THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 18, 2004
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS
ABSENT
Jim Zeiters
Marlin Moyer Terry
Bailey
Carol Buskirk
Rick Bolt
David Wingeard
Barbara Zemlock
STAFF
PRESENT
Robert Leonard, Zoning Administrator Chip Millard, DCPC
Julie Hoepfer, Administrative Assistant Al Brulo, Township Engineer
OTHERS
PRESENT
Pat
Bob Raffensperger Ron
Lucas
Paulette Konavitch Craig
Bachik
Dave Weihbrecht Kim
Murray
David Smith Nathan
Wolfe
Janet Wilhelm Ron
Jacobs
Patti Estheimer Phyllis
Zimmerman
Kathy Pierich Lori
Green
Rev. Lawrence Walt
Peppleman
Jim Beaty Dave
Dively
Linda Wheeler Mr.
Russel
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Zeiters.
II.
ROLL CALL
Noted
by recording secretary.
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms.
Buskirk moved, seconded by Mr. Moyer to approve the October 21, 2004 regular
meeting minutes.
Ms.
Buskirk moved, seconded by Mr. Wingeard to approve the November 10, 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.
A. #2004.01
Conditional Use Request –
(1) The minimum lot area shall be two acres. Yes
(2) The minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. Yes
(3) There shall be vehicular access to a
local collector road. . Yes
(4) Accessory parking, picnic areas,
accessory church-related residences, church related educational or day care
facilities or other accessory uses shall not be located on a separate lot.
Parking
is on the same property.
(5) On street parking shall
be prohibited. All parking is on
lot.
(6) Parking areas should be
secured from vehicular access when not in use. Parking
areas are self contained.
(7) In church related
education, day care facilities or other transportation services, a passenger
“dropoff and pickup” area shall be provided and arranged so that passengers do
not have to cross traffic lanes on or adjacent to the site. Yes
(8) The screening requirements of Article
XIX, Section 195-124, may be reduced to Level Two screening upon approval by
the BOS. Screening requirements met.
Ms. Zemlock asked if the requirements of Section 195-188F have been
met? Mr. Lucas stated they are
applicable and have been met. Ms.
Zemlock expressed her concerns with the following sections of 195-188F
(Conditional Use) General Standards.
(1) The proposed use, including
its nature, intensity and location, is in harmony with the orderly and
appropriate development of the zoning district.
(4)
That the use will have proper located with respect to existing and
future streets, and will not create traffic congestion or cause nonresidential
traffic on local residential streets.
(5) That the specific
standards set forth for each particular use for which a conditional use may be
granted have been met.
Mr.
Lucas addressed item #4 by stating a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been
submitted and reviewed and has shown that it will not create traffic
congestion. There was considerable
discussion regarding traffic patterns and improvements to surrounding roads and
intersections. Mr. Jacobs, traffic
engineer summarized the improvements and traffic patterns outlined in the
study. The focus of the traffic will be
Dr.
Green expressed her concerns with additional traffic on
The
Conditional Use was tabled for review of the Holy Name Subdivision/land
development plan.
B. #2004.02 Text Amendment – Holy Name, Section 173-25B9
Street Classification – Tabled, to be withdrawn.
V. SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS
B.
Preliminary or Final
Subdivision/Land Development Plans
1. #04.012 P/SB/LD Holy Name
Subdivision Plan, Oak Grove & Sterling Roads - Ron Lucas, attorney, Mr.
Weihbrecht, Alpha Consultants, and Ron Jacobs, traffic engineer were in
attendance to represent the plans.
Mr. Brulo presented the
following comments from his report dated November 11, 1004:
#8 Are there any wetlands east of Oak Grove
Road that may be impacted? Mr. Weihbrecht indicated that a wetland delineation
has been completed and will be shown on the plan revision, however, those
wetlands are not impacted.
#13 There are several points where the
lighting plan shows greater than 0.5 footcandles over the property line.
#14 We recommend that the Township consider
requesting the developer to enter into an agreement for a contribution for the
completion of Sterling Road improvements west of Station 14+00.
Mr. Chip Millard, DCPC
presented the following:
#1 Are there improvements along Oak Grove
Road, such as turning lanes. Mr. Jacobs
stated the study shows a single lane for Oak Grove, once signaled is adequate.
#2 Is there a secondary access to the
athletic field? Mr. Weihbrecht indicated
an emergency access has been provided.
#3 Will there be any stacking issues during
events? Mr. Weihbrecht stated “no.”
Mr. Leonard presented the
following comments from his report dated November 9, 2004:
#2 Location of fire hydrants.
#3 Stormwater pipe under Oak Grove, size correct. Mr. Weihbrecht indicated it should read 48”
concrete pipe.
#4 Roadway design of Oak Grove, ok? Mr. Brulo stated the final specifications
still need worked out but overall it is fine.
Zoning
#1 SPOD boundary is 100’, although some
trees will be removed for safety access and construction.
#2 Conservation and Open Space maintenance
agreement will be needed for Final Plan.
Ms. Buskirk presented EAC
comments dated November 11, 2004:
#1 Stream Protection Overlay District. Does not meet the requirements of the
Ordinance. 100’ SPOD must be shown to
comply. Mr. Lucas stated the sewer line
and the open area for emergency vehicles are the only things behind the school. Considerable discussion took place regarding
the 100’ SLPD, plan will comply and Mr. Weihbrecht will provide documentation
showing the stormwater conveyance to the stream.
Mr. Wingeard asked why a
school that is K through 8th grade needs a football stadium. Mr. Lucas stated it is part of their program,
not something new.
Monsignor Lawrence explained
the football program, which has been at Holy Name for about 45 years. This program includes not only members of the
church and school but also children from the surrounding community. There are four levels which range in age from
5 to 13. There are also majorettes and
cheerleaders. There are 8 games a year,
4 of which are home games played on Saturday afternoons. On Monday evenings, the Bishop McDevitt JV’s
will play four games a year.
Ms. Zemlock asked if there
is also a track program. Monsignor
Lawrence stated there is a track team, but no track facilities at this
time. It is something they may look at
in the future.
Mr. Wingeard asked if the
football stadium will be open for public use.
Monsignor Lawrence indicated it would not.
Mr. Moyer questioned the
traffic counts, asking how much was predicted to use Sterling Road. Mr. Jacobs indicated about 25%. Mr. Moyer also expressed concern about the
100’ SPOD. Mr. Weihbrecht stated the
building is a good 7 to 10’ out of the SPOD buffer. Mr. Moyer also asked what kind of ground
cover was in the rear of the building.
Mr. Weihbrecht indicated it was a reinforced grass strip.
Ms. Zemlock asked how they
came up with 25% of the traffic using Sterling Road. Mr. Lucas stated that with the improvements
at Oak Grove and Rt 22 it makes this intersection a more desirable route.
Public Comment
Walt Peppleman – Mr. Peppleman expressed
his concerns regarding additional traffic using Sterling Road. The traffic patterns the TIS describes seem
ludicrous and it will be easier and more convenient for people to use Sterling
Road. Mr. Peppleman added this is a very
active church and fears that there will be high school football games at this
site.
Kathy Pierich, 315 Nagle
Court – Ms.
Pierich expressed her concerns with an increase in traffic and passed out
pictures of troublesome intersections around the area.
Jim Beaty – Mr. Beaty stated he is
new to the area and was contacted and asked to come out and speak against the
church, however, he came it to speak in favor of the church stating churches
only do good for the community.
Janet Wilhelm, 7149 Sterling
Road – Ms.
Wilhelm indicated she is against the project because the amount of activities
will bring more traffic than this small area can handle. She pointed out that West Hanover does not
have their own police force and only a small fire department.
Nathan Wolfe, attorney West
Hanover Concern Citizens – Mr. Wolfe noted the following:
·
100’ SPOD. Does the width of the
stream impact the SPOD
·
Stream preservation issues
·
TIS – substantial changes were made to the plan, have traffic patterns
been adequately addressed? Mr. Jacobs
reported the TIS has been updated and reflects the revised plans and new
traffic patterns.
·
Existing use of roads to individuals will change in a large way.
·
Does the use fit with the existing conditions?
Mr.
Wolf asked for denial of the plan.
Dave Dively, Sterling Road – Mr. Dively asked what 25%
of the traffic going to Sterling Road equates to. Mr. Jacobs reported that during the heaviest
15 minutes on a Sunday there would be about 4 vehicles per minute for 15
minutes. That is about 60 vehicles over
the 15 minute period. Mr. Dively presented
a handout showing all the events that Holy Name runs during the week. Mr. Dively expressed his concern with the
volume of activity occurring at this site.
Lori Green, 7155 Sterling
Road – Dr.
Green expressed her concern regarding traffic and the community impact of this
project. Holy Name is not only a church
but a business venture. Dr. Green asked
that the Planning Commission deny the conditional use request for the church at
this site. Dr. Green passed out
bulletins from other areas churches, showing that they have far fewer
activities.
Linda Wheeler, Sterling Road – Ms. Wheeler indicated she
supported her neighbors remarks and indicated Holy Name has been in disrepair
for years due to lack of money for upkeep of the church. Ms. Wheeler questioned how resources will be
different at this site and how the church will be an asset to the community and
not the eye sore that it is now on Rt 22.
David Smith, Co-Chair,
Building Committee – Mr. Smith indicated the church did not look at other sites, because
they own the land at the cemetery, it is a fitting site and they would not be
building at all if the opportunity to sell the current building had not come
up. Mr. Smith stated he feels they are
meeting the ordinance requirements and the residents concerns are a pure case
of “not in my backyard.” Mr. Smith asked
that the Planning Commission grant them what they deserve.
Chairman Zeiters reminded the public that the
Planning Commission’s job is to be sure plans and submissions conform to the
ordinances.
Ms. Zemlock referred to Section 195-188F(1)
and (4) regarding harmony with the zoning district and traffic concerns. Mr. Jacobs explained the analysis of the
TIS. Mr. Richard Kope, Community Planner
for Gannet Flemming, read the allowed uses in the R1 zoning and indicated that
the planning standard is this country is to locate churches in and around
residential communities. Mr. Kope feels
this use is in harmony with the general standard that is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance and is in harmony with the Zoning District.
More discussion occurred regarding roadway
improvements, sprawl, contributions for additional improvements to Sterling
Road, ongoing cost to residents, and the intensity of traffic in certain
areas. Mr. Brulo noted that the church
has agreed to have a trained traffic control specialist direct traffic at their
entrance, if a traffic problem occurs.
Ms. Buskirk noted the following:
·
Church site is R1 Zoning, property to the south is FRA
·
Believes increased traffic will create pressure for unplanned
development
·
Environmental impacts not addressed with regards to the expansion of
the Sterling Road ROW. This will require
special permitting from DEP
·
Complex is more than a church, it is a regional worship, educational
and sports center.
·
Sterling Road does not meet requirements for access to an arterial road
·
Scope and intensity of the project will result in increased burden to
township taxpayers from the unplanned growth and negative environmental impact
and expanded cost of infrastructure and services required
·
The church would be a fine addition to the Township, however it is not
suitable for this site
Motion - Conditional Use:
Church
Ms. Buskirk moved, seconded by Ms. Zemlock,
to recommend the Conditional Use Request #2004.01 of Holy Name of Jesus church not
be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The vote resulted in Ms. Buskirk, Ms. Zemlock and Mr. Wingeard voting
yes, Chairman Zeiters and Mr. Bolt voting no and Mr. Moyer abstaining.
Mr. Bolt asked if the recreation area is
where the carnival would be held. Mr.
Smith stated it is uncertain whether they will continue to hold the carnival or
not.
Motion – Conditional Use:
Private recreation
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Mr. Wingeard,
that based on its inconsistencies with Section 195-188(1) and (4) which deals
with the nature, intensity, location and harmony of the area of proper location
with respect to the existing and future streets and will create traffic
congestion and create nonresidential traffic on local streets it is recommended
that the Board of Supervisors not approve the Conditional Use Request
#2004.01 of the Holy Name recreation area.
The motion resulted in a 3-3 vote.
#04.012 P/SB/LD Holy Name of
Jesus Educational & Worship Facility
MOTION #1
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Mr. Bolt to
recommend approval of the following waivers:
1.
Section 173-11B(2)(d) Drawing
scale
2.
Section 173-37A Parkland
dedication
3.
Section 173-44C(10)(c)
Stormwater pond bottom design
4.
Section 173-25D(2)(a) K Values
The motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Buskirk voting
nay.
MOTION #2
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Mr. Bolt to
recommend approval of preliminary subdivision and land development plan #04.012
for the Holy Name of Jesus Educational and Worship Facility, tax parcels
#68-028-051, 052 and 056 contingent upon:
·
Approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan by DCCD
·
Approval of the sewage planning module by PA DEP
·
Paying the fee in lieu of parkland dedication
·
Approval of waivers by BOS
·
Incorporating Township Engineers comments
·
Addressing staff review comments
·
Addressing comments from the DCPC, Environmental Advisory Council,
South Central EMS, Park and Recreation Board, and Fire Company
·
Agreement for contributions to Sterling Road improvements
·
Approval of all other required permits
·
Other items as determined necessary by Township Ordinances
The motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Buskirk voting
nay.
2. #04.019 F/LD Daniel
Snow Property, Jonestown Road - Tabled
3. #04.020 F/LD 128
Hershey Road, Roger Hoffman - Tabled
4. #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:
#4 Outstanding stormwater management comments. Mr. Bachik indicated these items are being
addressed. There were some contractual
obligations due to the death of the engineer working with the plan.
Mr. Leonard presented the
following comments:
#5 Sidewalks on internal roadways
#6 Limits of disturbance cannot encroach into the EPOD’s, and
can be significantly tightened up.
Concerns with backyards on some units.
#7 Standardize all tax parcel numbers to 68-xxx-xxx format.
Zoning
#1 Filling not permitted in SPOD
#2 Rain garden plantings need to be included in the landscape
plan
#3 Level I and II screening required between commercial building
and residential buildings.
There was some discussion regarding sidewalks. Mr. Bachik agreed sidewalks make sense along
Jonestown Road into the development but not the interior of the development
itself.
Mr. Leonard asked that the title of the plan
be labeled Final Subdivision/Land Development plan. It was also brought up that the Dan Snow plan
must be withdrawn before final approval of this plan.
Ms. Buskirk presented the following EAC
comments:
#2 Provide
details for the rain gardens.
#3 Provide
ground cover details. Mr. Bachik
indicated those details are on sheet 17.
MOTION #1
Mr. Bolt moved, seconded by Mr. Wingeard to
recommend approval of the following waivers:
1.
Section 173-11A Preliminary plan
requirements
2.
Section 173-37B(2) Parkland
dedication
3.
Section 173-38B(1) Existing tree
and vegetation characterization
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION #2
Mr. Bolt moved, seconded by Mr. Wingeard to
recommend approval of final subdivision/land development plan #04.023 of 7841
Jonestown Road Associates, tax parcel #68-024-154 contingent upon:
·
Approval of the sewage planning module by DEP
·
Approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan by DCCD
·
Paying the fee in lieu of land dedication
·
Connection to public sewer
·
Posting of the proper improvement guarantee and execution of a
development agreement
·
Addressing Township engineer’s review comments
·
Addressing staff comments
·
Addressing outstanding comments from the DCPC, Environmental Advisory,
South Central EMS, Park and Recreation Board and Fire Company.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. #04.028 F/SB Winslett Phase II, Manor Drive &
Linglestown Road – Mr. Weihbrecht, Alpha Consulting Engineers, was in
attendance to represent the plan.
Mr. Brulo presented the following engineering
comments:
#4 As discussed at the pre application meeting, ask the
developer to consider a pedestrian path easement around lot 9 onto the high
school property.
#12D Provide a drainage easement for the swale behind lots 6, 7, 8,
etc. Where does this swale discharge?
Mr. Leonard presented the
following comments:
#1 Need to identify the School district as an adjacent property
owner.
#2 Consideration of a ped path easement on lot #9 to access
school property
#3 Submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan
#5 Add a fire hydrant at the corner of Royal Oak and Royal Oak
Roads.
#8 Limits of disturbance need to be shown
#11 Note #7 regarding HOP is out of date.
#13 Screening around detention pond.
Mr. Millard, DCPC, presented
the following comments:
#3 Will any of the driveways have sight distance issues due to
their proximity to roadway curves?
Ms. Buskirk presented the
following EAC comments:
#1 Apparent easements exist along the southern and western
boundaries of this site. If these are on
the site, they must be identified on the plan.
Mr. Weihbrecht will show the gas line easement.
#2 Note on page 2 referencing existing conditions for this
phase, should refer to page 4 and the tree line should be shown.
MOTION
Ms. Zemlock moved, seconded by Mr. Moyer, to
recommend approval of final subdivision plan #04.028 for Winslett Phase II of
Rustrum Realty, tax parcel #68-019-011 contingent upon:
·
Approval of the sewage planning module by PA DEP
·
Approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan by DCCD
·
Paying the fee in lieu of land dedication
·
Addressing review comments
·
Connection to public sewer
·
Posting of the proper improvement guarantee and execution of a
development agreement
·
Addressing outstanding comments from the DCPC, Environmental Advisory,
South Central EMS, Park and Recreation Board and Fire Company.
·
Other items determined necessary by township ordinances.
The motion passed unanimously.
A. #2004.02 Text Amendment – Holy Name, Section 173-25B9
Street Classification – Tabled, to be withdrawn.
VII. NEW
BUSINESS
A.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Tabled until the December 8th workshop
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m.