is better, and he doubts this can be done. Mr. Meyer said his preference is to create a cluster style development but go through the conditional use process.
Mr. Reis said not to reject the possibility of a cul de sac off Seven Oaks Road, and Mr. Theurkauf added it would be more conducive to an open space plan. Mr. Motel suggested Mr. Theurkauf assist Mr. Meyer on these issues, and noted that he doesn't concede that an HOA is not a viable option for the open space. Mr. Theurkauf said he'd prefer to work with Mr. Meyer by providing feedback on his sketches.
Mr. Motel ended the discussion by commenting on the beauty of Mr. Meyer's property, and Mr. Meyer responded he wants to get his subdivision design right.
Great Valley Business Campus - Sketch Plan
John Panizza and Roman W. Dychdala, P.E., were present to continue discussions on a sketch plan last revised 10/23/07 for seven office/warehouse buildings on the 53 acre tract at the corner of Yellow Springs Road and Phoenixville Pike.
Mr. Panizza said he sees this evening's discussions as the end of the sketch plan phase and asked the Planning Commission to summarize their comments so he has clearer directions on how to prepare his conditional use application. He said the 10/23/07 sketch plan has two separate and distinct groups of buildings and that he just intends to move forward with the first group of buildings at this time. The second group is shown for concept purposes only and will not be part of the conditional use application. That group would be finalized as favorable market conditions emerge, and he doesn't have a timetable for this as the market isn't calling for it at present.
He indicated the following buildings in Group I on the sketch plan, including Building #1 at the eastern portion of the site as a large flex building. Building #2 is near the corner of Phoenixville Pike and Yellow Springs Road, and is partially located in East Whiteland Township. Building #3 is the existing historic house, which he plans to renovate and use for his own offices.
Mr. Motel said the following comments were not addressed in the new sketch plan:
- Concerns over traffic to be generated on Yellow Springs Road in Phase 2. Mr. Panizza responded that isn't part of the conditional use application.
- Massive intrusion into steep slopes for building #1. Mr. Panizza maintained that the ordinances permit this disturbance, although Mr. Allen disagreed due to the extent of disturbance that could be reduced if the building were smaller.
- Re-use of the historic house. Mr. Motel said he's glad to hear of the intention for re-use but questions why the building isn't being better protected at present.
- Maxing out of the site. Mr. Panizza said two buildings were removed from the center of the site as shown on a previous sketch plan, and that he considered other suggestions made by the Planning Commission, notably the use of some retail.
Mr. Motel said review comments have been provided by Mr. Kohli and Mr. Comitta, and asked the other Planning Commission members to weigh in. Mr. Kohli said building #1 is massive and suggests it be broken down into two structures. Mr. Panizza said this would create a loss of efficiency with respect to parking and stormwater management. There would be no market for a smaller building.
Mr. Allen said the ordinance indicates that conditional use requests must be reasonable, and that building #1 should be made smaller. Mr. Panizza said the building can't be made narrower, and to reduce the length would cause a loss in efficiency. He said the impact of this building in a commercial area along a main road isn't consequential. Mr. Kohli suggested moving the building further up the slope, and putting some parking under the building in front. Mr. Panizza said this isn't practical for a flex building because of the amount of structural support needed for the warehouse floor.
Mr. Motel said that the buildings in Phase 2 could be accessed from Phoenixville Pike if Building #1 weren't so large. Mr. Panizza said this would require a zoning variance. Mr. Kohli countered that it could be done using retaining walls. Mr. Motel said the large building #1 will create the need for conditional use approvals for Phase 2. Mr. Panizza said he's willing to risk Phase 2.
Mr. Kohli suggested moving building #2 north so it's not straddling two townships. Mr. Panizza said he has to go to East Whiteland Township regardless, due to the location of the parking and stormwater management. He said they could look at that corner again, however.
Mr. Allen asked if building #1 is accessed through its center, and Mr. Dychdala said yes, but there will be side doors as well. Mr. Kohli asked if all truck loading will be at the rear of the building, and Mr. Panizza said yes.
Mrs. Leland said Mr. Panizza will have to go to the HARB with his plans for renovating the existing historic house, and Mr. Panizza acknowledged this.
Mr. Panizza said he'll return to the Planning Commission after he has submitted his conditional use plan for Phase 1.
Article IV & XV - Open Space Provisions
Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission asked Mr. Theurkauf to review the open space provisions as they've met with some confusion in the language. Mr. Theurkauf said he first looked at Article IV regarding the ambiguity in the question of ownership of the open space, noting there is no express prohibition against open space being located on the individual lots.
Mr. Theurkauf referred to page 4-5, Section 403.F.2. proposing to strike out "or may be on individual residential lots" for the open space within an open space development. He indicated two other phrases to be removed due to redundancy. Ms. Peck asked for a definition of community open space trust.
The Planning Commission went through Mr. Theurkauf's proposed ordinance amendments for Articles IV and XV as follows.
Article IV
|
Pg.
|
Section
|
Comments
|
By
|
|
4-1
|
401.A.2
|
Typographical
error
|
Theurkauf
|
|
4-2
|
401.B.6
|
Reference
to Section 1613.D should be 1613.C.
Mr. Allen asked if no-impact businesses must still be included since
the MPC requires they be permitted in all districts, and Mr. Comitta said
yes.
|
Allen
|
|
4-2
|
401.C.5
|
Consider
changes to the terminology of "convalescent or nursing home". Mr. Comitta suggested this be
reviewed by Gary Bender and Jim McErlane.
|
Allen
|
|
4-2
|
401.C.2
& 401.C.7
|
Suggested
a hold on these two items, home occupation and major home occupation, as
there may be a way to simplify the language.
|
Allen
|
|
4-2
|
402
|
Height
Regulations: Move the reference
to height for agricultural uses to Section 1614.
|
Allen
|
|
4-2
|
403.A.1
|
Change
"prime woodlands" to "high quality woodlands" to be consistent.
|
Allen
|
|
4-3
|
403.B.
|
Change
"Conditions of Eligibility" to "Requirements for Open Space Development".
|
Allen
|
|
4-3
|
403.
B.1.
|
Strike
out "as shown on Exhibit A – Candidate Properties for Open Space
Development".
|
Allen
|
|
4-3
|
403.
C.1.
|
Clarify
that two or more properties may be aggregated to form 10 or more acres.
|
Allen
|
|
4-4
|
403.
C.5.
|
Add
Trails
|
Allen
|
|
4-4
|
403.
C.6.
|
Remove
#6 as street trees are only required in the PRD's, and should be clarified in
the Subdivision & Land Development Ordinance section 512.A. Mr. Motel commented that when the
Planning Commission speaks to the Supervisors about the TND, they should
recommend including a requirement for some 10" caliper trees in the
ordinance, to be installed at the developers' expense.
|
Comitta
|
|
4-4
|
403.D
|
Ms. Peck
asked if the density yield is lower in a cluster plan compared to a
conventional subdivision plan.
Mr. Motel said no, it generally comes out neutral. Mr. Theurkauf said the multiplier of
.85 takes the average loss of efficiency into account so a cluster plan will
get the same yield.
|
Peck
|
|
4-5
|
403.D.2.b
|
Change
"may" to "shall" in "40 percent of the gross tract area shall be incorporated
into a larger farmstead " in order to clarify intent. Make the same change in 403.B.2.b.
for consistency.
|
Allen
|
|
4-5
|
403.E
|
Redundant,
should be removed
|
Allen
|
|
4-7
|
404
& 405
|
Suggested
these two sections be reversed in order.
|
Allen
|
|
4-7
|
404.A.
|
Remove
"unless otherwise provided for under Open Space Development provisions, Section
403."
|
Allen
|
|
4-7
|
404.F.
|
Add
minimum depth for side yards for agricultural lots – 100 feet. Mr. Theurkauf suggested creating a
separate section 406 for "Agricultural Uses in the FR District" to clarify.
|
Allen
|
|
4-8
|
405.B.
|
Remove,
redundant.
|
Allen
|
General Discussion on Article IV: Ms. Peck asked if the Planning Commission is willing to consider open space on individual lots. Mr. Motel said no. Ms. Peck said the requirements could be amended to mimic public open space, using a conservancy organization for enforcement. Mr. Motel suggested looking at the issue of HOAs and consider the matter at a later time.
Article II
Mr. Theurkauf said he's been working with Mark Thompson on the definitions section of the zoning ordinance and they've found eight definitions so far to revisit. Mr. Theurkauf will have a draft ready for the next meeting.
Article XV
|
Pg.
|
Section
|
Comments
|
By
|
|
15-1
|
1500.
C.3.
|
Is
Stormwater Management allowed in the Open Space? Mr. Theurkauf said, yes, it is allowed by conditional use
but doesn't count toward the open space percentage requirement.
|
Allen
|
|
15-2
|
1501.A.3
|
Relates
to the TND and will be reviewed by Frone Crawford, Esq. Mr. Comitta asked if this should be
included here or simply referenced, with the main language in the TND
section. Ms. Peck said it should
be in the TND section and referenced in 1501.
|
Comitta
|
|
15-3
|
1502.A.2
|
Delete
"outdoor plant nurseries". Mr.
Allen suggested this be re-worded to allow some use.
|
Comitta
|
|
15-3
|
1502.
B.7.
|
Noted
the stormwater systems don't count toward open space acreage.
|
Allen
|
|
15-3
|
1502.B.12
|
Change
"tennis and Other" to "Sport and Game" courts
|
Theurkauf
|
|
15-4
|
1502.C.2
|
Mr.
Allen questioned the meaning of "land or property held in any form of
ownership other than that contained in Section 1505, herein." Mr. Theurkauf will review.
|
Allen
|
|
15-4
|
1502.C.6.a
|
Language
change for consistency to Stormwater Management Ordinance
|
Theurkauf
|
|
15-4
|
1502.C.7
|
Change
Department of Environmental Resources to Department of Environmental
Protection.
|
Comitta
|
|
15-4
|
1502.
C.8.
|
Add
"except for provided in "
|
Comitta
|
|
15-6
|
1504
|
Will
develop a chart consistent with the TND design manual to list minimum square
footages to differentiate among greens, squares, min-parks and tot lots.
|
Comitta
|
|
15-6
|
1503.A.10
|
Added
habitat for threatened or endangered species
|
Theurkauf
|
|
15-6
|
1504.B.
|
Asked
for clarification – Mr. Theurkauf will review.
|
Allen
|
|
15-6
|
1504.C.
|
Clarification
needed for pervious and impervious parking language.
|
Peck
|
|
15-6
|
1504.D.
|
Added
exception of improved trails and walkways
|
Theurkauf
|
|
15-7
|
1504.D.
|
May want
to add exception for structures such as a gazebo.
|
Comitta
|
|
15-7
|
1504.E.4
|
The
language was intended to create unified open space, but language can be
tightened to include "designed to the satisfaction of the Board of
Supervisors."
|
Theurkauf
|
|
15-9
|
1505
|
Grammatical
errors. Mr. Theurkauf will also
research the terms community open space trust, land trust, conservation
organization.
|
Theurkauf
|
|
15-9
|
1505.
A.3.
|
Third
paragraph, change "shall" to "may".
There was some discussion on whether open space should be available to
general public, or restricted to the residents of the community.
|
Allen
|
PennDOT Route 29 Improvement Plans
Mr. Motel distributed copies of the PennDOT Route 29 Improvement Plans, and said the Planning Commission will address the question of a walkway under the tunnel on Route 29 further at the next meeting. Mr. Motel asked for another volunteer from the Planning Commission to assist Mrs. Leland as liaison to PennDOT on the walkway and other improvements. Ms. Peck volunteered.
Mr. Motel suggested that the Planning Commission develop a punch list of items and a timeline to employ as a tool in the discussions. He named three issues: the drainage swale opposite Whitehorse Road at Route 29, burying the utility cables, and the tunnel walkway. He asked that the members come up with additional items for continued discussion at the November 27th meeting. Mrs. Leland said this has already been done in discussions with Traffic Planning & Design (TPD), the firm engineering for PennDOT. She said final plans are expected by early 2008 and construction is scheduled for Spring of 2009, and recommended that Perry Morgan be involved in the process. She added that Ed Theurkauf, Surender Kohli, TND and members of both the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission need to be involved. Mr. Kohli suggested giving TPD Mr. Morgan's cross sections on parking so the Township can ask them to incorporate it in their design. Mr. Motel asked Mr. Kohli to be the point person transmitting Mr. Morgan's design standards to TPD and PennDOT. Mr. Motel said he'll plan to meet with Mr. Morgan at Mr. Kohli's office by early 2008 on these design issues.
TND Ordinance
Mr. Motel said Mr. Crawford will conduct his TND review in time for the November 27th meeting after reviewing it with a subcommittee. He asked the Planning Commission members to be available for the December 3rd Supervisors meeting where the results will be further presented.
Mr. Motel suggested that Mr. Morgan and Mr. Theurkauf meet to amend Exhibit A of the ordinance to show the right density for the Fillippo tract.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. Csete
Planning Commission Secretary
CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION
GREAT VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7:30 P.M.
November 27, 2007
Present: Andy Motel, Chairman, Mike Allen, Vice Chairman, Rick Reis, Wendy Leland, Surender Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta, Linda Csete, and those on the attached list.
Call to Order: 7:40 P.M.
Announcements - none
Approval of Minutes
November 13, 2007 Minutes
Mr. Motel made the following correction to the minutes:
Last Paragraph of Page 2, Change "Mr. Allen said..." to "Mr. Motel said..."
With this change, Mrs. Leland moved to approve the Nov. 13, 2007 minutes and Mr. Reis seconded. Mr. Motel called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor. Mr. Allen complimented the Secretary on the thoroughness of the minutes.
Review
TND Ordinance Review
Mr. Motel stated that Frone Crawford, Esq., conducted a review of the proposed TND ordinance per the Township's request, which had been circulated to the Planning Commission earlier today. The following items were addressed:
|
Pg.
|
Section
|
Comments
|
By
|
|
2-1
|
201
|
Mr.
Comitta indicated he's meeting with Mark Thompson this Friday to continue
their work on the overall definitions section of the zoning ordinance and
will compare those definitions to ones included in this TND ordinance. The goal is to have all the
definitions in the ordinance in Section 201 rather than scattered throughout
the zoning ordinance.
|
Comitta
|
|
2-2
|
201
|
Mr.
Crawford unbundled the various definitions for "dwellings", breaking out
subcategories for Single Family Detached, Two-Family, and Multi-Family. Mr. Motel thought this was an
improvement, and Mr. Comitta agreed.
|
Motel
|
|
2-4
|
201
|
On the
question of whether the last line of the Motor Vehicle Service Station was to
be struck out, it was determined the strike out was shown in error and the
line remains in place.
|
Leland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-1
|
2201.A
|
Typo - replace "dived" with "divided"
|
Motel
|
|
22-4
|
2202.D.4
|
Mr.
Townes said roof pitch numbers need to be filled in. Mr. Comitta indicated there were
other areas in the ordinance review that Mr. Crawford left blank for the
Planning Commission to complete. Mr. Allen said the horizontal should be
shown as 12, not 10, and Mr. Townes added that architectural features such as
porch roofs and dormers should be excepted. Mr. Comitta added that this item on minimum
roof pitch should specify it's for residential. Non-residential should be shown separately.
|
Townes
|
|
22-8
|
2202.O.4
&
2202.O.5
|
Corrections
are needed to the reference sections, which Mr. Comitta determined should be
2216.D.2.a and 2219.D.1 respectively.
|
Motel
|
|
22-8
|
2202.O
|
Suggested
an exception for commercial uses from the 100 foot tract perimeter referenced
in 2219.D.1.
|
Townes
|
|
22-11
|
2205.C
|
Suggested
the rear yard requirements be eliminated. Mr. Comitta suggested eliminating them except if there is
no alley.
|
Townes
|
|
22-13
|
2207
|
OK to
keep deletion as shown by Mr. Crawford.
|
Motel
|
|
22-14
|
2209
|
Noted
that Mr. Crawford checked this section on context sensitive design standards
and corrected the section reference numbers
|
Motel
|
|
22-16
|
2212
|
Same
comment as above
|
Motel
|
|
22-19
|
2216
|
Noted
that Mr. Crawford replaced "Duplexes" with "Two-Family" dwellings.
|
Motel
|
|
22-22
|
2217.A.1
|
Lists
only "multi-family units" without listing three basic housing types, which
the Planning Commission determined belong in Area 5 (Tyler Griffin). Mr. Motel questioned whether
apartments should be permitted.
Mr. Townes asked if there will be a minimum required of each type, and
Mr. Comitta said no, and this minimum requirement was taken out of other
sections of the ordinance as well.
There was further discussion on whether to exclude apartments from
Area 5. Mr. Comitta will
address this further at the Dec. 3rd meeting. Mr. Reis suggested including single
family homes.
|
Motel
|
|
22-23
|
2219
|
Blanks
to be completed on apartment building lot size, lot width. Mr. Townes said apartments only need
a minimum tract area. Mr.
Comitta suggested 20,000 square feet.
|
Motel
|
|
22-25
|
2220.B.2.a
|
Discussion
on the confusion between the applicant's manual and the township's
manual. Mr. Comitta will adjust
the language to clarify the Township's manual consists of general guidelines,
while the applicant's manual contains the specific details.
|
Motel
|
|
22-27
|
2220.B.5
|
Confirmed
that Exhibit E, the Bike & Pedestrian Path Plan, will be enhanced.
|
Motel
|
Mr. Motel said Mr. Comitta will add the Planning Commission's comments to Mr. Crawford's review and transmit them to him. He also recommended the legend in the back of the review be moved to the front of the document. Mr. Allen said the review document should be changed to black and white only, and Mr. Reis added that the strike outs should be left out, with additions in bold face. Mr. Comitta said he's also expecting some comments from Ed Theurkauf to incorporate into the document, mostly small corrections and cross-referencing adjustments.
Mr. Motel asked the Planning Commission members to be available for the December 3rd Supervisors meeting where this review will be presented to them.
Subcommittees
Mr. Motel referenced an email he circulated earlier today proposing various subcommittees to work on the following items relating to the TND, with a minimum of two planning commission members on each:
- Municipal Building and State Police substation
- PennDOT and Turnpike matters - including how to pay for the upgrades
- Bikes, Walkers and Rails - including the railroad bed, pedestrian paths and trail connections
- Recreation - including the need for a building to house equipment and how to pay for recreation
Mr. Reis indicated that as far as a possible rails-to-trails conversion of the rail line, a recent letter received from PA Rail Lines was good news, that they intend to abandon the use of the rail line but not abandon the right of way. Abandoning the right of way would cause the land to revert to all the individual adjacent owners, making it very difficult to procure a trail easement. By abandoning the use only, the rail lines make a trail conversion more feasible.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 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.
|
|
