Honey Brook Township Planning Commission s1

Honey Brook Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 3, 2011

DRAFT The Honey Brook Township Planning Commission held its monthly meeting on February 3, 2011 at 7:03 P.M. Commissioners present: Ray Henderson, Greg Frederick, Susan Lacy, Gary Walkowski, and Chairman Mike France. The Township Engineer, Mike Reinert, was present. Heath Eddy, Director of Planning and Zoning, was present.

Minutes

A motion to approve the December 16, 2010 meeting minutes was made by Susan Lacy, seconded by Ray Henderson. All in favor. The motion carried.

Subdivision/Land Development Applications

Honey Brook Industrial Center/Baxter Properties – Minor Land Development Fran Digian of Edward B. Walsh & Associates was present representing the applicants. He noted that the plan is the same as the one approved back in 2004, and was essentially coming back for a reapproval. The plan involves the expansion of the existing facility plus an accessory warehouse all built on existing impervious coverages on the property. Mr. Digian noted the request for waivers relative to the required curbing at the entrances, noting that PennDOT did not want curbs. He further noted that the applicants would need to get reapproved for the E&S plan, HOP, and water and sewer connections for the expansion.

Mike Reinert stated that in addition to Mr. Digian’s comments, the plan was reviewed as a minor land development plan because the SLDO did not have such an option when this plan was reviewed the first time, and given that it was the identical plan there was no reason to review it as a major land development.

A motion to recommend approval of a waiver to Section 22-615.3.C was made by Greg Frederick, seconded by Ray Henderson. All in favor. The motion carried.

A motion to recommend approval of the minor land development plan for Honey Brook Industrial Center/Baxter Properties, conditioned on compliance with any outstanding issues per the Township Engineer’s 1/10/2011 review letter, was made by Gary Walkowski, seconded by Ray Henderson. All in favor. The motion carried.

D. Weston Darby Subdivision – Lot Line Adjustment Sketch Plan Wes Darby stated that he was making two requests to gauge support. One was to adjust the boundaries of Lots 1 and 3 to “straighten the lines and make the subdivision a little cleaner. The Planning Commission supported this request. The second request, if the neighboring farmer agreed, was to eliminate the flag for Lot 2 (merging with Lot 1)

1 and then take the remainder of Lot 2 and merge it with the farmers property. Mr. Reinert stated that the only restriction was to ensure that the farmer’s property was not landlocked. Heath Eddy noted that the merger should be shown on the plan with a “Z” marking indicating the annexation. The Planning Commission supported this request as conditioned by Mr. Reinert and Mr. Eddy. Mr. Darby stated that he would return with a formal application for the subdivision amendments.

Tel Hai Retirement Community – Preliminary Plan Phases 2-5 Alex Piehl of RGS Associates represented the applicants. Also present were Mark Hackenburg of RGS Associates and Lloyd Casey, independent forestry consultant.

Mr. Piehl stated that the preliminary plan proposed phasing was being modified so that Phase 2 would include the full loop road and changed unit phasing so that 12 hybrid apartments would be moved to Phase 4 and 4 duplexes would be added to Phase 2, which would reduce the number of units in Phase 2 by 4. Mr. Piehl stated that this revision would have a minimum change to the stormwater plans or to the site design, and allows for the loop access road to the fully built in Phase 2. Mr. France asked for input from Mr. Reinert. Mr. Reinert stated that this was an improvement since the Planning Commission and staff were interesteding in seeing that the loop road would be finished to improve emergency access. Mr. France stated that the Planning Commission has not seen any copies of the plans as proposed tonight and would not approve them on this basis. He stated that Phase 2 would be able to be approved as per the settlement agreement.

Mark Hackenburg stated that he was not up on the specifics of the master plan as approved in the settlement agreement, but stated that the agreement vested the plan in the regulations as they were at the time, and that he believed the agreement allowed for flexibility on density of each phase as well as time frames for further development, not wanting the development process to be tied up in legal language. Mr. France stated that the Planning Commission would be interesteding in looking at the additional waiver requests. Mr. Hackenburg stated that the Planning Commission could include conditions on the phasing.

Gary Walkowski stated that he had a concern with Phases 3-5 in terms of what was being approved with this preliminary plan. Mr. France stated his concern with the legality of approving Phases 3-5 now as per the settlement agreement allowance for phasing. Mr. Piehl stated that a preliminary plan approval would be an approval for the basic organization of the plan itself, including locations for improvements, but not for actual building on units. Mr. Reinert agreed and noted that the applicant could begin site work in the absence of a final plan but it would be at their own risk, especially given the need to seek additional approvals as per NPDES, DEP sewage, etc.

Mr. Reinert stated that there were 3 review documents issued by Technicon, a formal review letter dated 1/13/2011, a separate stormwater review letter also dated 1/13/2011, and a later memo dated 1/20/2011 clarifying a couple of points to the stormwater review letter. Mr. Reinert stated that the 1/20/2011 memo was to address a couple of points

2 regarding the stormwater design for this project, noting that the ordinance requires a 10/2 post to pre development peak runoff performance standarddesign and that the site itself eventually meets that requirement at the final point of interest, but not at the point of access to the site via the proposed west access drive. The memo clarifies that a modification of the requirement would be needed to address this as to the “letter” of the ordinance.

Mr. France asked if the steepness of the access and location would create stormwater problems, and Mr. Reinert stated that it created no additional impact beyond the controls already proposed on the plan.

A motion to recommend approval for waivers to Sections 22-627.4.A(1), 22-627.4.A(3) (d), 22-627.5.A, and 22-627.7.A(1) as per the recommendations in the Township Engineer’s 1/13/2011 stormwater review letter and 1/20/2011 revised memo was made by Ray Henderson, seconded by Greg Frederick. All in favor. The motion carried.

Mr. France asked Mr. Piehl to go over his input on the Township Engineer’s review letter. Mr. Piehl noted that most of the comments would ultimately be addressed during final plan approvals.

The major issues concerned comments #2 and #3 concerning the forestry plan and timber harvesting plan, which was reviewed by Mr. Eddy. Mr. Eddy stated that the timber harvesting plan met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The concern of the Planning Commission is with the proposal to address the loss of trees and how to replace. Mr. Piehl stated that the applicant’s position was concerning planting of 3,453 – 2 ½“ caliper trees vs. a diversity of size. Lloyd Casey stated that the proposed seedlings would be shade tolerant and would include native shrubs in the understory. Mr. France asked what would be planted, and Mr. Casey stated that as per the Timber Harvesting Plan and the Stewardship Plan, they would be 1-0 seedlings in 4’ tubes.

Mr. Hackenburg stated that the applicants would commit to re-evaluating the progress of the Forestry Stewardship Plan with each successive phase of the final plan. Mr. France stated that he understood the request for the types of replacements but indicated that the Township would want a combination of seedlings, 1 ½“ container trees, and 2 ½“ caliper tree replacements and the applicants should provide a breakdown on the percentages of each. Susan Lacy also stated that in response to the Forestry Stewardship Plan the applicant should specifyic the language regarding monitoring and that a professional forester should be retained for this.

Mr. Piehl noted that per comment #8 on the sewer module, the phase 2 revision would require some modifications to be sent to DEP as part of the review, but again noted that phases 3-5 would not be the responsibility of the Township. The Township Solicitor issued a letter which is in the file concerning this issue and supports the consideration of sewer is the responsibility of Tel Hai in this case, not the Township, as also supported by the settlement agreement.

3 As per comment #19 seeking a partial waiver of the street tree requirement, the applicants have proposed to maintain plant materials for the life of the project as a way to ensure that the landscaping remains in place.

A motion to recommend approval for a waiver to Sections 22-502.B(3) and 22-602.3.A, and a partial waiver for Section 22-629.4 (per street trees) as per the Township Engineer’s 1/13/2011 review letter and per the Township Solicitor’s 10/27/2010 legal review letter, was made by Ray Henderson, seconded by Greg Frederick. All in favor. The motion carried.

Mr. Piehl stated that the applicants would submit the revised plan with the new phasing as presented for the next available Planning Commission meeting.

Zoning Hearing Board/Conditional Use Applications

Jerome Gerald (2297 Horseshoe Pike) – UPDATE Mr. Eddy stated that the Gerald public hearing was conducted with the Zoning Hearing Board on January 10th and it was found during the hearing that Mr. Gerald did not know the ECHO as requested was a temporary use. The ZHB agreed to table the application to allow the applicant to meet with staff and revise his application.

Mr. Eddy stated that he had determined that there were two options available, either subdivide the lot to allow for a second lot on which to place the new residence, or seek a use variance to allow a second single family detached dwelling on a single lot. He noted that the C-Commercial District allows two-family units so this is in effect seeking something similar. He stated that the subdivision option would require a variance to minimum lot area unless the applicant was required to comply with the 15,000 square foot lot minimum, which would perpetuate the odd lot configurations already existing in the area, and would be illogical since the applicant isn’t selling the property and so the subdivision is only on paper. The use variance approach would not require a subdivision but under the strictures of the MPC would qualify as “land development” and so Mr. Gerald would need to request a waiver of land development. Mr. Eddy noted that the issues of stormwater and access could be addressed outside of the land development process, but the access point along Horseshoe Pike is a problem due to the grade drop-off from the roadway, and would required significant work to meet PennDOT standards. The alternative is to try to gain an access easement from a neighbor bordering Cupola Road, since the terrain is almost level and has good sight distance.

Mr. France stated that it was his opinion that the Township should try to support the applicant in searching for a remedy, noting his own history with his father. Mr. Eddy asked if the Planning Commission had a preference as to which option should be supported. Mr. France stated that he felt the Planning Commission could support either but the use variance was probably the preferred option. Other Planning Commissioners voiced support for this opinion. [No formal vote was taken on this application.]

4 Pending Ordinances

Other Business

Donald and Libby Means – Request for Planning Deferral Mr. Eddy stated that this was a request for the Township to defer it’s subdivision review authority to Caernarvon Township-Lancaster County. The applicant is merely adding on a larger lot to the existing subdivision as part of a consolidation, and the larger lot includes a small portion located in Honey Brook Township. The subdivision plan does not include any development on the property and is essentially just a lot line adjustment. Mr. Reinert noted on request that the plan does not impose any sort of problem for the Township and is limited in scope. Mr. France wanted to clarify that the deferral would only apply to this subdivision and not to any type of zoning or other enforcement. Mr. Eddy stated that the response letter could be so worded. The Planning Commission recommended on consensus to forward the request to the Board with support for deferral, as conditioned by Mr. France.

Correspondence of Interest

No correspondence of interest at this time.

Future Meetings

Thursday, February 10th – Planning Commission Workshop (7:00 pm) Thursday, February 17th – Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting (5:30 pm) Thursday, February 24th – Planning Commission Regular Meeting (7:00 pm)

The meeting adjourned at 8:47 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Heath Eddy, AICP Director of Planning and Zoning