THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 21, 2004
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS
ABSENT
Jim Zeiters
Marlin Moyer David
Wingeard
Carol Buskirk
Rick Bolt
Terry Bailey
Barbara Zemlock
STAFF
PRESENT
Robert Leonard, Zoning Administrator Chip Millard, DCPC
Julie Hoepfer, Administrative Assistant Al Brulo, Township Engineer
OTHERS
PRESENT
Pat Cassel John
Acri
Larry Hartman Steve
Millard
Bob Raffensperger Drew
Williams
Bill Wewer Joseph
Uram
Rick Castranio Ron
Lucas
Jodi Raffensperger Joel
Klein
Mr. Sinon Craig
Bachik
Dave Weihbrecht Rick
Mullen
Mrs. Donaldson Brian
Fincher
David Smith Wendy Fulton
Doug Gamber Beth
Carricato
Kathy Uram Rob
Shaffer
Mark Magrecki Keith
Lingle
Richard
Angela Wewer Nathan
Wolfe
Dan Wilhelm Ron
Zagrocki
Joan Bretz
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order
at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Zeiters.
II.
ROLL CALL
Noted
by recording secretary.
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr.
Bolt moved, seconded by Mr. Bailey to approve the September 16, 2004 regular
meeting minutes. The motion passed with
Ms. Zemlock abstaining.
Ms.
Buskirk moved, seconded by Mr. Moyer to approve the October 13, 2004 workshop
meeting minutes. The motion passed
unanimously.
Chairman
Zeiters announced that public comment will be received as each plan comes up on
the agenda.
IV.
SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS
1. Tractor Supply Company Store – Mr. Magrecki, engineer
for the project was in attendance and briefly presented the proposed plan for a
22,000 square foot tractor supply retail store located across from the
B.
Preliminary or Final
Subdivision/Land Development Plans
1.
#04.018 F/SB/LD Lexington Woods,
Mr. Leonard stated that at the last Board of
Supervisors meeting there had been enough changes made between the last time
the Commission saw this plan and the Board meeting that the Supervisors felt if
was only fair to allow the Planning Commission another look at the plan. The Board obtained a thirty-day time
extension and referred the plan back to the Planning Commission for further
review.
Mr. Brulo reviewed comments from his report
to the Board of Supervisors, dated September 29, 2004 as follows:
#2 Provide a letter from the water utility stating that service
will be provided.
#4 Provide a letter from the Dauphin County Conservation
District approving the E & S Plan and the NPDES Phase 2 General Permit.
#5 Provide a pipe trench detail and road restoration detail for
the sanitary sewer crossing on
Mr. Brulo asked if drainage area #1 could be
adjusted to shorten the pipe on
Mr. Leonard, Zoning Officer,
stated he had no major outstanding issues.
Ms. Buskirk, presented the EAC comments dated
October 12, 2004:
#1 Section 173-23.B.
Development of the site shall be based on a site analysis to preserve
the natural features of the site, avoid environmental sensitive areas; to minimize
negative impacts and alterations of natural features; to avoid adversely
affecting groundwater and aquifer recharge; to reduce impervious cover; to
prevent flooding; to mitigate drainage on neighboring properties.
#4 Section 173-38.B.(9)(a)(c)
Existing tree and Vegetation preservation. Reference to this section should be shown on
the plan along with a note “to prevent root zone compaction, E& S fencing
extending the diameter of the tree canopy, along with 12-18 inches of chipped
mulch, will be placed in the tree root zone of trees to be preserved, where
construction vehicle traffic will occur.
Additional concerns: Existing and potential environmental problems
with destruction of forested area.
Currently, adjoining neighbors have experienced some drainage issues
from this site. The extensive regrading
does not preserve environmental sensitive area.
Ms. Zemlock expressed her concerns with the
impact of erosion and sedimentation and stormwater runoff onto adjoining
property owners. Ms. Zemlock asked Mr.
Brulo if he has any comments concerning that aspect of the plan or an opinion
on the adequacy of the EAC issues.
Mr. Brulo indicated there are one or two
small issues that need to be worked out but overall peak runoff from the site
will be 75% of the existing runoff in order to meet the ordinance requirements
which is in accordance with Act 167. The
peak rate of runoff will be less, the volume of runoff will be greater because
of impervious cover but our current ordinance does not address volume of
runoff, only the peak, and they are meeting ordinance requirements when it
comes to stormwater.
Public Comment
Bob Raffensperger,
Bill Wewer,
Joe Uram, 7425 Jonestown
Road – Mr.
Uram also opposes this plan, which does not meet the intent of ordinance
172-23. Mr. Uram asked the Planning
Commission to deny the plan in the best interest of West Hanover Township. (See copy attached to these minutes).
Kathy Uram, 7425 Jonestown
Road –
Shares the concerns of her neighbors and agrees the plan is inconsistent with
Township Ordinances.
Ms. Zemlock asked that all those speaking
tonight, present their written comments to be preserved as part of the record.
Bill Troop, 7346 Jonestown
Road – Mr.
Troop indicated his concerns are for the scale of the project, too many homes
on a small space. Mr. Troop stated he
realizes you cannot tell everybody what they can do on their property, but this
site was purchased for profit from a non-resident, those living nearby must
deal with the consequences of the development.
The Landscape and maintenance plan does not appear to be certified. It appears there are many discrepancies and
changes on the plan. Mr. Troop cited
several ordinances and expressed additional concerns with traffic, pollution,
runoff and lack of preservation of existing vegetation.
Beth Carricato, 699 Knight
Road – Ms.
Carricato reminded everyone that the Board of Supervisors makes the final
decision and urged residents to attend the meeting on this plan and the
November 15th public hearing to support the Planning Commission’s
update.
Keith Lingle , 7176
Jonestown Road
– Mr. Lingle stated he has walked this ground several times and disagrees with
the development.
Richard Burton, 7216
Catherine Drive – Mr. Burton asked for denial of this plan based on Section
173-23. Mr. Burton also presented and
read a written statement from Mr. Ostermayer.
(A copy is attached to these minutes).
Jody Raffensperger – Ms. Raffensperger
believes the plan should be turned down based on noncompliance with Township
Ordinances. Ms. Raffensperger also noted
she does not want to have to walk her property through mud and look at the back
of townhouses because all the trees have been cut down.
Maxine Shaffer – expressed her concerns
over the impact to the Sandy Hollow Cemetery.
Dave Simon – Mr. Simon supported his
neighbors concerns and comments. Mr.
Simon cited the ordinances and indicated the plan does not preserve natural
features. What we have is a site packing
in as much as possible.
Angela Wewer – Supports her neighbors
and urges the Commission to act in the interest of the Township not a financial
interest.
Chairman Zeiters asked for the wishes of the
Commission.
Mr. Bolt questioned some aspects of the
stormwater plan. Mr. Brulo agreed there
were some details to be adjusted.
Motion #1
Ms. Buskirk moved, seconded by Ms. Zemlock to
rescind the motion to deny from the September 16, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting. The motion passed with Mr.
Bailey abstaining.
Motion #2
Ms. Buskirk moved to deny plan #04.018 of
Lexington Woods due to potential impacts to neighboring properties due to the
volume of water that will be released and that the plan does not meet the
requirement of preserving natural features in the design and in the open
space. Mr. Moyer seconded the
motion. A vote was taken with Mr. Bolt
voting nay and stating he did not feel the plan could be denied due to stormwater
volume.
Ms. Zemlock recommended that the motion be
amended to include the comments and sections cited by the EAC, neighbors and
staff.
A new vote was taken on the amended motion
recommended by Ms. Zemlock. The motion
passed with Mr. Bailey abstaining.
2.
#04.022 Sagewicke IV – Resubmission lot line change – Mr. Shaffer, Act One
Consultants was in attendance to represent the plan.
Mr. Brulo stated he had no new comments from
his previous review, the only changes are in the lot lines.
Mr. Chip Millard, DCPC, had no additional
comments
Mr. Leonard noted the following from his
report dated October 14, 2004:
#1 Existing wooded area with large trees are not shown on sheet
2 or 11 or 11. No protection measures
are shown.
#2 Provide turning radius analysis for emergency vehicles. Mr. Shaffer indicated it meets regulations.
Zoning #2 Grading plan missing.
Ms. Buskirk reviewed the EAC
comments dated October 18, 2004:
#1 Explain the revision in the site data, showing proposed open
space on this 5.16 acre phase as 0.00 acres.
Mr. Shaffer stated there is 26 acres of open space for this development,
which is 5 acres over what is required.
#2 Disturbance on lot 2A may encroach into the conservation
easement areas. Page 2 of 11 shows the
structure almost on the EPOD line. Mr.
Shaffer will shade areas where no fill or structures are to be placed. E & S plan scale will be corrected.
Mr. Leonard noted that if this plan is not
acted on tonight an extension of time will be needed.
Motion #1
Mr. Bolt moved, seconded by Ms. Zemlock to
recommend approval of the following waivers:
1.
Section 173-15C(6) Stormwater
management report
2.
Section 173-15C(11) Traffic
impact study
3.
Section 173-25F(2) Pavement
design
4.
Section 17315B(3) Driveway
profiles
5.
Section 173-15B(20) Location of
adjacent buildings
The motion passed with Mr. Moyer voting nay
and Mr. Bailey abstaining.
Motion #2
Mr. Bolt moved, seconded by Ms. Zemlock to
recommend approval of the revised final land development plan #04.022 Sagewicke
Phase IV of Houck Properties, tax parcel #68-030-022 contingent upon:
·
Approval of the E & S plan by DCCD
·
Approval of the sewage planning module by PA DEP
·
Paying fee in lieu of parkland dedication
·
Connection to public sewer
·
Posting of the proper improvement guarantee and execution of a
development agreement
·
Addressing staff review comments
·
Other items determined necessary by Township Ordinances
The motion passed with Mr. Moyer voting nay
and Mr. Bailey abstaining.
3. #04.011 F/SB Holy Name Subdivision
Plan, Oak Grove & Sterling Roads - Ron Lucas, attorney, asked that all
Holy Name plans be presented for discussion but not be acted on tonight as they
are still being revised and updated. Mr.
Weihbrecht, Alpha Consultants, was in attendance and briefly explained the
changes to the plans.
Mr. Brulo presented the following
comments from his report dated October 14, 2004:
#2 Provide a Sterling Road profile. How will road drainage for the curbing and
swale be handled for station 14+00 back?
#5 We recommend that a jurisdictional
delineation of the wetlands be obtained due to the large number of fragmented
wetlands. The applicant states this is
pending. Clearly identify all wetland
and/or stream impacts on the plan that require a permit from DEP and or
USCOE. Mr. Weihbrecht indicated this has
been completed and a report is forthcoming.
#6 The K-value of the vertical curve for
Oak Grove Road is less than the required value for the given speed limit.
Mr. Brulo suggested he meet
with Mr. Weihbrecht to discuss comments 18, 19, & 20 regarding the roadway.
#22 We recommend that the Township consider
requesting the developer to enter into an agreement for a contribution for the
completion of the Sterling Road improvements west of Station 14+00.
Mr. Brulo added that with
revisions to Oak Grove Road – this is a huge improvement to transportation in
the area.
Mr. Leonard presented the
following comments from his report dated October 11, 2004:
#2 Adjacent property owner Hurbert? Or Alexander?
#4 Show any existing wells or septic systems
#5 Wetlands are shown on Plan.
Note not needed.
#6 SPOD not accurately shown in wooded areas.
#8 Remove note that only 5 sheets are for
recording. All will be recorded.
Mr. Leonard presented the
Public Safety Committee Comments:
#1 Street lights at the intersection of Sterling Road & at
Drive “G” & Oak Grove
Ms. Buskirk presented EAC
comments dated October 18, 2004:
#1 Stream protection overlay district – lines shown do not meet the requirement of the ordinance for inclusion of forested areas with predominance of trees of 4” caliper or greater.
4. #04.012 P/LD Holy Name Church, Oak Grove & Sterling
Road – Mr. Weihbrecht reported that they had no success with the Zoning
Hearing Board. The site has been
re-designed and does not require any variances and does not encroach into the
overlay districts. There have been
significant improvements to Oak Grove Road.
The sports field has been moved to the far end of the site, this isolates
the sports area. There is no impact to
the surrounding area. Additional parking
has been provided.
Mr. Brulo presented the following comments:
#1B The
applicant is requesting provide private recreation facilities.
#2 The
Board should not approve this preliminary land development plan until the final
subdivision plan is approved.
#7 The
K value on the vertical curve on the access drive is only acceptable for a
design speed of 20 mph. Mr. Weihbrecht
indicated posted speed limit will be 15 mph.
#12 Consider
adding sidewalk along Drive G to provide a convenient access from the church to
the overflow parking lot.
#18 Where
will the garbage trucks turn around at
the dumpsters? Address the emergency
services comments dated April 21, 2004.
Traffic Review dated October 18, 2004:
#1 If
congestion at the intersection of Oak Grove & HNOJ Site driveway J exists,
HNOJ should hire a trained traffic control specialist to direct traffic at the
intersection during the Sunday peak hour.
#2 Due
to the failing level of service and large queue length predicted at the
intersection of South Oak Grove Road and HNOJ Driveway J, there is an
additional need for a right turn lane along the southbound approach of South
Oak Grove Road.
Mr. Leonard presented the following comments:
#2 Certification
letters from PA American Water and Water and Sewer Authority indicating
capacity.
#4 Correct
the township ID number.
Zoning: #1 Proper
delineation of SPOD in wooded areas.
#3 Infiltration
beds at outlet to detention ponds? Mr.
Weihbrecht stated they were eliminated due to the design change.
Mr. Leonard stated the Park and Recreation
Board recommends FILO.
Mr. Leonard presented the Public Safety Comments:
A. PSAB
could not clearly identify hydrants on the plan.
C. A
secondary access road to the stadium area should be considered that would link
the stadium road to Sterling Road or to access points within the cemetery site.
Ms. Buskirk presented the EAC comments as
follows:
#2 Hillside
and Slope Protection Overlay District.
The conservation easement shown may not encompass the required area. Some discussion occurred regarding this
issue.
#3 Open
space. Stormwater basins are not a
permitted use.
#5 Historic
preservation. Has the newly acquired
Clugh property been included in the Phase I Archeological Study for the NPDES
permit, since it is the site of a historic one room school?
Chairman Zeiters asked that after the Oak
Grove Road relocation, what will happen to the property in the ROW? Mr. Weihbrecht stated the owners can petition
the state to abandon the ROW and add it to their deeds.
Ms. Zemlock asked what the parking lot on Oak
Grove Road will serve? Mr. Weihbrecht
stated it will serve the church. Ms.
Zemlock asked if the sidewalk will be raised?
Mr. Weihbrecht indicated it would have curb along it so cars would not
drive on it, sidewalk will also be installed along Drive “G”. Ms. Zemlock stated they have been told the
stadium is to serve the school’s football team, now it shows a shot put, long
jump area, what is really the intent of the stadium? Mr. Weihbrecht reported nothing has changed,
but since they are grading now, there is enough area that if the use would ever
come up for track meets, the area is available.
Ms. Zemlock asked if there were discussions to use this area now? Mr. Weihbrecht stated no, in fact at this time
a chain link fence will cut across the shot put area. Ms. Zemlock asked if there were enough
handicapped parking spaces. Mr.
Weihbrecht intends to double the number of spaces.
Mr. Bolt asked that the slopes by the stadium
practice field be verified. The slope
should be stabilized for stormwater runoff control.
Chairman Zeiters asked that a sheet be added
showing what the new subdivided property looks like.
Public Comment
Nathan Wolfe, attorney West
Hanover Concern Citizens – Mr. Wolfe noted the following:
·
Pointed out the 100’ EPOD along the wooded area may still contain part
of the parking lot.
·
Realignment of Oak Grove Road may require a DEP permit for
encroachment.
·
Wetland issues – any off site impacts should be identified by a JD.
·
Watercourse may require an archeological society approval.
·
Stream realignment at the SW corner of Sterling Road seems to impact
the wetland overlay district, is this a Zoning Hearing Board issue?
·
Would parking areas be defined as a structure and require ZHB approval
if they encroach in the EOPOD?
Pat Cassel, 201 Oak Grove
Road – Is
driveway G at the corner to be widened?
Mr. Weihbrecht stated yes, with turning lanes possible. Ms. Cassel stated the Clugh property, the
site of the one room school, was extensively remodeled and the porch is the
only original piece remaining.
Dan Wilhelm, 7149 Sterling
Road – Mr.
Wilhelm asked if the access to the athletic field would be through the
cemetery. Ms. Buskirk stated no the
access is through the side. It appears
at the south and west sides of the athletic fields there are very deep ravines.
Beth Carricato, 699 Knight
Road – Ms.
Carricato asked when the Conditional Use would be discussed. Chairman Zeiters indicated it was tabled and
will not be discussed tonight. Ms.
Carricato asked why the entire project is not a Conditional Use. Chairman Zeiters stated the Zoning Officer
will determine.
5. #04.019 F/LD Daniel
Snow Property, Jonestown Road - Tabled
6. #04.020 F/LD 128
Hershey Road, Roger Hoffman - Tabled
7. #04.023 SB/P/LD Manada Court Villas, 7841 Jonestown Road
Assoc. – Mr. Bachik was in attendance to represent the plan.
Mr. Brulo presented the following comments:
#1B Water feasibility report – public water is available at the
site, this waiver is not needed.
#11 Provide an autoturn analysis for emergency vehicles.
#19 Is there a proposed dumpster location? Is so, provide turning analysis of a garbage
truck to that proposed location.
#29 The Planning Commission needs to discuss the fact that no
internal sidewalks are provided and the frontage sidewalk has been replaced by
a 5’ wide bike/ped lane along the road edge.
#30 We recommend the Township request the developer to enter into
an agreement to provide a contribution to the Rt. 39 corridor improvements
project near I-81.
TIS Report #1 The trip distribution should be more
consistent with the one assumed in the Mapleton Grove TIS.
Mr. Millard presented the following comments:
#1 The front yard building setback may be 50’ due to parking
being located in the front yard.
#2 It appears the shown SPOD at the back end of the lot does not
cover all critical areas outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
#8 The private access drive should be given a formal name.
#9 Will there be significant truck loading/unloading taking
place such that many of the spaces for the office use are periodically blocked?
Mr. Leonard presented the
following comments:
#3 Property owners names on sheet C2 don’t match sheet C1.
#4 Add note regarding covenants
#5 Provide a certification letter from the Water & Sewer
Authority.
#7 Waiver requests on plan don’t match written request. Mr. Brulo asked if a waiver was needed for
the sidewalk. Mr. Leonard stated that is
a variance issue.
#9 Is house to be occupied during construction? Mr. Bachik explained the existing driveway to
remain until new access provided.
Park & Rec recommends land dedication, of the wooded
area southeast of the stream, instead of FILO.
For discussion with developer.
#10 Limits of disturbance cannot encroach into EPODs, and can be
significantly tightened up.
Zoning #1 Units 17 & 18 don’t meet HSPOD
requirements. Mr. Bachik read section
195-80D which states “Up to ¼ of the land with slopes greater than 25%, as
defined by Section 195-72A, may be removed or altered only when such slopes are
isolated, small or otherwise occur as knolls which do not adversely affect the
design of the plan or open space subdivisions or land developments. Mr. Bachik feels that be believes they meet
the ordinance requirement. Mr. Leonard
does not agree.
#4 Show limits of disturbance on plan. Specifically first 6 units may encroach on
LOD.
Mr. Leonard presented the Public Safety
Board’s comments:
#1 Single access approach concerns. A site design and circulations system that
has two access points to the development is recommended. Mr. Bachik believes single access is safe for
this property. Access was carefully
determined due to sight distance. Mr.
Brulo suggested a boulevard entrance.
Mr. Bachik indicated that may be
an option, however, there is not much length.
#2 Hydrant location at the entrance does not provide efficient
access.
Chairman Zeiters asked if there was overflow
parking. Mr. Bachik reported, none has
been shown but he will discuss the issues with the developers.
Ms. Buskirk presented the following EAC
comments:
#2 Critical areas with alluvial soils. Mr. Bachik indicated there are no alluvial
soils on the site.
#4 Open space calculations should be shown on sheet C1 and the
designated open space and conservation easement should be shown on the
plan. Mr. Bachik will provide.
#5 The rain garden areas should be protected with construction
fencing to prevent compaction during construction if true infiltration is
intended.
Ms. Buskirk suggested a detail about the
conservation easement in the deeds. Mr.
Bachik noted these are rental units.
Mr. Bolt noted the following:
·
Driveway slope steep. Mr. Brulo
added 5% is allowed in the ROW. Mr.
Bachik to clarify.
·
Adjust the dedication ROW line.
·
Check wording of note 10 on page C3.
Motion
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Ms. Buskirk,
to table plan #04.023, Manada Court Villas, due to outstanding staff and
engineering review comments. The motion
passed with Mr. Bailey abstaining.
8.
#04.024 F/SB Kenneth & Winifred Nye, 7048 Fishing Creek Valley Road – Mr. Zagrocki of FPE
Consulting represented the plan.
Mr. Brulo presented the following comments:
#8 Provide
a detail for the stormwater infiltration trench.
#11 Show the proposed grading of the site. Ensure that the proposed grading channels
upland runoff away from the proposed dwelling.
Mr. Millard had no comments.
Mr. Leonard presented the
following comments:
#4 Watershed area to be identified on USGS map.
Zoning #1 Open space calculations and area needs
to be identified on the plan.
#2 Provide a more accurate characterization of existing plant
materials.
The Park and Rec Board
recommends FILO.
Ms. Buskirk noted the EAC
comments were covered.
Motion #1
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Ms. Buskirk to
recommend approval of the following waivers:
1.
Section 173-11A Preliminary plan
requirements
2.
Section 173-37B2 Parkland
dedication
3.
Section 173-38 Existing tree and vegetation preservation requirements
4.
Section 173-44 Stormwater management design criteria
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion #2
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Ms. Buskirk to
recommend approval of final subdivision plan #04.024 of Kenneth & Winifred
Nye, tax parcel #68-002-069 contingent upon:
·
Approval of the sewage planning module by DEP
·
Paying of the fee in lieu of land dedication
·
Approval of waivers by the BOS
·
Incorporating Township Engineers comments
·
Addressing staff review comments
·
Addressing comments from DCPC, EAC, South Central EMS, Park and
Recreation Board and Public Safety Board.
·
Other items determined necessary by Township Ordinances.
The motion passed unanimously.
9.
#04.025 F/LD Klein Dentistry, 253 Hershey Road - Mr. Gamber was in attendance to represent
the plan.
Mr. Brulo presented the following comments:
#4 Provide
a capacity of the existing well and submit a water feasibility report.
#6 Provide the speed limit, and left and right grades on SR 39
and Harper Drive used in the sight distance calculations. Mr. Gamber will make the adjustment.
#16 Is there a proposed dumpster location? Mr. Gamber stated no dumpster.
#29 Provide a lighting plan, details and photometric plan. Mr. Gamber asked if this requirement could be
waiver. ZHB issue. Dr. Klein indicated there are no evening
office hours, staff is usually gone before 6 p.m. Mr. Leonard to review further.
#30 We recommend the Township consider requesting the developer to
enter into an agreement to provide a contribution to the Rt 39 corridor
improvement project. Provide a modified
TIS consisting of trip generation from the new site to the intersections of
Jonestown Road/Rt 39 and both legs of Fairville Avenue and both ramps of I-81.
Mr. Bolt asked about the parking spaces in
the PENNDOT ROW. Mr. Gamber stated they
are already existing and the applicant is working with PENNDOT on the issue.
Mr. Millard presented the following comments: