HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01192
~)
.....9 [
\:)-1
.1
~I
I
,
located at 405 Sterling Road. 460 Industrial Park Road and 470 Terminal Road. Hampden
Township, was given final. conditional approval by the Commissioners.
3. The site of the Hugo facility is located in close proximity to WMPA facilities in
Hampden Township and the property owned by WMPA in Hampden Township.
4. As the 1.lOdowners of the property in close proximity to the sile operated by Hugo
proposed to be expanded by the Land Development Plan the subject of this appeal, WMPA
has standing to raise lhis appeal.
5. The final, conditional approval granted on February 29, 1996. by the
Commissioners on the Hugo Land Development Plan was unlawful. in that the plan does not
comply Wilh lhe ordinances of Hampden Township. as follows:
a. as subject to the Hampden Township Zoning Ordinance (No. 84-02), as
revised December I, 1994. the Land Development Plan of Hugo is deficient and not in
compliance therewith, as follows:
i. Section 1405: Buildinll Heillht Limit: The maximum building
height is stated as being 35 feet. Nowhere on the Plan is the building height lis!ed.
However, there is a condition provided "that the height limit may be increased one fOOl for
each additional foot the width of each yard exceeds the minimum required". The Plan does
not make clear how this height Iimil restriction is dealt with and there is no informatior. as to
whelher the height limit is exceeded. Without this clarification the Plan should not have been
approved.
ii. Section 1408: Yard Rellulatinns: The side yard depth is 25 feet
from each side of the property line, "except when the property line is a railroad spur used 10
)9)51 I lill9t,
-2-
service the buildinvfsl on the prvpaty whert no minilllulII yard dtpth is required. '. (~mphasis
supplied). The proposed warehouse addition is ltx;ated less thun 10 feet frolll the property
boundary with a railroad spur paralleling the eastern property lxlundary. How~ver, the Plan
dOlls not show the cOl1J1l:ction to the main Pennsylvania railroad hne. There also is no
indication on the Plan as to whether this spur is active, usable or abandolllld. If the spur is
active, there is no indication on the Plan as to whether it will extend into the IlIlW section of
warehouse. If the spur is inactive and does not extend into the IlIlW warehouse, and will not
in fact be used, or if the spur is usable but will not be used, the proposed addition is
unlawful, as it should not be permitted. ullller the ordinance, to cross the setback line.
Nothing on the Plan resolves this issue and the issue was not addressed by the
Commissioners. Without resolution of the rail spur issues, the Plan should not have been
approved.
b. as subject to the Hampden Township Land Development Ordinance (No.
95-01), dated March I, 1995, the Land Development Plan of Hugo is delicient and not in
compliance therewith. as follows:
i. Section 506.6A: Slope of Delention Basin Emhankment: At the
emergency spillway the embankment slope is greater lhan the maximum slope of J horizontal
to I vertical. According to the ordinance" if side slopes exceed 3.1. than a sLt (6) foot high
fence shull be installed along the perimeter of the bU.!iin". No such fence is shown on the
fWl, and it was improper and unlawful to approve the Plan without this fence being
included.
J'I"lH.ll/l,'Jh
-3-
ii. So:ctiun 506.6C: 5101)0: of Ba~in Bottom: The bottom slupe of
tho: second basin (tho: basin which is located to the south of tho: pond/tirst basin and to tho:
west of the proposed 110,588 squaro: foot waro:huuso: drains into) is less than 2%, while a
minimum grado: of 2 % is required tu ensure proper drainage of the basin. The contours of
this basin should be modified so that sheet flow can be maintairn:d. and it was improper and
unlawful to approve the Plan without this modification.
iii. Section 506.8D: Emeriency Spillways: The elevation for the top of
the emergency spillway (383.5 feet) does not provide the required two (2) foot minimum of
freeboard below the adjacent elo:vation of Sterling Street (385 feet). This lack of freeboard
could cause floodinll of Sterling Street during heavy rainfalls. The plan should not have been
approved without Hugo's resolving this problem.
6. The Land Development Plan of Hugo is otherwise deticient and not in compliance
with law, and was unlawfully approved, based on the following deficiencies in the Plan:
a. Stormwater: All of the site runoff from the new addition in Area 1 will be
discharged into an existing pond/basin located to the west of the proposed addition. When
the water level in the pond exceeds an elevation of 383.5 feet, water is directed into a 12'
level perforated pipe. This pipe then discharges into a second exisling basin which
subsequently discharges into a wetlands area located at the southern corner of the property.
This condition raises the following issues which were not resolved by the Commissioner's
approval of the Plan, but which. nevertheless and as a matter of law. should have been
resolved:
lIJJUI.lI!,%
-4-
i. Will any hydrocarbon impacted runoff from the truck parking
area impact the wetlands which the runoff from the parking area discharges into? There
should be some concern of the environmental impact to the wetlands since there is a
possibility of hydrocarbon impacted runoff to be discharged into the wetlands. The
Commissioner's failure to resolve this issue at the time of approval makes the approval
unlawful.
ii. In all of the correspondence between Hugo's consultants (Land
Survey Consultants, Inc. [Land Survey)) and Hampden Township, which correspondence
should be a part of the Record in this Appeal, Land Survey states that lhe increased runoff
from Area 2, caused by a proposed warehouse addition, will be "attenuated to below the
predeveloped level by existing culverts on site". If lhese culverts are not going to be
modified, how are they expected to attenuate the additional now'? The lack of an answer to
this question in approving the Plan makes the approval unlawful.
b. Erosion Control: One of the sediment traps (temporary sediment
trap B) is also used as a drainage basin for Area 1. By using this basin as both a sediment
trap and a drainage basin this could cause a nooding problem is a heavy rainfall should occur
during the construction of the warehouse. Another temporary sediment trap constructed in
close proximity to lhe drainage basin would solve this problem. The Commissioner's
approval should have, but did not, request this additional temporary sediment trap.
c. The Cumberland County Conservation Districts (CCCD) comments on
the plan have merit and they were not addressed in the Plan approval. Hugo needs the
]~lUt 3111'H1
-5-
approval of CCCD prior to Hampden Township approving the plan and tu WMPA
knowledge, the CCCD had not approved the plan priur to such approval.
d. Hugo's traflic study has not been but should be thoroughly evaluated. This
is particularly at issue depending on the resolution of the rail spur matter noted in paragraph
5(a)(ii) above, as its use may result in additional truck and lrailer traffic to move goods
received at the site by rail, if in fact Hugo inlends to receive goods at the new facility by
rail. If that is Hugo's intent, the traffic sludy submitted fails to address in any way the impact
such rail service will have on the ultimate: truck traffic to be experienced as a result of the
need to move, by truck, the goods received at the facility by rail. In the absence of this issue
being addressed, the Plan should I\ot have been approved.
e. The concrete loading dock pad shown on C-l is to be detailed on Co].
No detail is shown for a concrete loading dock pad on Co]. The absence of this detail should
not have been permitted.
f. The Paving Details on C-] are not labeled as to which is "Heavy Duty"
and which is "Light Duty". The absence of this labeling should not have been permitted.
g. The Sediment Trap - Riser Spillway cross section is not complete, there
is a reference to a Riser detail which is not shown on the drawing and the detail of the water
llow under the embankment, if any, is unclear and is marked only by dashed lines. The lack
of clarity on the drawings with respect to this matter should not have been permitted.
JlJl5J.1 111/11ft
-6-
7. Undcr section 104(2)(8) of the Hampdcn Township Sulxlivision and Land
Dc:velopment Ordinancc (Ordinance No. 83-1, as amcndcd), dcvelopmcnts arc subject to the
zoning regulations as thcy apply to uSc.
8. Under section 502(4) of lhe Hampden Township Sulxlivision and Land
Development Ordinance, proposed land uses shall conform to the Township Zoning
Ordinance.
9. The approval granted at the F~bruary 29, 1996, Agenda Meeting, for the Hugo
Plan violates the Township's Sulxlivision and Land Development Ordinance in that it does not
comply with the Township Zoning Ordinance.
10. The proposed expansion embodied in the Hugo Plan will have an adverse impact
on traftic and traffic safety in an already overly congested area replete with existing
unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous traffic condilions. The approval without limiting or
adequately planning for traffic impacts violates the Sulxlivision and LaOld Development
Ordinance at section 502 and 503, and the Zoning Ordinance at section 1403.
II. The stormwater issues raised in paragraph 6(a) above are in violation of section
506 of the Township Sulxlivision and Land Development Ordinance.
12. The Plan was approved in violation of lhe Pennsylvania Stormwater Management
Act, 32 P.S. fi 680.1, et seq. in that it will increase runoff in violation of 32 P.S. fi 680.13.
13. The approval of the Plan violales Article I, ~27 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. in that the Hugo facility, on expansion, will harm or threaten public or natural
resources, will cause adverse impacts on public safety and will have adverse impacts on
traftic and traffic safety. These adverse impacts have not been minimized as required by law
Jq.\u Ilil.%
-7-
Wdste Mdndgem.nt of P.nnsylvdni~, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Inc.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
BOdrd of Commission.rs of
Hdmpden Township
NO. 96-ll92 CIVIL
19
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
5S,
COUNTY
OF
CUMBERLAND)
TO: BOdrd of Commissioners of Hdmpden Township:
We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action
bet~~en Wdste Mdndgement of pennsylvdnid, Inc. vs BOdrd of
Commissioners of Hdmpden Township
pending before you, do command you that the record of the action aforesaid with
all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges of
our Court of Common Pleas at C~rlisle, within
(20)
days of the date hereof,
together with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought
to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth.
WITNESS. the H=orilb.le
H.u::o.lll ..,'Sh".ly.
P.J.
H
.-
o .
.;: g
1!,~
. 0
~ /~ I ~ L
.Jl ..~..J ,11 ~
:z Q,.!1 ~ '- .
'" .:t:i~;i
(J E~u
RJ Gl ~;ll
CI a: t) "".~
: *I;!
~Ii
--
. ~
a '"
'"
; 0
.... ... ...
...
.... .~ '"
0 ; ~ '"
I
1il i '"
I
~ . ....
. . . ..
',.~ . al
ii ...
...
l , ~
, I.
;
.
---.-
_ day of
Mdrch
.19~.
ENCE E.
WELKER, PlUIHQIIOl'AR'{
J
t"
L66~ ,'(Jllr 'OOSE \.I.JlI! I";,!
..,..A
,
P 2&2 346 '11.6
...... Receipt 10'-
X' '~~~~~J~~l~~~ ~~;ill'llld Pf'l~lth~.
- .
_.'t::..~;:. l 1 !lot w;~ IlIf lnloHlhJlmndl Md.
!~'tH! Rl!\lllf'..:!
--'-- --.-..----------.--,-.
,!~en Twp Bel of Caml.
"."1'"
.u.',,-,, ',- ,,,...'H'
11"01>,,1+..1 ""....,1,....
.
.'
'"
'"
i.".,,,. ;'1"'''1'\ ,."..f"J
/,'...",'\,.,.1>.;....,..1.]
~, ,
.
c
,
.,
..',n ,..., "I "-"""j" ....
;,,'" "', I ,; j.~. " -,'", , ,l.", ~h' .',
,I ~
I'" .,.
. ..
~.' ~"(:'f"
,1,_,_
$
f
o ..",
c
co
..,
E
<;
~
.n
"
""'-.,"
'I"
t."
;
Mi:tiled: 3-5-96
c.
...
K' .~.
"
". ..,.
..
'. .
U.i -.
("f.
I "
, ,
C-J'
I'
(
I
L ,
'..,
,
d
,.
Ill;
~
...- . .~'-.
. . ~-
;;";::--::.#-
..
, .
.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, INC.,
Appellant,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP,
Appellee.
EASTERN CONSOLIDATION AND
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.
and HUGO SERVICES, INC.,
Intervenors
NO. 96-1192
.
.
LAND USE APPEAL
RETURN OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(RECORD FROM TOWNSHIP OF HAMPDENl
AND NOW, comes BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
("Board") by and through its Secretary in response to Writ of
Certiorari dated March 5, 1996, a copy of which is attached
hereto, and submits the fOllowing as the record of the
proceedings under appeal:
1. Original submission by Land survey Consultants, Inc.
("LSC"), received October 26, 1995, consisting of:
a. Letter of Transmittal dated October 25, 1995.
b. Drawing SK-l: "Proposed Office Addition
Foundation Plan".
2. copy of letter from Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation dated December 8, 1983, received November 16, 1995.
J. Copy of Fax Transmittal Cover Sheet from TownShip'S
Engineering Department to LSC dated November 22, 1995.
4. Letter of Transmittal from LSC dated and received November
22, 1995, with the following documents:
,
a. Application for Subdivision or Land
Development Approval.
b. Drawings: C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, P-1, P-2,
P-3.
c. Stormwater Report dated November 22, 1995.
5. Project Information Sheet.
6. Copy of Letter of Transmittal to Cumberland County
Planning Commission dated November 27, 1995.
7. Copy of letter from LSC to Cumberland county Board of
Commissioners dated November 27, 1995, received November 29,
1995.
8. Copy of Board'S Engineer'S Comments to Township Planning
Commission dated December 8, 1995.
9. Copy of Fax Transmittal Cover Sheet from TownShip's
Engineering Department to LSC dated December 11, 1995.
10. Copy of Tax Transmission from Township's Engineering
Department to LSC dated December 13, 1995.
11. Letter (via fax) from Hugo's Services, Inc. to Town.hip
Planning Commission dated December 14, 1995.
12. copy of Township Engineer'S Memorandum to Township
Planning Commission dated December 14, 1995.
13. Letter from LSC to Township Planning Commission dated
December 14, 1995.
14. Copy of Township Planning commission minutes of meeting
held December 14, 1995.
15. copy of letter from Cumberland County Conservation
-2-
.
District to Hugo's Services, Inc. dated December 14, 1995.
16. Copy of letter from Township Engineer to LSC dated
December 15, 1995.
11. File Memorandum by Township Engineer dated December 22,
1995.
18. Letter from LSC to Township Engineer dated December 21,
1995 with revised Stormwater Report received December 22, 1995.
19. Cumberland County (Planning Commission) SUbdivision/Land
Development Revi.w Report received December 26, 1995.
20. Traffic Analysis by AceI' Engineers' Consultants, Inc.
received December 21, 1995.
21. Copy of Board minutes of meeting held December 28, 1995.
22. copy of letter from Cumberland County Conservation
District to LSC dated December 26, 1995, received December 29,
1995.
23. Memorandum from Grove Miller Engineering, Ino. to
Township Engineer dated January 9, 1996.
24. Copy of TownShip Planning commission minutes of meeting
held January 11, 1996.
25. Copy of letter from Township Engineer to LSC dated
January 16, 1996.
26. Fax letter from Hugo's Services to Township Engineer
dated January 29, 1996,
21. Fax transmittal (5 pages) from LSC to Township Engineer
dated January 31, 1996.
28. Copy of Board minutes of meeting held January 31, 1996.
-3-
)., \
LAND SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INe,
156 North George 5treet
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA 17401
(717) 145-6409
'AX: (717) 852-0916
OJELr1TltOO @[F' 1T[Rl6.\~~~01r1J'6.\[!"
0"''' ~
. ~ ?
, ' ...
Atu;;rIO"-
i ,-)
JO. NO
ILL. d",..)
l'Ai ')\......',<'
. )y)_ ~ l~' ll..:
..
TO
.,>-~\P\t...\,..
,,,,.4'~') I !('
1',' ('
r .'-_.... (,--. >, I" '<-..
WE ARE SENDING YOU G Attached 0 Undl' IIp.rltl COVI' vii' I Ii.' ,) ,), , ". ':, ,
>
o Shop drawln.s 0 Prints 0 Pllns o S.mplls
o Copy 01 leltl' 0 Ch"n," Ordl' 0
CO..U CATI NO, DESCRIPTION
-H"T".... '.\_.IJ'-J
th. lollowln, Itlms:
o Spoclflc.lIons
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED II checked bolow:
>
o Fa, appro..'
o For you, UII
o As roqUIsted
o Fa, rlvlow and com mint
o APProved .. submitted
o Approved as noted
o Rlturned lor corrections
o
o RIsubmlt_coplls lor applOVll
o Submit_copies lor distribution
o Return_corroded prints
o FOR BIDS DUE
19
o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
11~Mt'UL:N IU\VNSHII'
pr:."C:1\lr:::n
iJcH'6:tQqlj
ENGlNEfRING-BEPl.
,~~ ~.
.. .~"
l" i .1
.
\, 11\f'~
-to,r
:1~l~I:\:'c.i"lI.. _
COPY TO
,. S ~
.;.; _~c.-<'I""''''''''''''''''eo-< IGNED: \, ,,;\..
'-,,. ,;,,~"J. ~"I'1I1 If.......,...... not.. noted. .1,",,1"'U'>>' UI.' one..
\\,'~, "-_~(_l,,)
,
-
.
ABSTRACT
This Stormwater Report presents the hydrologic parameters and results for stormwater management and
storm drain design associated with proposed building addilions at lhe Eastem Consolidation and
Distribulion Services, Inc. site located at Indwurial Road and Sterling Street in Hampden Township,
Cumberland Counl)', Pennsylvania.
These analyses are performed in accordance with the Hampden Township Land Development Ordinance.
No. 95-01 March I, 1995. The Rational method was ulilized for this 15.9 acre site as complied by
Hydrosoft in the Stormwater Manager Software, Version 2.2.
CONCLUSION
The increase in post developed peak runoff rates is isolaled to Ihree subareas associated with the site.
The increase in Subarea 1 is attenuated by a proposed basin. Increase in Subareas 2 and 3 are negligible
and are attenuated by conveyance through a series of exisling sile culverts. Post developed increases in
peak runoff rates will have no significant effect on downslream properties.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PREDEVELOPED
The sile which is affected by the proposed improvements is isolated to Subareas I, 2 and 3 as depicted
on the Predeveloped Drainage Area Map. Predeveloped sile hydrologic parameters and peak runoff rates
are presented in Table 1. Documentation which supports lhese findings are included as Appendix A.
PEAK RUNOFF
SUBAREA AREA RUNOFF TC
(AC) COEFFICIENT (l\UN) 2 YR 5 YR 10 YR 25 YR looYR
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS)
I 6.15 0.66 5.0 17.0 19.9 21.9 24.3 29.7
2 3.22 0.62 5.0 8.4 9.8 10.8 12.0 14.6
3 2.29 0.47 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.8 6.5 7.9
TABLE I - PREDEVELOPED SITE
POST DEVELOPED
The proposed work entails conslruclion of a 110,384 square foot building addition with new parking and
truck maneuvering areas within Subarea 1. The resulting increase in peak runoff is attenuated in a
proposed basin located adjacent 10 the Sterling Slreet righl of way. as depicled on the Post Developed
Drainage Area Map. Proposed work wilhin Subarea 2 includes a 13,000 square foot warehouse addition
with proposed parking lot improvements. A 1.743 square foot office addition is proposed wilhin Subarea
3. Increases in peak mnoff rates from Subareas 2 and 3 are attenuated by the slage/storage effects of a
series of culverts localed on site. Demonstration of these effects are presented for Subarea 2.
POSI developed site hydrologic paramelers and peak runoff rates are presented in Table 2. Documentation
FilE: I~"H, WRIPKF-GCKBI.a
.
-
which supports these findings is included as Appendix B.
PEAK RUNOFF
SUBAREA AREA RUNOFF TC
(AC) COEFfiCIENT (i\nN) 2 YR 5 YR IOYR 25YR lOOYR
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS)
I 6.15 0.73 5.0 18.8 22.0 24.3 26.9 32.9
.1 6.15 0.73 5.0 15.7 18.4 20.6 22.3 25.3
2 3.22 0.70 5.0 9.4 11.0 12.2 13.5 16.5
.2 3.22 0.70 5.0 6.8 8.0 9.4 10.5 13.0
3 2.30 0.50 5.0 4.8 5.6 6.2 6.9 8.4
TABLE 2 - POST DEVELOPED SITE
STORM DRAL"'i
The storm drain is designed utilizing the Ralional method to compute estimated runoff rales from the
proposed site for a 25 year return period. This system with the conlributing drainage areas are depicted
on the Storm Drain Drainage Area Map. The estimated runoff rates and system hydraulics are presented
in Appendix C.
FILE. I~AH'NIU PKfCCKW
:"
.
APPENDIX A
PREDEVELOPED
FILE:I~AlI.WIUPKF.GCJ(B1.6
.
IIIIIFIED RATllIA. IEllOI HYDURIJIlI PElI( IlESl1.TS
FOR JIll 186-4<<1 -lUO'S SERVICES, IHe
aJIIUTED lit 11-17-1"5 AT ell38l34 Pll
PEAK AIIlA&IIIIT I NID
STORIl FlIEUlI:lESI 2 5 Ie 25 I" 'ttAIlS
FIUISI CREATEDI
SlMlAV OF BASIC HVD~ PllIlAIElERS
INITUI. DATE OF STOMIS II-I4-m5 AT ... II NIItJTES TIlE OF ClKENTRATllIf, NlttJTESI tell. II
INTENlllrJ TAIlU FlU I PElf..... TBl. WEIGHTED 'C' FACTDAI e.w
IDENTIFIED ASI PAEDEYELJIIEIl SU8AIlEA I DRAINAGE AREA, ACRES I 6.15
Pm< RESl1. TS I
INlTIlI. HYD~ TIlE AVEIlAIiE RAlhfll.L RAItf'lI.L RAlhfll.L IlEARIW&D IUI
STORIl STORN IlUIlATllIf INTENSITY AIO.NT lHeAEllENTS lHeAElENTS INTEHSITIES FUJI
'IEAIl DATE NIItJTES INIHR lroES INCHES INIHIl INIHR CF9
2 'IEAIl 'I-IH"5 1115.11 2.1' 11.&7 ..,. 1.62 .. " IMI'
5 YEAR II-1H'95 1115.11 3.21 '.88 "16 1.'17 U, 19.851
1. 'tEAR 11-1'-1"5 ..15.11 3.1' '.'3 '.21 2.38 5.U 21.'"
25 YEAR II-1H995 "'5.11 .... ..82 '.22 2." 5." 2..328
'II 'tEAR II-IH'95 "15.11 5." 1.25 '.27 3.25 7.32 2').72.
'""
.
1lAT1tJR. 101II - WEIGHTED 'c' VlLI.(S
FDA JIll I......, -d'S SERVICEs, IHC
CII.CWlTED lit 11-21-1'95 AT "I~I" AN
IDENTIFIED ASI JlREDE1IE1IIIED - !IJ8AAEA 2
IIEfEIlEHCE
IUIIER
II
I!
eJ
COVER DESCRIPTllIf
(T'1llE. TAEATIENT. & aHllTIlJO
11IUI11UI
STH AIlEAll
lJlEN !IIIACE
'C' AREA PIlOOOCT
VIlI.( ACRES 'C' M A
..,. 1.66 I..'.
'.45 '.55 '.2.a
1.25 1.11 '.252
TOTIl AREAl 3.22 I.m
AVERAGE WEIGHTED 'c' 11.". I 3.2211 1.619
.
IIlDIFrED IlATllNl. IEOOII HVDfGRIV.tt IUI AESl1.TS
FDA JOBI 186-4<<1 - d'S SERVICES, IHC
ClJfUTED lit 11-21-1995 AT "15'1. AN
P(JI( AIIlA&IIIITI NID
STOret FAEUM:IESI 2 5 II 25 .11 YEARS
FlU (S) ClEATED I
QMlRV OF BASIC HVD~ PAllAIETERS
INlTIlI. DATE OF STORIl IS II-IH"5 AT ..... II MJItJTES TIlE OF ClKENTRATllIf, NINJTESI -...
INTENSITV TA8I.E FIUI PENH 181. WEllilTED 'C' FACTOR I I. &28
IDENTIFIED ASI PAEIlEYELJIIEIl - _IlEA 2 DIlAINAllE AREA, ACRES I 3.22
P(JI(IlI'!lIITSI
INlTIlI. HYDIllJjRMI filE AVERA6E RAlhfll.L RAINFlI.L RAItf'1I.l. IlEARIMiED PEAK
IlTORII STORIl OURAT ION INTENSITY AIWfT IHCRElIENT~ IHCRElIENTS INTENSITIES FL()l
YEAR DATE MINJTES INIHR lroES IPIlES INIHR IN/HR CFS
2 'tEAR 11-1+-1"5 "15. .. 2.n 1.61 1.1. 1.62 ..1' 8. 366
5 'tEAR 11-1+-1995 ..15... J.2i 1.88 1.16 1.'7 ..89 '.7'.
II 'tEAR 11-1+-1995 ".5. .. 3.11 1.'3 ..21 2.38 5..1 I" 7'3
25 'tEAR 11-1+-1995 11.5.11 ..11 1.82 1.22 2.6. 5.99 11.%'
I" YEAII 11-1+-1995 "15.11 5... 1.25 1.27 3.25 7.32 IUza
IIIIIFIED IIATllIfIl IElltIII HVODIIAPH PEAIl RESIJ.. TS
FDA 81 I......, -Il8l'S SERVICES, IHC
ClJIIUTED lIf 11-21-lm AT 1..151~ All
U ARRllN6ElIEIlT: MID
STOIlII FREIlP:IESI 2 5 I' 25 I" YEAIlS
FJUISI CIlEA'''ED, PIlE311.HVO
S1MlAV OF BASIC HYOROORAPH PAAAIlET';RS
INlTIlI. DATE OF STORIlIS 11-1+-1995 AT ...... NlltJTES TIlE OF CONCENTRATllIf, NlItJTES. ...
INTENSITY TAllU FlU I PEIfI-.. TBL WEIGHTED 'C' FACTOR 1 1.47'
IDENTIFIED AllI PAEDEVEJ.CIIEJl - SlJ8AAEA 3 DRiUNAllE AJIEll, ACRESI 2.31
IUI !lEnTS,
INlTIlI. HVORIURt TIlE A'lEIlAIiE RAItf'1I.l. RAlhfll.l. RAlhfll.l. AEARAl*6ED PEiII
STORIl STORM DURATION INTENSITY AIO.flT IHCRElENTS IHCAElENTS INTENSITIES F"UJI
'IElIII DATE NIItJTES INIHR lroES lroES !NIHIl (NIHR CFS
2 YEAR II-IH995 "15.11 2.1' ...1 '.1. 1.62 ..1' U1i
5 'tEAR 11-1+-1'95 .15. .. 3.21 UI '.16 1.'7 ..89 5.281
I' YEAR I H H'95 "15.11 3.71 1.'3 '.at 2.38 5.U 5.M.
25VEAR 11-1+-1'95 "15." ..1' 1.1I2 '.22 2.&. 5.99 6.U'
III VEAl IHH995 ..15.11 5.11 1.25 '.27 3.25 1.32 1.916
IlATllIfIllEOOll - WEIGHTED 'c' VlLI.(S
fOI ., 1......, - Il8l'S DICEs, IHC
CllCI1ATED lit 11-I7-I~ AT 11I2'h" Pll
IDENTIFIED ASI POST DEVEUHD UArEA I
IlEfUEIG
....
II
eJ
COVER DESCRIPTIlIt
eMIt. TllAllDT. I Cl1I1111(1f)
IIIIEJIIIIIIB
lJlEN SPACE
'c' AIlEA PlIlOl.tI
VlI.I.( ACE 'C' M A
.." ..55 ...,5
1.2S 1.6' ....
TOTlI. AllERI 6.15 ...'5
AVEIlAIiE WEIGHTED I C' I.. .'5 I 6. 15) I 1.731
IIlDIFIED RATlIJA. IE1KIll HYDlllJjml IUI REnTS
FDA JOII 186-4<<1 - d'S SERVICES, IHC
CJIIIUTEIl ON 11-11-1995 AT 11131151 Pll
PEAIl AAIlfMElEHTI NID
STORN FREOI.lHCIESI 2 5 II 25 I" YEARS
FIU(S) CREATED. PREU.HYD
SlMlRY OF BASIC HVDROORAPH PARANETERS
INITlIl DATE OF STORIIIS 11-1+-1995 ~; ...... NlttJTES TIlE OF CONCENTRATION, MINJTESI ...
INTENSITY TA8I.E FILE. PEIfI-.. TBI. WEIGHTED 'C' FACTDAI .. 738
IDENTIFIED AllI POST DEYELlJlED SUBllREA I DRAIHA6E AREA, ACRES. 6. 15
PElI( RESll. TS I
INITlIl HYDIllJjRlilH TIlE AVERAGE RAlhfll.l. RAlhfll.l. IlAlhfll.l. 1lEARRAf&D IUI
SlOAN STORN DURATllJl INTENSITY IMlNT IHCRElENTS INCRElENTS INTENSITIES now
YEAR DATE NIt<<JTES INIHR IroES lroES INIHR INIHR CFS
2 YEAR II-IH995 "15.. 2.11 8.67 1.1. 1.62 .. " 18.m
, YEAR 11-1401995 11I1'.. 3.21 1.88 8.16 1.91 ..8' 21.'56
18 YEAR 11-1401"5 .15.. 3.71 1.'3 1.21 2.38 Ml 2..271
25M II-IH995 11I15.. ..11 1.12 1.22 2.6. 5.99 2&. 'lI8
I" YEAR II-IH"5 "15. .. 5." 1.25 1.27 3.25 7.32 .32.876
,j
IAllIN EllVATllIt YS. llTlIIlAllE "'TAU
FOR JIll 186-4<<1 - Il8l'S SERVICES, IHC
ClJIlUTED ON 11-21-1"5 AT 11,22,34 AN
IDENTIFIED ASI PIUlOSED BAllIN
FlU ClEATED I BASIN. ES
EllVATlON AllEll AVEIlAIiE AllEll EllVATlON IIC:RElIENTlI. TOTlI. STDAAllE Wl.1JE
FTA8lIVEII5I. FTI FY' DlmAEHCE SlOIlAliE Wl.lJE CUBIC FEET ACRE FEET
382.58 I I ..-
875 1.58 .38
383.11 1751 ~ ...111.
JJ75 1.11 JJ75
~.II .. 3813 8.38752
6625 1.11 6625
-. ll258 1&438 UJ%I
IIm.!T or- QJRIIE - PA6E I OF 2
FOIl JlIII 186-4<<1 - d'S SERVICES, IHC NINIIUl EUVATlON RATED, FEET AIO'IE IlSlI 382.5.
aJIIUTED 1Jlll-l1-lm AT .1151138 PIl 1Il111Ul EUVATlON RATED, FEET AIOVE IlSlI ~..
IUIER OF IIATIMl POINTS, 26 IHCIlVENTIl EUVATlON STEP, FEET. '.1'
IDENTIFIED AS, PM& IAllIN IIm.!T FlU ClEATED. WT.ED
BASIN RISER 801 TAIL IIWlTER PRUWIY SECONDARV TOTIl PRIIWIV
IIWlTER EUVATlIJl IIWlTER EUVATlON IIWlTER EUVATIIlj D 1SClWl6E DI5CmRGE DlSOflRti 01SCIW6E
FT ABOVE IlSl FT AIOVE IlSl FT ABOVE IS. CFS CFS CF9 coon
382. 51 .... H1A ..... ..... ..... H1A
382.&1 UI NIA '.834 ..... ...34 H1A
382.1' UI NIA '.128 ..... '.128 N/A
382.. ... MIA '.277 ..... ..an H1A
382." .... NIA II.H8 ..... ...18 M/A
383.. I.. NIA 1.738 II.... 11.138 MIA
383.1. ... NIA 1.8.32 ..... 1.1.32 N/A
383.21 ... N/A 1.182 ..... 1.a82 NIA
383.Ja ... NIA 1.118 ..... 1.118 NIA
383... .... NIA 1.152 '.1IIt 1.152 N/A
383.51 .... NIA 1.186 '.M 1.186 NIA
383.61 ... N/A 1,2~. 1.128 2.'18 M/A
383.71 ..11\1 NIA 1.311 ..,4\1 &.251 NIA
383.. .... N/A 1.36' '.113 I'.~ N/A
383. ,. ... H1A I.~ 1..213 15.m N/A
3M.. 11... NIA 1..1' 21.158 21.&31 NIA
3M.I' .... NIA \.531 26.m 28.388 H1A
3M. 21 .... H1A 1.581 34.093 35.m N/A
JM.JiI .... NIA 1.&2'1 ~.a8J .3.112 NIA
3M." .... NIA I.m 5'.121 52.~ NIA
3M. 51 .... NIA 1.123 6...12 61.m N/A
3M." ... H1A 1.167 6M21 71.694 NIA
3M. 71 .... NIA 1.811 81.4.. 82.275 MIA
3M. 88 .... NIA I.~ ~1.618 '3.m MIA
3M. 'II .... NIA 1.8'5 183.383 185.219 N/A
315.. .... NIA 1.'36 115.158 111.694 MIA
IABIN IIIllTIIl8 PEJI( 1If'1II TS
fOR 81 I......, -lUiQIS SERVICES, IHC
~ lit H-ll-I~ AT '1:5111. Pll
10EIIT1F1ED ASI IAllIN SUllAIlEA I
BASIN IhfI.L'Ij HVO~ DATA FIUI PllSTXX.HYD IIlDIFIED AATllMl.
8RSIN EUVATlON VS. STO/lA6E *lTRIl DATA FIUI BASIN.ES IWUl ENTRV
BASIN llITUT STUTUIlE DATA FlU, WT.ED ClI.CllATED
STOIII FIllUNCIES, 2 S II 25 I" 'ttAIlS
BASIN INVERT EU'lATlONI 382. 58 FT ABOVE IISl
IASIN TOP ,;, IEJIl EU'lATlONI 385." FT ABOVE IISl
FIUISI ClEATED I
INlTlll. Pal EUVATlONI 382.58 FT ABOVE IlSl.
ROOTlNll TINE lNTERVll1 6." RINS
IUI _I TSI
STOIlII U DATE IUI TIlE IUI EUVATllIt M STOIlA6E M 1lJTFl()l
FIIRJIN"I NlltJTES FT AIlO'IE IISl AC!lE FEET CFS
2 VEAl 11-1+-1'95 NI8.. 38J.W "'1'1' 15. 717
5 YEAR 11-1+-1995 NI8.. 38J. ,. 1.1832. 18.357
1. VEAIl 11-1+-1~ ..18. .. 38J. '8 ...8621 28.622
25 VEAIl 11-IH'95 "1ft.. 38MI 1..'lI1 22.291
I" YEAR 11-1+-1995 asI8.. lM.1I5 1.f'l598 25.31.
IIATllIfIl IIEllIlD - WEI9ITEII 'CO 1HII1Ig
'01 JIll 186.. - d'S SEJIIIICEs, IHC
CllCI1ATED lit 11-21-1"5 AT ",5&I~ AN
IllEIITlFlEll AS, PeST DEYELJIIEIl . SUIAIIA 2
rtErofla
....
II
eJ
CQV(R DEDIPTION
l'NP€. TIlEATIDT. & CONDITIONJ
IIlIlUVllUI
lJlEN SPACE
'C' AREA PQ!OCT
Wlt.l ACAES lei . A
.." 2.25 2.125
lies 1.97 1.243
TOTlI. AREA, 3.22 2.2&1
AVEIlAIiE WEIGHTED 'C' 12.267 I 3.2l!lr .. m
.
IfJDIFIED IlATlINl. IElltIII HYDRlXiRMI Q lIEn TS
FOR Jll81 186-4<<1 -IUjll'S SERVICES, INC
CIMlUTED ON 11-21-1995 AT 11118126 AN
PEiII AIIlA&IIIIT I RIO
STORIl FIlEIllEI<<:IESI 2 5 II 25 I" YEARS
FIUlSI CIlEATEDI PlI2U.HYD
StIIIlRY OF BIlSIC HVDROGIlMl PIlRAlETERS
INlTIlI. DATE OF STOIII IS 11-1...995 AT ...ue MIItJTES TIlE OF ClKENTRATlON, RlttJTESl aee5."
INTENSITY TABlE FILE, PEIfI-.. T8I. WEIGHED 'C' FACTOR I ~.1"
IDENTIFIED AS: POST DEVElCHD - SUBAIlEA 2 ORAIIWiE AREA, ACIlES. 3.22
PEAK 11I:1;11 TSI
INlTIlI. HVO~ TIlE AVERA6E IlAlhfll.l. RAlhfAlL RAINFII.l. 1lEARRAN6ED Pm<
STORIl STORIl OURATllJj INTENSITY AIOIlT IHCRElIENTS IHCREllENTS INTENSITIES FL()l
VEAl DATE MlttJTES INIHR IHCHES lroES INIHR INIHR CFS
2 YEAR 11-1.-1995 1llll5.... 2.1. 1.67 1.1. 1.62 ..1' '."6
5 YEAR 11-14-1995 0815.11 3.21 e.a0 0.16 1.'7 U, 11.1323
II YEAR I1-1H995 "15. .. 3. 11 1.'3 1.21 2.38 5.U 12.186
25 YEAR II-1H995 0115." ..10 1.12 1.22 2.6. 5." 13.511
I. 'tEAR 11-"-1995 1115. II 5.... 1.25 1.21 3.25 7.32 16.5116
IAIUN EUVATllIt vs. ST1lflAllE IIlTm
FDA J081 1.-4<<1 - d'S SEJIIIICES, II(
ClIRITED lit 11-21-1m AT 11,34:11 All
IIlENTIFIED ASI URREA 2 - mSTIHll STORAliE
FlU CllEATEDI 1AS1N2.ES
EUWlTllll AREA A'iERAliE AIlEA ELEVATION IHCRElEHTlI. TOTAl. STORAliE IJO.I.tIE
FTAIll'IEIS. FTl FTl DIFFERENCE STOIlAliE va.lJE CUBIC FEET lI:RE FEET
382.. III I .. ....
1111 1.11 1111
383.11 2128 1111 1.1!5oIa
.1 1." "I
~.II .. ml .. fi573
~'I 1." ~I
385.11 51M 8161 .. 21111
5M3 I.. 5M5
386.11 6511 I~ .. JJ:l28
7255 I." 1255
387." 8IllIJ 21861 '.~184
t\
Ii
EHR~f~l 9~~t: 1~;~!;ll'5
1
~Ic~ ~~f: ~~G51-1~~5
FH~~_~~L~~nal~~A~~~IS
CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET
t
I
SITE DATA
D~~,U; E~~VT~T
3Ad0 4~~00
D~RR~LS
~A~~~IAL
~~eN R~i~ MANNING f~~~T
U~ t ~0 . 0~4 CONVE~TIONAL
l~,u;
3Ad0
SUMMARY OF CULVERT FLOWS (CFS) FILEI HUGO
aii' TOTA~ t
JI 11
I~
2U I i I
0
SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ER~ORS FILEI HUGO
HEAD T8TAL
ERRIR FTI FL W(CFS)
: I
: 9
I: II
i~ FTl
I:
~:
E~h8~~CFS)
~
~
o
o
I
DATE. 11-21-1~~5
ROADWAY I R
I
i
I OVERTOJIJ
DATEI 11-21-1~~5
"E~~ ~
I~ I
$'
~~~I
IJ0
(1) TOLERANCE (FT) .0.010
(2) TOLERANCE ("I = 1.000
~
.!..
C'4
.!..
.....
.
~
..
~
-
l; ~
il
:== T
~
. . '9
~
~.
..
~
i:&4
~
.....
i3
~
- '1
~
.
- \ .
...
..
..
..
..
I ...
I
CD I
. laD
;:i CD ,cz:
.
Gi i! ~ CD i
~ .
I - I 6
-
~
-
t&:
-
IABIN RlJJTIIII R III'IU TS
. fOR JOII 186-4<<1 - IUiO'S SERV lCES, IHC
aJIlIITED lit I1-2H~ AT 12122:21 AN
IDENTIFIED ASI SUIAIlEA l - POST DEVT - EX STO
BASIN IhflOl HVDIDlRMI DATA FlU: P02U.HYD IIlDIFIED IIATllIfIl
BASIN ELEVATI()j VS. 3TORI& *lTRU DATA FIUI BASIN2.ES IIlMA. ENTRY
BASIN IlJTLET STIUTIIIE DATA FIUI WT2.ED IIkA. ENTRY
STOllIl FlIEUlI:lESI 2 ~ II 25 I" YEARS
BASIN INVERT ELEVATllIfl 382. II FT ABOVE IISI.
IABIN TrA' OF IEJII ELEVATION, 387." FT ABOVE IISI.
FlU ISI CIlEATED,
INITJIl PIll. ELEVATI()j1 382. II FT ABOVE IISL
RlJJTINl TIlE INTERVlL: 6." NINS
PEJI( ~. 151
STORM PEiII DATE R TIlE PEiII EUVATlON PEllK STOIlAliE M llITFlIJI
FIII'IIA1'Y MINJTES FT ABOVE II5L ACIlE FEET CFS
2 YEAR 11-14-1'95 1118.11 382. .. UI~II 6.156
5 'tEAR 11-14-1'95 1118.11 382.58 UI265 7.%1
II YEAR 11-1+-1'95 "18.11 382.56 "'1.17 '.351
25 YEAR 11-14-1995 illS. II 382.6a I.II~I 11.512
1.. VEAII 11-14-1995 .18.11 382.71 ..llllI6 Ilel5
IIlllIFIED IllITllIfIllEllOl HVDiDMlH IUlIlESl1.TS
'01 JOII 1864 - d'S SER'lICES, IHC
~ lit IHl-l~ AT 11,16151 AN
IUI ARfWIIiElOTI RID
STOIlII 'lIEUlI:IES, 2 5 II 25 I" YEARS
FIUIS) CIlEATED. POJU.HYD
SlJWlRY OF BASIC HVOROORAPH PAMTERS
IHITUl DATE OF STORIlIS 11-1+-1'95 AT ..... II RIItJTES TIlE OF ClIfCENTRATlON, MIItJTES. M5..
IHTEltlITY TA8I.E FlU 1 PEIfI-.. T8I. WEIGHTED 'C' FACTDAI I..
IDENTIFIED AS. POST DEVELlJlEll - _IlEA 3 ORAINAllE AIlEA, AClESI 2.31
PfSIK II(!II.TSJ
INITIIl HVOIDllWIH TIlE AVEIlAIiE 1llI1,*1I.l. RAlhflU IllIlhfll.l. IlEARRlVEED PEAH
STlIIl STORM DURATION INTENSITY AIO.NT IHCAElENTS IHCRElIENTS INIDISITIES FLOII
YEAR DATE MINJTES INIHR INCHES Ir.tlfS INIHR IN/HR CFS
2 YEAR 11-1+-1995 8815. .. 2.18 8.67 I.I~ 1.62 4.1' ..819
5 YEAR 11-1+-"'5 ..15.. 3.21 U8 1.16 1.'7 U, 5.62.
II YEAR 11-1+-1995 1115.11 J. 71 I.'J 1.28 2.38 MI 6.211
25 YEAR II-IH"5 ..t5. .. ..11 1.12 1.22 2.6. 5.99 6.8'3
III YEAR II-IH995 "15.. 5.811 1.25 8.21 3.25 7.32 8.~1
.
.
APPENDIX C
STORM DRAIN
flU: IOIWO:IAH. WRJ.PKF-OCKDH
is
~ ....
.... ~ II) ltl :5 ;:I; ~ co
d~~ ' ~ ~ '"
z... 0 0'6 .... ... M .; .,; cd
aJ~a.~ .... ... ... ... ... ....
0'" ::l
...... J:
Ii :5 :5 :5 :5 8
cd cd cd cd cd
.5
I ~,~ I :5 0 .... II) ....
0 N II) ....
.,; .,; .,; .,; .,;
I s'~ I :5 :5 .... .... CD
N N ...
.,; .,; c:i c:i c:i
~ II) N en '"
]l:C N .., II) ....
... N N N N
~u
:u :5 8 8 0 :5
<3< 0
c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i
su
cj :c ~ ~ II) N en '"
N .., II) ....
~ u ... ... N N N N
f!? E
::l
~ II)
I~ ~ en .... CD ..,
-' N ... ... ....
::l ... c:i c:i c:i c:i
II)
z
0 lu '" co co 0 0
u co II) II) en en
i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i
ftI ~ CD CD ~ 0
::l Gl co ... II)
II) <, N N M M M
0 ]l.'i
S z ~
CI
in :u 8 0 0 :5 :5
w 0 0
0 <3" c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i
~ ~.'i
ftI
u
II) ~, <0 0 0 co <0
::E '" II) '" .... ....
a: N c:i c:i c:i c:i
cj ~ ~.'i
II)
Zz 0
-:~ w
Ul- -'
WUl ~
Ul!lNI-' c ...
5a:u-z ,g ... w N '" ... II)
a:~oo -'
c. ~ 0 ~ ~ lu ~ ,-
w ..._ '5 0
Ul wI- X -' Ul
UlClg Xl ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~
(/l < 0 ~
o::Ea.a.
CIa: ::E
::l~ 0
XUl U
.
,
J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
u. u. u. u. u. u.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> > > > > >
on on on on on on
... N N N N N N
j ~J ~ '" .... .. 0 (!;
"l: '" .... '":
~~ ... .... ci ~ ... ~
'" '" .... CO
:r
.~ g: ... 0 0 .., (!;
.... .... .... ...
!if! en en en en en en
... .... .... .... ... ...
'"
CJ
];- ~ ~ ~ CO g: l!l
0
~! <.ei <.ei <.ei <.ei <.ei <.ei
>
l~ .... ... .... ... ... ...
... .... .... .... ... ...
0 0 0 0 0 0
en ci ci ci ci ci ci
U ~ c:n .... .., CO 8
>'S .., N 0 N
~ ... ~ cO ,..: ~ .n
.so '" ~ ~ CO
iii .., .., ..,
~ 0 N '" .... .., CO
.... '": N .... '" ...
~.s co; ... en ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '" ~
::J '" ..,
en
z
8 en '" '" '" '" '" CD
C ... .... ... .... ... ...
0 0 0 0 0 0
~ "2 c ci ci ci ci ci ci
lii
> ::i!
a:
::J
1Il 8- a. a. a. a. 0.. a.
0 ::i! ::i! ::i! ::i! ::i! ::i!
S ~ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
:r :r :r :r :r :r
;:!j ;:!j .. ;:!j .... ....
!!l 5 N N '"
0"
I ~! I ... ... ... .... ... ...
I :; r 0 0 0 0 0 0
g'.. ci ci ci ci ci ci
.., '" 0 0 CD ...
~ N .... .... .... ...
.., .. on
... N tu tu tu ...
c :r ~ en
uz w ~ ::i! ~ ~ -'
~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ! Q. ~ on
j ....
-en tu , N '" .... I-
enw .... tu w
we ~ tu I- -'
-. :r w ~
S2a: ~ ::i! ~ ~ ..J
~~NQ ~ ~ ~
w u.';(
en(/] 01- 0 on on 0 ~ N co
!Il::i!N::J .... ~ on on ..,
Oa:wa. PJIl .... .... co; .; .n to
C>oc>::i! Ou .... .... .... .... .... ...
::JI-<(O w
:r(/]a.CJ a:
PC FILE NO,
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
q(j - I,;J- ['I
PROJECT NAME nUt!/) ,Sn Iii ((C!., .T,) ( .
'J" '
OWNER L(ic.:,!P/J) ('tll~lld/{h(j) t' .J)/.sII/I.)/')/~n
,
ENGINEER/ARCHITECT/CONTRACTOR Jell) d,S; {I I/\:} ((~/) ..-){( / lAll 15, ~l7c,
TIME LIMIT DEADLINE 3/ /(f qt, DATE APPLN REC'D i~l).,;2/'l5:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TRANSMITTAL LETTER LY_~ NO DATED I /;J~/9/;- ,
SETS OF BUILDING PLANS / /- SETS OF SITE PLANS
MYLAR YES GQ) STORMW ATER CALCS (YES-) NO 3 SETS
r /"
ADDITIONAL INFORMA nON RECEIVED (LIST): t-. c;. ..;> I (1) Pcr
. , U
DATE PLANS SENT No.. fff'Li.:J/( DATE PLANS RETURNED
TO FIRE DEPT 1'~0l.9 if FROM FIRE DEPT
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .r. * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . .
SUBDlVISIONILAND DEVELOPMENT FILING FEES
APPLlCA nON FEE
TOTAL
$ 75.00
$ ~
$ 14~9,
$ )4
$ /51g
}
$ C)(:
EACHADD'LLOTIUNIT _LOT(S) @ $lO,OOEA
EACH ADD'L ACRE !1tJ:1 ACRE(S) @ $100,00 EA
RECORDING FEES -.!L SHEETS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FEES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(SEE REVERSE FOR REVISED PLANS)
&1LSC
LAND SURVEY
CONSULTANTS W
(~
/ NG
~
;:;;-
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
IlllIHCIITHQI(IIGIISTllUT YOfllveINSYI._IA 1140',1111 _ (111)&6<<l1ll '''''17'1)8l2<l1l1S
RECE\\JED ~
110'4 29 1995 ;-
HAMPO~I~ 10WN.~IP
November 27. 1995
Cumberland County Board of Commissioners
Market St,
Dauphin County Veterans Memorial Office Building
7th Floor
Harrisburg. PA 17101
CERTIFIED NO, P 336 048 555
Hampden Township Board of Supervisors
230 South Sporting Hill Road
Mechanlcsburg. PA 17055-3097
CERTIFIED NO, P 336048 556
Gentlemen:
Act No, 14 PL 834, amended the Commonwealth's Administrative Code effective April 17. 1984.
and required that anyone who applies to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources for
a Permit must give written notice of such application filing to the County Commissioners and the
municipality In which the project is located,
In accordance with the requirement of said act, you are hereby notified that Hugo's Services, Inc,
intends to submit an application to the Cumberland County Conservation District. 43 Brookwood
Ave" Suite 4, Carlisle. PA 17403. for an individual NPDES Pennit for an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan.
It is not nece."ary that you take any action on this matter,
Very truly yours.
CONSULTANTS,INC,
,I.' "/""IoIc.tl . UiVI,,=,t!It-
Rl="..."'F=r
NOV 2 t 1995
fNbl.~EEtl,,~G JEPT.
i
;1
~
,
.,~
".
flLE.I06olll'I"WRI JSL-GCKR'"
lif )
~
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
1. R. Spease, Township Engineer qlJ
FROM:
GATE:
SUBJECT:
~--_.,.
December 8, 1995)
/-
-- -.-
PllIImfni Commission Meeting - December 14. 1995
PreliminarylFinal Land Development Plan for Hugo Services, Inc.
PC File #95-12-0 I TLD: March 16, 1996
Eniineerini Comments
-' J" r I
/ ,.llf.p".-111
(I) The following approvals/reviews are required:
a, Cumberland County Planning Commission;
b. Camp Hill BOI'Ough;
c, PeMSylvania Department of Environmental Protection - Planning
Module, NPDES Permit; and
d. Cumberland County Soil Conservation.
~ Label plan as a PreliminarylFinal Land Development Plan.
olt.
p/i'f
(3) Plan should be signed and sealed by a registered engineer or surveyor responsible
for the plan.
tlt-'lA)i'r" Show all adjacent properties, zoning, owners, and uses
I~: J?f' The required setbacks, must be sho~ ~on~. the ;ntire p;operty PJ:' eter on
1It,\ '" Sheets P-I P-2 and P-3 (,r/o'H' )..0;,....; cA" >/p, ,.. ;~tf't. r;
,\ \ . J.' . "d,/('" t",,./I /-' ~ .~r'.,.-(. "'",;. -"'1:-&.)(7'''''' p,'i7e.-tJ
~)Stormw~ter - What changes are proposed to the detention pond of sub area 27
'" ..J;Pr Add to the plan: "All areas proposed to be dedicated to or reserved for public use,
b~ \ along with the standard dedication statement."
$ Add to the plan the stormwater management certification notell with the required
o ~~Il.\ signatures.
~ Add the Wetland Certification in the following form:
01l' "The site has been investigated for wetland areas and to the best of my
1'~11 knowledge, all wetland areas are shown on this plan."
Engineer's Signature
Date
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMIS~(ON MINUTES
December 14, 1995 Regular Meeting
Allendapce .
Planning Commission Members: Grela Line, Ernie McConnell, Jack Urling, Doug Hill,
Keren Roberts
Hampden Township Commissioner: Isabell Stathas
Hampden Township Staff: John E, Bradley. Jerry Spease, Darrell McMillan,
Lou Fazekas
Tri-County Planning Commission: Jeff Kelly
Audience: Jay M. Fitzgenlid, Paul K, Francis, George E, Ferry. Jr" Craig Bachik.
Lawrence Abrams, Jim Cieri
The meeting was called to order by Chm Line at 7:JO p,m,
Approval of Minutes
MOTION: by Mr, Hill and seconded by Ms. Roberts to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of November 9, 1995. Motion carried 5-0.
Old Business
None
New Business
a. HUKO Services Inc . review of PreliminarylFinal Land Development Plan,
property located at Industrial Road and Sterling Street, Camp Hill, 15,89 acres,
one lot, zoned I-G, owned by Eastern Consolidation & Distribution Services, Inc.,
submitted by Land Survey Consultants, Inc,
PCFile #95-12-01 TLD: March 16, 1996
Paul Francis was present to speak for this submission. He described the property and layout. The office
and warehouse combined will have twenty warehouse employees with a 110,00 square feel gross
addition. The second rear warehouse addition is approximately IJ,OOO square feet. Cereal products
will be stored in the warehouse,
Remaining Township Engineering and County Comments. copies of which are attached to and made a
part of these minutes, were reviewed, Engineering Comment No, I (a) and (b) will be done. Comment
No. I(c), no increase in employees is anlicipated so the module in place is satisfactory. The NPDES
Permit is pending. Comment No. led) will be done, Comment No, J, they will do after approval by the
Board of Commissioners. Comment No, 6. they are increasing the impervious area. Several culverts on
the site function as a stonnwater management facility which will keep run-off rates to below the pre-
development condilion. Township Engineer Spease asked to review this area, Mr. Francis brousht a
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
2
December 14, 1995
conecled copy of a stormwat~r report. Commenl No, I :T,they'\vill comply. Comment No, 14, they arc
not increasing the number of employees who will occupy Ihe sile, It is below the baseline of one EDU.
Regarding !rafflc use, the owner does not believe truck traffiqvill be increased and will provide a
written statement. Comment No. 15,Ihey will provide bonding,
County Comment Nos. 1 and 2 will be done. CommentN:~:'.3, they did not,feel Ii sewage module is
needed. Comment Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be done. Comment No.9, they have explained the
inlended use of the facility. Cornrnenl No, 10 has been revised, Comment No, II, they are not
anticipating any increases in !rafflc volume. Comment No. 12 will be done.
Chm Line indicaled a traffic study would be necessary because the facility is being increased by more
, than 100,000 square feet. Are they inlending to store the products for a longer period of lime? Mr.
Francis responded yes. They will not be generating peak hour truck traffic.
Mr. Urling asked if there would be more overall traffic? Mr. Francis explained the design of the
intersection and traffic flow. Mr. Urling stated he could foresee considerably more traffic-not just at
peak hours. The usage would be increased. " .
Chm Line stated a traffic study would resolve the question identifying the volume of traffic and the
hours that traffic would take place. The applicant is one of the plaintiffs againsl the Township on the
traffic issue. Chm Line was referring to Case 95-6890 Civil Aclion Notice of Appeal. A copy of the
Notice of Appeal is attached and made a part of these minutes. Chm Line asked the Township Manager
for background information. If this 100,000 square feet expansion is going to increase traffic and the
Township is being sued by the applicant for allowing another facility 10 develop in this area, it would be
inappropriate to go forward with this plan prior to receiving the decision of the court.
Mr. R. T. Linsenbach, President of Hugo Services and the owner of the property, stated they would not
be at this meeting if there was negative impact on the traffic going into this facility. They have 200
wdilers sitting at their facility and are not increasing the customer base. One customer is using this
facility, The traffic has been there, There are 60-100 loaded trailers on the lot which they cannot
unload. They want to remove those trailers. This will not increase traffic; if anything, it will diminish.
Because they have rail access, they will divert some of the inbound traffic over to rail. The reason they
cannot do that righl now is that they cannot house the product within the facility, Mr. Urling appreciated
Mr. Linsenbach's explanation. Mr. Linsenbach indicated the trailers are only for long term storage and
eventually will be gone. Mr. Linsenbach explained plans with use of the rail system.
Mr. Bradley stated il is public knowledge that Hugo Services is one of the appellants naming the Board
of Commissioners as appellee on the Waste Management approval. In that particular appeal, they allege
the area is already overly congested and is unsatisfactory for traffic conditions. He suggested the
applicant put this jnformation into a certified engineer format. If they do not, the Township will run into
legal problems a month or.sixty days from now. There is concern with the Department of
Transportation. In a December 1993 letter regarding SI. John's Road, they suggested that any traffic
study which shows an increase of traffic volume on the state highway, their recommendation would be
that"the applicant would participate in any improveDlen~ required. Mr. Bradley suggested the applicant
liaison with the Department ofTransportation to obtain their opinion if this development has
'. ,'. ""'.' ,_ :,"\.H.;'ll'..., .
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
3
December (.I, 1995
any impact on St.lohn's Church Road and a stale highway, This traflic study and liaison with PADoT
may require tabling or withdrawing the plan lor thirty days by the applicant,
Mr. Linsenbnch stated Ihe importance Ihatthis facility be completed next fall. The customer will not
allow food to be stored in trailers outside their facility, Millions of dollars are at stake, They are not
increasing or changing their current cuslomer base, The trallic is not increasing over what has been
there for the past year. The facility is not large enough to handle the amount of incoming loads, They
need to build bigger facilities in order to get trailers unloaded in a timely fashion and be able to divert
the traffic over to rail. Mr. Urling asked questions about the customer, Mr, Linsenbach stated they are
the distributor for Ralston Foods, All their cereal products have come through this facility for the past
two and a half years for distribution to the northeast.
Chm Line was sympathetic to the issue of liming although this has been going on for over a year, Mr,
Linsenbach stated this is a concern which has come up in the last three to four months, lip to that point,
they were able 10 maneuver within the facility, When Ralston first came to them, their storage time was
15-20 days, Because of price increases, the product is stored on the facility for 45.60 days.
Chm Line insured Mr. Linsenbach this would be expedited, but there is a legal action against the
Township. This facility mayor may not create more traffic with these improvemenls. [t does not matter
whether Hugo Services was the Plaintiff against the Township or not. The impartial trallic study is not
required because they are Plaintiffs and would be for their benefit as well as the Townships.
MOTION: by Chm Line to table the PreliminaryfFinal Land Development Plan for Hugo Services,
Inc. for 30 days pending receipt of an engineering traffic study and an indication from PADoT that Hugo
Services will not cause an increase in trallic and subject to Engineering Comment Nos. 1,3,6. 13, 14,
and 15 and County Comment Nos, 1-12,
Mr. Linsenbach staled 30 days will be costly, He did not understand how a traffic study will amount to
anything, Mr. McConnell seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1, Mr. Urling opposed the motion.
Chm Line explained that Hugo Services was to come back in 30 days with an impartial report by an
engineering firm and PADoT, The trallic study should include the increase or decrease of traffic, The
Planning Commission will work with them on this project, but wants to insure an impartial study.
Mr. Urling stated he had not made any judgment based upon linking of the lawsuit and this plan, This
plan is separate from the lawsuit. [t should be treated separately and his vote bears no relationship.
Mr, Linsenbach expressed the critical timing for his business, If they miss this by 30-60 days, they stand
a chance of losing Il customer. Chm Line indicated II special meeting could be called to reconsider the
plan. Further discussion followed between Chm Line and Mr, Linsenbach on timing of the project
b. United Cerebral Palsy of the Capital Area. review of PreliminaryfFinal Land
Development Plan, property located at South 38th Street. Camp Hill, 2.67 acres,
one lot, zoned R-S, owned by Keys-Pealers, Ltd,. submitted by H, Edward Black
& Associates, P,C,
PCFile #95-12-02 TLD: March 16, 1996
HAMfOEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
4
Oecember l.t, 1995
Craig Bachik was present to speak for this submission, /l.k Bachik described the relocation of United
Cerebral Palsy to 38th Street and the benefits of a joint venture facility with the YMCA which would
allow the handicapped children to be mainstreamed with non-handicapped children. Mr. Bachik
explained the Zoning Hearing Board is currently reviewing the variance request to increase impervious
coverage in the R-S district which is 30 percent 10 50 percent to accommodate the program use of this
facility, They see this as a transition facility between a commercial zone and the residential zone,
Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which are attached to and made a part of these
minutes, were reviewed, Engineering Comment Nos. I(a), (b), (c) will be done, Comment Nos. 2 and 3
will be done, Comment No, 4, were discussed by Mr. Bachik and Engineer Spease, This will be
combined into one lot. Comment Nos,S and 6, they wiII add to the plan, Commenl No, 7, they have
shown on Sheet PL-I the planting plan which will be done around the perimeter and buffer area,
Comment No.8, they would like to keep the curbing at six inches at the front entry for easy access by
individuals with physical limitations, The rest of the curbing wiII be eight inches along 38th Street.
Comment No, 9, the drain pipe ends are identified on detail 12 on LD-4. Comment Nos. 10, II, and 12
wiII be done, Comment No, 13 regarding curbing and roadway widening. Mr. Bachik indicated they do
not have the ability to provide an additional right-of-way for a cul-de-sac for the dead end street.
Engineer Spease expressed concern with the substandard and a dead end street. Mr, Bachik and Chm
Line discussed what needed to be done to improve the street and the responsibility of the developer of
the site. Mr, Bradley clarified that staff is not recommending the road be widened or that the cul-de-sac
be required, The Township is alerting the applicant thai there may be a recommendation from the Board
of Commissioners that this be required, Comment No, 14, the bond wiII be done,
County Comment Nos, 1-4 are standard and will be done. Comment Nos. 5. 6, 7, and 8 will be done.
Mr, Bachik introduced Mr. George Ferry. the Director ofUCP. and Mr, Lawrence Abrams, who is the
counsel for UCP,
Ms, Roberts asked for clarification on the day care facility and incorporating handicapped children with
the YMCA facility, Mr. Bradley stated County Comment No, 2 is applicable. The motion passed by the
Commissioners was to conditionally operate a nonprofit private school for pre-school children with
disabilities, The joint venture with YMCA has been added since that conditional use was granted, As
Zoning Officer, he did not have the authority to give a Certificate of Use. To get the certificate, the
Conditional Use must be amended, appended, or add to another application for conditional use for
approval by the Board of Commissioner which is the proper process,
Mr, Ferry explained the current facility operated by UCP on Linda Lane is licensed as a private school
by the Department of Education, As a part of that operation, they offer day care services called Options
for Children. They had given this information as part of their presentation to the Commissioners in
May, responded to a number of the ordinance issues, and provided the number of children who would be
participating in various parts of their program,
Mr, Urling asked if this was replacing the facility on Linda Lane or an additional use? Mr, Ferry
explained the current facility use. Their intention was to move all the children's services into the new
facility at 38th Street and relocate some of their adult services to Linda Lane, Their facility would be
two buildings: one for children and one for adults, Mr, Urling and Mr. Bradley discussed zoning of this
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
5
December 14. 1995
area. Pealers currently owns the property which is R-S. The site is zoned C-L. Pealers used this
property for overflow employee parking, Mr. Urling expressed concerns with the roud, Mr, McConnell
and Mr. Bachik discussed impervious coverage, Mr. McConnell asked if all this fits into the zoning
regulations, Mr. Bradley explained the past hislory and suggested Ihat Ihe plan be tabled or withdrawn
until the Zoning Hearing Board decision is rendered and/or Ihe second conditional use is approved by
the board.
MOTION: by Chrn Line to table the PreliminarylFinal Land Development Plan for United Cerebral
Palsy of the Capital Area for one month for a decision on the variance before the Zoning Hearing Board
and the need for procedures to be followed with regard to requesting an amendment to the conditional
use. Mr. McConnell seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.
5. Good & Welfare
a, Whelan Crossin~ - review of sketch plan for property located along Wertzville
Road at inlerseclion with Orr's Bridge Road, 25.0310 acres, 174 lots for
townhouses, zoned A-O, submitted by Act One Consultants, Inc.
James Cieri was present to speak for this submission. Mr. Cieri summarized the project as 174 multi-
family units in Hampden Township. In East Pennsboro Township, there are 48 single-family units. He
advised there would be 10-11 phases developing approximately twenty units per phase, They anticipate
this intersection will be signalized in the near future.
Township Engineering Comments, copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes, were
considered.
Chrn Line expressed concern with increased traffic. She had considered reviewing an option for a
moraloriwn on various developments in the Township. This intersection is extremely busy. Mr. Hill
inquired about lot sizes and the steep contours. Mr, Cieri explained they are working with the developer
on grading plans. Ms, Roberts was concerned with the topography and asked about public water service,
Mr. Cieri indicated there is a 16" main at Sharon Drive in East Pennsboro Township along Wertzville
Road. Mr. Cieri indicated there is only one access at the intersection with Orr's Bridge Road, At the
entrance, they plan to put two 20-22 feet slreets with an eight-ten feet grass center boulevard, They
propose to put the split boulevard up to the first intersection which is Brigade Road,
Further discussion followed belween Mr, Urling and Mr. Cieri regarding access, stub streets, grades, and
cul-de-sacs. Mr, Urling was concerned that part of this would be serviced by East Pennsboro Township
and Hampden Township, Mr, Bradley stated there should be a road on the 10wnship line, This would
aid in agreements between the townships for snow plowing, leaf pick-up, and police coverage,
In his opinion, Mr. McConnell stated this plan was horrendous and has no aesthetic value, Wertzville
Road would have to be widened to accommodnte 174 townhouses, This is a cookie cutter development
which is undesirable, Mr, McConnell highlighted the problems with this plan--traffic. two townships,
overload on the school system, and this type of townhouse brings families with many children. Mr.
Cieri explained the first units were designed for the empty nester. The end units are one story ranch
units. The interior units are townhomes with a master bedroom on the first floor,
NO. 95-406
CUMBERTANn
COUNTY SUBD!VISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT REVI~ REPORT
Munici~dity
HAmrxien
PlAt Title Huao'~ ServLc@9. Inc.
Surveyor LSC
PnHminary
Zoning DiStrict
Final ~ Final (Minor Subdivision)
!-G
Engineer
Land Use Industrial
Regulations: Municipal
County
Date Received 11/28'95
x
Zon.inq ~
S.lLD :<
Staff Re1fJ.ew
Acreage: Subdivided,
Number of Lots 1
Of:: :c1al
Total
Dwelling Units
County Review
2.87
..!L
12121/95
Plat appears to comply with applicable regulations.
X ilat appears to generally comply with applicable regulations: reVisions may be
required, as indicated.
Plat appears to need substanUal re'flsi.on. as indicated.
aeviewed by ~ Checked by JZ
Review comments with cited ordinance provisions are based on municipal regulations on file
with the County Planning Commission.
1. When applicable. streets. sewer. water. storm drainage. and other infrastructure
elements too be verified as adequate by municipal staff/engineer.
2. When applicable. ~oning compliance to be verified by Municipal Zoning Officer.
3. Appropriate sewage module component should be processed prior to final plat
approval.
4. ~inal plats must be recorded wit~in 90 days of approval.
5. The plan must oe certified by the surveyor/engineer.
6. All adjacent property owners should be noted.
7. Paving width or Industr:al Drive should be noted.
8. The adjacent zoning in Camp Hill should be listed.
9. The plan should include a parking schedule indicating the number or required parking
spaces. The number or employees should be noted to clarify the required number of
parking spaces.
10. The stat~s of the plan (preliminary or rinal) should be clarified on the plan.
11. How will this development impact the trarfic volume on !ndustri.al Road and St. Johns
Church Road? ~ill improvements be necessary?
12. The plan should ~e signed by the owner and notarized.
facilities, ECD conducts trucking, warehousing, consolidation and
related activities involving various products and commodities.
2. Appellant Hugo Services, Inc. ("Hugo's") is a
Pennsylvania corporation which is the parent corporation of ECD.
3. Appellant Baron Enterprises ("Baron") is a partnership
which owns property located at 460 Industrial Park Road, Hampden
Township.
4. Appellant Eastern Repair Center, ::nc. ("Eastern") is a
Pennsylvania corporation located at 460 Industrial Park Road,
Hampden Township. Eastern at its facility repairs trucks.
5. Appellant New Penn Motor Express, Inc. ("New Penn") is a
Pennsylvania corporation with business facilities located at 451
Freight Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and 475 Terminal Road, Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania. New Penn, at its said business facilities,
owns and operates a trucking business.
6. Appellant Lebarnold, Inc. ("Lebarnold") is a Pennsylvania
corporation with a business facility located at 4410 Industrial
Park Road, Camp Hill Pennsylvania. Lebarnold, at its said business
facility, owns and operates a trucking and warehousing business.
7. Appellant Arnold Industries, Inc. ("Arnold") is a
Pennsylvania corporation which is the parent corporation of both
New Penn Motor Express and Lebarnold.
- 2 -
8. Appellee is the Board of Commissioners of Hampden
Township.
9. On November 2, 1995, at the Agenda Meeting of the Hampden
Township Board of Commissioners, the land development plan of Waste
Management of Central pennsylvania Solid Waste Transfer Station
(hereinafter "Waste Management transfer station") to be located at
4300 Industrial Park Road, Hampden Township, was given final,
conditional approval by the commissioners.
10. The site of the Waste Management transfer station is
located in close proximity to Appellants' facilities in Hampdan
Township and the property owned by Appellants. in Hampden Township.
11. As either the landowners of property in close proximity
to the site of the Waste Management transfer station or the tenants
of property in close proximity to the site, Appellants have
standing to raise this appeal.
12. The site of the proposed Waste Management transfer
station is located in an area zoned by Hampden Township as I-G
Industrial-General.
13. Under 51403 of the Hampden Township Zoning Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 84-02, as amended), operation of a municipal waste
transfer facility is not listed as a permitted use within an area
Zoned I-G.
- 3 -
, ,
,
1.4. Under 51404 of the Hampden Township Zoning Ordinance,
operation of a municipal waste transfer facility is not listed as
a conditional use within an area zoned I-G.
1.5. Pursuant to 51403 of the Hampden Township Zoning
Ordinance, uses in I-G zoned areas must be "compatible with
existing land uses and buildings." The Waste Management transfer
station is not consistent with such uses and buildings. The
processing of putrescible waste, and the storage and handling of
leachate is inconsistent with Appellants' uses and buildings which
store, consolidate and handle food products. OdorS', vec::ors,
litter, traffic and similar nuisances associated with operation of
the said waste transfer station will interfere with and adversely
affect Appellants' businesses.
1.6. The proposed land use for the Waste Management transfer
station is not an approved use under the Township Zoning Ordinance.
1.7. Under 5104(2) (B) of the Hampden Township Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 83-1, as amended),
developments are subject to the zoning regulations as they apply to
use.
18. Under 5502 (4) of the Hampden Township Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance, proposed land uses shall conform to the
Township Zoning Ordinance.
- 4 -
19. preliminary approval of the land development plan for the
Waste Management ot Central Pennsylvania Transfer Station violates
the Township's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance in that
the proposed. land use does not conform to the Township Zoning
Ordinance.
20. The proposed Waste Management Transfer Facility will have
adverse impacts on traffic and traffic safety, when the area is
already overly congested with unsatisfactory traffic conditions.
The approval without limiting or adequately planning for traffic
impacts violates the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance
section 503 and 502, and the Zoning ordinanc;, Section 1403.
21. The land development plan as approved by the Township
Commissioners has inadequate stormwater management facilities, and
would discharge stormwater runoff into a wetland and streams in
quantities in excess of pre-development runoff, in violation of
Section 506 of the Township Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance.
22. The Land Development was approved in violation of the
Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act 32 P.S. ~ 680.1, et seq.,
in that it will increase runoff in violation of 32 P.S. ~680.13.
23. The land develcpment plan violates ~502. 2A of the Hampden
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance in that the
- 5 -
.
, .
land to be developed is subject to flooding and has a high
groundwater table.
24. The approval of the land development plan violated
5502.20 of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance in that
the land is subject to ground pollution and contamination.
25. The approval of the land development plan violates
Article 1 527 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that the proposed
facility will harm or threaten public natural resources, will cause
adverse impacts on public safety, will have adverse impacts on
traffic and traffic safety. These adverse impacts have not been
minimized as required by law and are not justified based on any
social and economic benefit. No analysis of any social and
economic benefit balanced against adverse impacts has been
conducted or considered by the Township Commissioners.
26. Appellants reserve the right to add additional reasons
for appeal if discovered as a result of appellate proceedings in
this matter.
WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request this Honorable
Court to reverse the action of the Board of Commissioners of
Hampden Township and order that the preliminary subdivision plan
for the Waste Management of Central Pennsylvania Transfer Station
be denied.
- 6 -
,
,
~ NG
r .
~
Cumberland County Con..'YllIon DI.lrlcl
4J Broo.wood Avenue, SUire 4 - Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. Phone (717) 249-8632
:".!-
, , .
L~"'S3~C-i.::r. :::-~'1~"~a~"\':
-iI 3'3'- 'J l: 3':i, : ~':.
G!~ G~t:'/so~r~ =:1~
~ L ~ l, PA 170: 1
ptrr.'\!ED
llfe 15 \995
")fl~l' 1I"iil"J"'"' liP
1-li\i~jll.lJ;. 'J ~,. ,'iJ'1
14, 19~'=
~
""'-.;.:
2~-=+-
Ca,nc
~, =.
~_.
~~go' 3 S~r':~ca3, :~C.
P~A 1,) Hl)~l
H3,~pc9n Tcwn~ht=. ~~~ce~L3nd C=~rty
L:'e-=~.nce:-
~~~~ ~r. ~~n'l~'~=~C~:
rMi~ lS to infor~ IO~ that th~ C~mCe:.~~nd C~u~ty C=~;arvatLon
~i~':~lct na~ ra~ie~e: ~~a 3bov9 ~af~~~,c~c ~pc~lca,:icn i~ or~er to
c~:~rmlra wneCnel- It =~n:dins the i~~~r~d:l0:', maos, fees and ether
Q~~,~~3nt~ ne~a$3~r~ ~~r 3~~inL~~r3~~~~ =cmoLatenes3. ?l~~se be advised
tM3': yc~~ appL~c~:~~n ~a3 b~3n det3'-~:nad t~ C~ admL~is:r~~lv~ly
==,"'::: ~3'=~ anC: \N1.11 :::S ::':=3s'2ed TO"'" :::-'I'l:at r-~'/1.ew.
D!..;,.r"ing t~e t'3',:,":"':i:~: '.=',ie~..., "='_: ..ap::t~c:at:.on ....:.11 :a ~2signed tu
3: ~:i:"'! :.:1'/:':'19'; .....i1.-: '....:. ~ ~ :i=""J~ ~s t;".: ~:~.::: :-a'lla'....el.. T.il2o ~=~:j -:-aviewe,-
~ll: ~'i3:~3~a ~~e ~~~:~~=I of t~~ 3=:::=a~:~n an~ l:~ c:~==~~n~s to
::~:3r":ni~t1 i'! 3...J.f';~:i3'-: _~f=:-l1a';lcl"'! ~:~~st'3 t.: I.::,ca'- 3. ::=::''3:.on on the
:a~~~lc3: ~~mlnen~s f~:~ =:~~r te~n~i:a~ s~3~f a; ~~'! ~s 'e=~s3ary for a
=cm=-a~sns~'J~ 3'/a~~a::::~ J~ YOUr" 3==::=3~io~.
'!"'~'.J. ....l~l 1::: f"c,::..ia'= i:"" ~";lti~':; :.'f .3~::Lt:.=n.al i.nf~"':~3:ion is
~3=~:.;~d ~efc~~ ~ ~~=~nl=~t j~~LS~:~ =3~ =2 ;-gnderad. T~e ~LstrLct will
~3~C ~~:y =r~ t=~~ni:~~ ~~~l=i~I'c~ :a::3~ Upon nctiflca:ion of any
:?=~n:.=al d=lic~a~cia2. v:~ ~:.l~ na,~ si:<:v (~O) cays 1ro~ the date you
;-=C3~'I= ':~= l~ttal. ':= 3:.J.i:.n:.,: 1::-.12 tn3.,:..?'.:..:.l '-~c'...Lestec. Whar; ,/::u submit ..
'~..l~~s';,c:o:~'I r-=s::,:.~s:. -:-.-: Di:;,:ri::-: -.o,::t ~t:c=sd wi:h i:s t3chnicill
e'~a.:_a': :.:::n.
_ ..~;':~~jfJ
~ ~, .a ~ :~r camp t: ': i :,; :na ta~hf~:'': 1: r- ~'J i =~.... the 0 i s:r let. is inc: 1 !.n.d::.:-::;,:;:gi,~~~
:0,::=":/ :h3 .il:l~l:.c;,}-::.':~, '/:JU ~...llt!:J: ~~r.t::a re-~~,iial l~:ta,... Tne -:.h;)\~~!~
l:::ar-~,ill c~tli:"3 ,:"~ ..=l~-=r':'!ro f,,:. :-2 :::-?!11.;l1. Yc~.J ~.,~l~ h.a'le'one "lr:'u.t/~'.;~';;;.f-::':-"".
OOC.=-:U:"\~-:'I ~c ,:~r"~~,: ':"":~ d!?f:.ci~'-.'.::.a:; !.'~ yO'..!; pr-':)ocsal and meet wi't\::,<,/?i-?
S-:3~.~ ::~:'.JI""= ~ne D~::~:"':i"e!""t make-z a .o:~l'.al -==Cl'3~on. :.._.}fr'
;_:"".::ar- :"i~r;-n..11 .::....:....~:i';~!"!c~s, '::C;~::.-=+:=d G~neral ,=,=r:T1i: .apollcatl'_C)__o:~i';
C3- =:a :::r.JI':ES-;~C w:,':;'-~'; .3': :ja-~..s -fl-:.... ':;~~ ':::1~.: of d~.:::;:~.lr"ca. Obvlcu.-',l."'
::-t:sa .l=,:)::'C3.'::':~'3 .~,-~:.... .3.r"? ':'~i'!1C~::-::? .:3.1-.0 ...aq....:.lr.; l:.t-:t~ 0'" not i__:::f..{,;,;!~i
~=::, ~ ,"::-.1, ,,,f:c,n~t ,:'. =~, u",c;.1ll'/ == :'-:::<;;S2cJ ,nc'-ca ,;;ui:kl:/. "tZf,
~. ..i ',;:.~:.
11.....I'DEN "iOWNSfiI
pr^~"'J:l"'} "1.',
UEC t 5',"
I II. .: -, II,"" ;'1EiT
....\....u~~.h.\U U . t.
CCNSERVA nON. DEVELOPMENT. SELF.GOVERNMENT
For qUclstLons regar~Lns yC'Jr ~p~l~cltLan, plalsa c~r~lC~ ~ne
distrlct dt 717-249-8632 ~nd refer' td 3ppllc~tion ~cAR 10 H!)91.
3LnCa,-eLy.
~~
D~strLc~ TechnL~lan
cc: Paul Francl~, Land Survey Consult~ntg, Inc.
r~
~~.~~Y Sp...., H.mpden Tawnshlp
Dlstrlct File Copy
/1, )
Hampden Township
IIoIrd of COI1Imluloncr.
MeIv)n C. FIoMlareln. Pre51dem
IAbeU 5Ia.has, vtcc Presldem
.Mme. I. Rendle'
Ne\1n W. Funk
Doni1kI R. McCaJlln
T_IP_..r
John It Bradley, Jr.
December IS, 1995
Paul Francis
Land Survey Consultants Inc,
156 Nonh Georg': Street
York, PA 170401.1119
RE: Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Hugo Services, Inc,
PC File No. 95-12-0 I TLD: March 16, 1996
Dear Mr. Francis:
This will confinn aclion of the Hampden Township Planning Commission at its regular meeling
o(December 14, 1995 to table the above-referenced Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan
(or thiny (30) days. This thirty (30) day period will allot the applicant lime to have a traffic
study completed and obtain PADoT's concurrence, As a note, the traffic study should include
the potential increase/decrease of traffic due to the development of this site,
A copy of the Township Engineering Comment Nos. I. 3, 6, 13. 14, and 15 and County
Comment Nos, 1.12 are enclosed,
If you have any questions. I can be reached at the Township office,
Sincerely,
J, R. SPEASE, P,E.
Township Engineer
JRS:bw
hugosvll.doc
Enclosures
c: Eastern Consolidation & Distribution Services, Inc" Owners
John E. Bradley, Jr" Township Manager
Darrell McMillan. Building Department
110 S Spoftutl Hill Ku...4 . Mi:t,;hollut,;,hUl~ PA 170~j-,10')7
E-fo.,fad 1001".1....Id;cumplL'KrvUcum . l'A..'C(1I7j761_11t)7' TIJU(111)7hl_H.511
Admini.'ilullOfI (717) 161.1}11<J . Ambubn..::.: (117) 71J1.~'Wl . I'ub...: (711) 7()llf>Q'I . Rl!'t,;tc:.lUlltl 1'11) 7(jJ-I'J~1
--"
.
,
-
From the Desk of "
J. R. SPEASE, P.E" Township fr,gineer
,
12-2ZCt)~
P fi(..d-
-,
r t. d,...II..I >
,<./.'/;
(.....j /-Ir(,"l.I)
To:.' D It'!' 't,VlP T(,Li)
II~/i r /1 S/"tUdL
rvltcnN~'
"'V tJ t",1 '-0
,'Vc.
-
(; L
Ir"t1.0
~ 0'':''
{'( lf~tJ.;'.i.O
i.: .\.,.0' 7'/ c....
11
Ifl. III-PI (.
8r l/r!:
sr~,Dt
t..' r. ~
I(('-l.'i,,~l)
-. ,
~1. V'''7<,1 ,
lu.<;1l- j IJ'/~
-,
/- ,; /{.
..
("') /, ,
/+y~~-L~
"
. .
J..
" :
(0, ..; Ji'
:.' ,l'r; ~:
. .-.. 't
. \{
if
, "
,"
"
'"
"
" ,
''t,... ll'"
~.' "
, ,
"""' ,
, '.ft-f,
., f (~
, .
. ,
'h
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
230 S. Sporllng HIli ~d" Mechanlcsburg. PA 17055 . (717) 761-0119
l
'.
\
HUGO'S SERVICES, INC.
EASTERN CONSOLIDATION AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.
STORMW ATER REPORT
Hampden Township. Cumberland County
November 22. 1995
Revised December 18, 1995
Prepared By:
LAND SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC,
156 N, George SL
York. PA 17401
LSC Project" 1 06-405A
FilE lUt.~~1I WRI PJo..F-GCkBl4
.
..
ABSTRACT
This Stonnwaler Repon presents the h~drologic parameters and results ior Slonnwaler management and
stoml drain design associaled with proposed building additions at lhe Easfern Consolidation and
Distribulion Services, Inc, site located at Industrial Road and Sterling Street in Hampden Township,
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania,
These analyses are performed in accordance with the Hampden Township Land Development Ordinance,
No, 95-01 March I, 1995, The Rational method was utilized for this 15,9 acre site as complied by
Hydrosoft in the Stormwater Manager Software. Version 2J,
CONCLUSION
The increase in post developed peak runoff rates is isolated to three subareas associated with the site,
The increase in Subarea I is allenuated by a proposed basin" Increase in Subareas 2 and 3 are negligible
and are allenualed by conveyance Ihrough a series of existing sile culverts" POSI developed increases in
peak runoff rates will have no significant effect on downslream propenies,
STODIW ATER MANAGEMENT
PREDEVELOPED
The site which is affected by the proposed improvements is isolated to Subareas I, 2 and 3 as depicled
on the Predeveloped Drainage Area Map, Predeveloped site hydrologic paramelers and peak runoff rates
are presented in Table \, Documentation which supports chese findings are included as Appendix A.
The proposed work entails conslruction of a 110.384 square foot building addition with new parking and
Iruck maneuvering areas within Subarea 1, The resulting increase in peak runoff is allenualed in a
proposed basin located adjacent to the Sterling Street righl of way. as depicted on the Post Developed
Drainage Area Map" Proposed work wilhin Subarea 2 includes a \3.000 square foot warehouse addition
with proposed parking 101 improvements, A \.743 square fOOl office addilion is proposed wichin Subarea
3, Increases in peak runoff rales from Subareas 2 and 3 are allenuated by Ihe stagelslorage effects of a
series of culverts located on site, Demonstration of these effecls are presented for Subarea 2,
Post developed site hydrologic parameters and peak runoff rates are presented in Table 2, Documentation
Hit 111f).I/)~,-\1I WNINi! GCK8'.a
.
.
which suppons lhese findings is included as Appendix B"
PEAK RUNOFF
SUBAREA AREA RUNOFF TC
(AC) COEFFICIENT (MIN) 2 YR S YR 10 YR 2SYR IOOYR
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS)
1 6,IS 0"73 S"O IU 22"0 24"3 26,9 32,9
01 6,JS 0,73 S,Q IS,7 18.4 20,6 22.3 25,3
2 3,22 0,70 S,O 9.4 ILO 12,2 13"5 16"S
02 3,22 0,70 S,O 6,8 8,0 9.4 IO,S 13"0
3 2,30 O,SO 5.0 4,8 5,6 6,2 6.9 8,4
TABLE 2 - POST DEVELOPED SITE
STORM DRAIN
The stonn drain is designed ulilizing lhe Ralional method to compute estimated runoff rales from the
proposed site for a 25 year return period, This system with the contributing drainage areas are depicted
on the Stonn Drain Drainage Area Map, The estimaled runoff rales and system hydraulics are presented
in Appendix C,
FILl- 1Ofl....,~AIl \\'Rl rKl' GCKJNI.&
.
APPENDIX A
PREDEVELOPED
FILE:UItlotlIMIl WRI P";F.GCX8l4
AATlCf'i., "i:1..o~ - Wl\~llu 1(' V;..l1;
FOR JOB: lill-W-. - tlJbO'. .(kVICl" If(
CSLCULAI,U ~ 1~-I"I~~) RI t51~~IJI ~~
1O[N:lfIEO A>' ~KEOEV1. ~~RER I ~{R REIIlW
PRill)lJ:1
, , . A
~.I~I
I.~j~
~,~:;)
3.~1~
'c' MEA
v...il ~RES
~. ,~ 3. ~~
I..~ I.~
i.~ ~.\~
lill... kili.ill b.l~
IlEFEREJa
R
II
"
J
RVE~E WlI6H1ED 'c' 13.'11 I &.I~II 1.&30
IIlllIF lED RATlfJR IETIClO HYDROORAPH Pm< RESl.l. TS
FDA .Kl8: 1"'-4<<1 . IUD'S SER'ilCES, IHC
aJIlUTEO ON 11-21-1995 AT "':5':16 AN
lU( ~I RIO
STOIlII FAEUM:IESI 2 5 II 25 I. 'fEARS
FIUISl CIlEATED:
!lMlRI OF IASIC HVDRlIi~ ~TERS
INlTIll DATE OF STOIlII IS 11-1+-1'95 AT ...... RlttJTES TIlE OF toHCENTRATlON, "INJTES: M:l..
INTENSITY TABlE FILE: PEHH-.. T81 IoEllilTED 'C' FACTOR: 1.&21
IDENTIFIED All: PlEDEYEUJIED - !UAIlEA 2 ORAl. AREA, ACRES: 3.22
IUI IlESlL TSI
INITllI. HYDIQjRAPH TIlE AVERAGE flAlhfll.L flAlffll.l. IIAlhfll.l. AEARIlIMiD lU(
STOIlII STOlIl IlJRATlON INTENSITY IIOJjf IHCIlEJ(NlS IHCREllEllTS INTENSITIES FI.lJI
YEAIl I>>TE "IlliTES INIHR ItDES IIDES INIHR INIHR CFS
2 YEAR IH+-I"5 .15. .. l.n 1.&7 "I. 1.62 ..1' 8.3&6
5 '/EJlIl 11-1+-1995 .15.. 3.21 ... "16 1.'1 U, '.16.
II YEAIl I1-1H995 .15.. 3.n 1.'3 ..21 2.38 5..1 .a,1'3
25 '/EJlIl IH+-1~ .15.. .. It ..I! 1.22 2.6. 5.99 11.%6
I. VEAl IHHm "15.. 5.. 1.25 ..27 3.25 7.32 lU2I
IIIIIFIED RATllHi.. IETHOD HVDIIlliRAPH PE~ REStlTS
FOIl JIll 11&-415 - IUiQ'S SERVICES, lie
COIlITED (Jj 11-21-1995 AT 11:15,~ AN
PERM AARlWiI(NTl RIO
STORIl FRElWCIESI 2 5 II 25 III YEARS
FILEtS! CREATED. PAE3XX.HVD
!il.MlRY OF BASIC HVOIIlliRAPH PA_TEAS
. INITUl DATE OF STORIlIS II-IH"5 AT .... "INJTES TIlE OF COWITRATllJ/, NINJTESI ~..
INTENSITY TABlE FILE. PENH-..TBL IlIGHTED 'C' FACTOR I 1..71
lDENTIFIEO ASI PIlEDEVElOPEO - SUBAREA 3 DRAlm AREA, ACRES. 2.31
PEAIl 1lESll. TSI
INITIIl ~ TIlE A'lERAGE IlAlhfll.l. MlhflU. RAlhfll.l. AEARRlNiD PEAIl
STClII STOIlII DURATION INTENSITY MlJIT 1JC:IlEIlHTS IHCIlEJ(NTS INTENSITIES Fl()l
VEAII DATE RIItJTES INIHR IHCHES HDfS INIHIl INIHR as
2 YEAR 11-1+-1995 .15.. 2.11 1.67 1.14 1.62 ..1' ..:531
5 VEAII 11-1+-1"5 .15.. 3.21 ..88 ..16 1.'7 ..Il'l 5.217
II YEAR 11-1+-1"5 .15.. JoN 1.93 ..21 2.38 Ml 5.M.
25 YEAR 11-14-1"5 .IS.. ..11 t.e2 ..22 2." 5.99 6.479
I. YEAR 11-I+-199S .15.. 5.. 1.25 ..21 3.25 7.32 1.916
IlTlllfll IlETHOD - WEIGHTED 'C' WlI.(S
FOR U, 1"-4t5 - IUiO'S SERVICES, IHC
CIlCWlTED ON 11-11-1995 AI 11129,,, PIl
IDENTIFIED AS: POST DE~ElOPED !leAIlEA 1
IlEFEIlEHCE
/U!8ER
II
eJ
COVER OESCRIPTlIJl
ITYK. TIlEATIEHT. & ClIfDIIIONI
IIftRVlllS
(JtN SJ)A[t
'C' AREA PIQll(T
WUf ACRES IC' . A
.... ..55 ""5
'.25 1.61 ....
TOTIl AREA, 6.15 ""5
AVERAGE WEIGHTEO 'C' 14..'5 I 6.15): 1.131
IIlDIFIED RATllM. IETl<<lO HYDIlOO*,," PEJlI( AEnTS
FOI 81 186-.e5 - 116)' 5 SEIN ICES, lHe
QlllUTED III 11-11-1995 AT .1131151 PI!
D Al!IllM(If:NT. '110
STOIlII FIl(UHCIES: 2 5 II 25 1.. YEARS
FlUEISI CIlEATEDI PAEII.HVD
QMlRy OF 1AS1C HYDIlOO~ PAAANETERS
INlTIlI. DATE OF STOIlII IS 11-1+-1995 AT ...... RIIllTES TIlE OF COHCENTRATlOH, RIItlTES, Me5."
INTENSITY TAllU FlU I PEIff-.. TIL WEIGHTED 'C' FACTOR. 1.1311
IDENTIFIED AS, POST DEVELlJIED SlBAIlEA 1 OAAI~ AREA, ACAESI ..15
DllEnTS.
INITIII. HYDIllJjRMI TIlE AVERAGE 1IA11f'1lI. RAlhfllL IIAlhfll.l. AEARIMiED PEiII
STOIlII STORIl OlJRATlON INTaIIlITV lIOJIT 1JC:IlEJENTS IJC:AElEHTS 1NTE116 ITlES FlIJI
'fEAR DATE NINJTES IHlHR IroES llOES IHlHR INIIII CFS
i 'fEAR 11-1"'1"5 "15.. 2.78 1.61 .... 1.62 ..1' l8.m
5 VEAl 11-1+-1"5 "15.. J.2t ... ..16 1.97 ..ll'l 21.'156
II VEAl 11-1+-1'95 .15... 3.78 ..93 ..21 2.38 5..1 2U71
25 VEAl ll-l+-1m .15... ..11 1.12 ..22 2." 5.99 26..
. 1.. 'fEAR 11-1+-1 '95 .15.11 5.. 1.25 t.21 3.25 7.32 32.876
BAS/N ElE~ATlON ~S. STllRA6E IlATRII
FOR JOB: 11IfI-.e:\ - IUO'S SERvlas, II<<:
aJIIUTED ON 11-2l-ln5 AT 111221~ AN
IDENTIFIED ASI PtIlJlOSEO IASIN
FIlE CAEATEDI lAS/No ES
E1E~ATlIJl AREA A~ERA6E AREA EUVATlON II<<:AElENTIl TOTlI. STOIIA6E VlllJE
FT AJlO~E IlSl FT~ FT~ DIFFEAEIa STOm VlllJE CUBIC FEET ACRE FEET
38e.51 I . 1.-
815 ..51 438
383. . I~ .38 '.1111.
3315 I.. 3375
3M.. - 38lJ "'8752
6625 I.. 6625
385.. 825ll ."'.18 1.2.l'l61
IIITU I 0 I SI:Itl& ClJIlVE - PllllE I OF Z
'01 S: 116-4<<1' IUO'. SERVICES, IHC NINlIUl Ei.ElliillON !lATED, FEET AlQVE IISlI .lll<.51
ClJIIIJTED lJIIH1-lm AI .1151131 PIl MIlIUl Ei.EVAllON !lATE>>, FEET AIO'IE IISlI ~.II
UlER OF 1IA1l1Ii POINTS: Cfo IHCAEIlHTIl EUVAllON STEP, FEET 1 .. I'
IDENTIFIED 116. M& tAllIN llITUT FlU CREATED: llIT.ED
tAlllN RISER 801 TAIL WATER PRI*lR1 SECONDARY TOTIl PtlIIIlRV
WATiR EUVAllON WATER EUVATJON WATER ElEVATION OISOtlRGE DI~R6E DI~RIl DI9JflR6E
FT ABOVE &. " ABOVE J&. FT ABOVE IISl US CF. CFS COO!U...-
38<. 51 .... N/A .... l,iIII\l ..... HlA
38.::.&1 ... HlA ..~ ..... ..~ MIA
38<.1' .... NIA '.128 '.IIN '.128 MIA
382.11I '.11 NIA ..zn ..... '.m HlA
J8Z.M ... MIA .. .18 ..... ".18 HlA
383... ... HlA ..138 I.. "138 HlA
383.1' ... NIA 1.132 ..... 1.132 MIA
383.21 '.11 NIA 1.182 ... I.eaa MIA
383.31 ... HlA 1.118 .... 1.118 MIA
383..- "II NIA 1.152 ..... 1.152 HlA
383.51 '.11 NIA 1.11lII ..... 1.11lII HlA
383.&1 '.11 HlA 1.251 1.128 2.'18 HlA
383.7t ... NIA 1.311 ..9W &.251 iliA
383.11I ... HlA 1.36' '.113 I" 542 MIA
383. " ... HlA I.~ 1..213 15.&18 HlA
~.. "II NIA I.m 21.158 21.631 N1A
~... .... NIA 1.531 Cfo.m 28.. N1A
~.2i '.11 HlA 1.581 3U'l:i 35.m NIA
~.38 '.11 NIA 1.629 ~.a8J .3.712 MIA
~.'- '.1Il1 NIA I.m 51.121 52. ... N/A
~.51 '.11 N/A I.Ta 6UI2 61.134 MIA
~.&I .... NIA 1.161 ".921 71.m NIA
~.7t .... MIA 1.811 1II.~4 82.275 N1A
3M.. .... HlA I.~ '1.618 'Ml1 N1A
~." '.11 N/A 1.8'5 leJ.383 1a5.m MIA
~.. I. Ie NIA 1.'30 115. 158 Ill.&'!. NIA
" llITlET STIUTURE liEOIETRY - pjU 2 OF l
FOR JOB: 11&-<<' - d'S SERVICES, IHC
ClJIIUTED lJj 11-17-1995 AT 11151:31 PIl
IDENTIFIED ASz PlWiE BASIN lIJTlET
NJlBER OF ~RlIlARI llJTLET CONTRllS: 1
NNER OF SEClJIlIjUly llJTLET WlTRllS: I
FlU CREATEDz llIT.EO
PlUM CONTn .... DISCIflIl6E PIPE
INVERT EUVATlON, FT AIO'IE IISL. 382.51 OIAIIETER, FTI I." LEH6TH, FTI ....N SUJIE, FTIFT, 1..1
ENTRANCE COHO ITIONz SWAAE END IfAlIIoVU ltoHC.ICIIlI ~It<<i' S NI UI8
DISCHlfl6E PIPE COEFFICIENTS: ,. U9aa J. -.5ealI c= ..1379 ~I'''.
SECONDARY CONTn "II TRAPEIOlllll. WEIR
INVERT EUVATlON, FT ABOVE IISL I 383.51
DI!iCHIll6E COEFFICIENT I J....
CREST l.EN6TH, "I 18.. R S1.lJlE, _HI IV I l.... L SUJIE, JVlh l."
IAllIN RWr INIl PEAl HESll. TS
fOR JOB. 186-w.; - fUll' 5 SERVICES, lit:
CONPUTED ON 11-11-1"5 AT II,~I,I. PM
IDENTIFIED AS. IAllIN SUlAIlEA I
IAllIN IhfLIJj HVDROOIml DATA FIUI POSTU.HVQ IIlOIFIEO RATlM
IlASIN EUWlTl()j VS. STDAA6E IIATRIl DATA FIlii IAllJN.ES IIAIUlL ENTRV
BASIN IlJTLET STII.CTUIlE DATA FIUlllJT.EO CAlCllATED
STORN FRElllEHClESI 2 5 II 25 I" VEAAS
IASIN INVERT EUWlllllt: J8C.51 FT AIlO'IE IlSl
BASIN TlIl OF lEIlIl EUWlTl()j: 385." FT AIOVE IlSl.
FIUISI CREATED:
INITIIl JltQ. EUVATlON: J8C.51 FT ABOVE IlSl.
InIT1Hll TIlE INTERUIl: 6.. MINS
PEA< HEn T5:
STORN PEAH DATE PEAIl TIlE PEAIl EUWlTl()j PEAK STDAA6E PEAH llJTFLIJj
F~(lfM:y IIIItJTES FT AIlO'IE 16. ACRE FEET CFS
iYEAR 11-1+-1995 .18.. 3&3." .. .1m 15.111
5 YEAR 11-14-1995 .18.. 3&3." .. 1132. 18.351
leVEAfl 11-1.-m5 .18... 3&3.'18 ..... 21.622
25VEAf1 II-1.-lm .18." 38UI .. ""I 22.2')i
I. YEAR 11-14-"'5 .18." lM.t5 ..,,~ 25.31.
IIlOIF lED RATllIfIl IETItlD HV~ IQ( IlESll ,~
FDA J08: 1a&-4<<l . IUilJ'S SEllVlas, IHC
ClJIl\jTED 1111l-21-lm AT 11:18:2& AN
PEAIl AflRllIl6EIo7: NID
STDAll fliElUHClESI 2 5 II 25 I. YIJlIlS
FlU IS) CIlEATEO: IlIl2U. HVD
StIIIlRY OF IASIC HYDRll6RAPH PllRANETERS
INITlIl DATE OF STORIIIS 11-14-"'5 AT .... ~IMJTES TIlE OF toHCEHTRATlOH, NINJTESI ~...
INTEIlS/TY TA8I.E FIUI PEl...... T8I. IlEIGHTED 'C' FACTOR, 1._
IJl(NTlFIED 116: POST DEIIE1.IHO - SUBAAEA 2 DRAI~ AREA, ACRES: 3. i!l
M linTS:
INITlIl IIVDGIWiH TIlE A\lERA6E IIAlhfll.l. IIAlhfll.l. IIAlhfll.l. lIEARlA&D Q
STOIII STOIlII .. MlTlON INTENSITY RIOJlT INCAElI:HTS IHCilEIEHTS INTENSITIES FI.Qj
YEAIl DATE NlttJTES INIHR IfD(S IroES INIHR INlHIl CFS
2 YEA1f IJ-I+-J":s. .15.. i.I' 1.&1 "1. 1.62 ..1' 9.~
' YEAR 11-1+-1'" .15.. 3.21 U! .. J6 1.91 ..89 11.123
"YEA1f 11-14-1"5 .15.. 3.11 "'3 ..21 2.38 5.41 12.186
25 YEAR IJ-I4-I''5 .15... ..It 1.12 ..22 2.64 5." 13. SlI
I. VEAl 11-I+-1'l!5 .15.. 5." 1.i5 ..27 3.25 7.32 16..
_IN nIV~TllJl 'IS. SlllAl& IlIllRI!
fOIl J081 1e&-.e5 - lUiO'S SERVl(1S, I"
CIJIlU1EIl ON 1I-2H'l'l~ AT 11.~I'1 AN
IllOOlflED AS. Ulll6 2 - ElISTII' SlllRA6E flU CIlEATEDI 1AS1N2.ES
ELEVATION llAEA AVE- AllEA ELEVATION IHCREJlHTIl T011l STllRA6E 'KL1Jlt
V l I I F T
381.. lea I ....
1111 I.. III'
J83,. 2121 II Ii I.~
.. I.. ..
3M.. . m. .."513
.~I I.. .~.
J85,. ~18I 81&' 1.2111'
3M5 1.. 5M5
... ~11 1~ U1528
7255 I.. 7255
387.M llIIIllII 2186. I. !!11M-
2
. EURR~NT 9AT~: 1~-2H195 FILE DATE: II-1P-1995
URR NT 111I: I : 44 : 1 F LE NAMEI HUG
CUL~ERr II 1
PERFORMANCE CUR~E FOR 2 BARREL (5)
(C~$I ~E 11 ) 'II 9CH ~9S~ ,C~ FCE IH 0
I ~l -IT (f I ( P )
U:J II: ~-NF . ~ 38 . $ : ~
: t I:t -~~
- , . 0
-
,I ~. Ji I~ f : ! I:~$ d ~ I :~
~.~
, . 8 4: ~
...
~. . 'J . 8 -Mar'
~: , 1. . 7 . 8 a-ill.: . 0 . 0 4. S
1. 1. ~5 . 7 -M2 '10 0 . .;\ 4.4
~i ~ ~:~t I: bt :~t ?-~ . 0 $ : $ 4.~
c- . 0 4. w
&f' .nf'll tic. Invert 38~'i0 ft ~I: aut ht inv.rt 38~:~~ n
_ . In .t throat Inv.rt . 0 ft In .t crISt
.....
ITI ~tA ..... T~.~ERT IN~ERT ..............
~Lll ~'~99A2~~~~T) 32I:~1
T A ~E,~U~ S (fT) 38J: 0
~ R4 li~~H ~tONG SLOPE (FT) 4~:1144
U~VIRT DATi SUMMARy........................
~R" ~ I~ T R Cl~C~bA~
ARR t ~E I!L CO~RUGATlD STEEL
LING'S N 02~
~ff ~ eIE~~9o~ALL ~~~ ~6A~~hOJECTING
.....
II
..!..
to4
..!..
.....
.
~
..
i!!
:&
~
. "\
. . .~:
i; !!
ii
:c; I
..
~
-
,.,.
i$
a
~
\
~
.
" \ .
..
....
..
..
..
I I I
lai
. c=D ?i
.-i . CD
m 2!5 ~ . ~
I I
I -
.-
~ -
t::
-
. .
IlllSIN RtX;! IMi PE~ IlESLl TS
FOR JDIl. IIH85 - 1Uill' 5 Sl:R<lICES, 1M:
~ED lJj ll-ZI-U95 AT IZIZZ,ZI '"
IIlEHTlF lED AS. SUMIEA Z - IIOST OEVT - EI STO
IAGIH UfLIJ/ HYORQ;,"H DATA F ILf, 1lOZ1l. HYD IIlDIF lED IlATlC>>R.
BilSIN EWA!llJj VS. srlltllG: *lIRll DATA FILE. 8A51NC:.ES ~ ENIRI
BilSIH IJJTLfT STROCTUllDATA FlLfI llJTz.EO IMR. ENTRI
STOllII FIlEIUJc:IES. Z ~ II ~ 111II YEAIIS
IlllSIN INVERT fUVATllJjl J8Z." FT A80VE IISl.
BASIN TIJIII' IEIlIl fUVAT IlJj, 387." FT ABOVE 115I.
FILfISI CflEllTED:
INlTJll PIXl. [LfVATllJj, J8Z.. FT ABOVE IISl.
IlWTlMi TIlE INTERVIl, 6.11II "INS
PEIi'. 1lE5U. TS,
STDIII PEJI( DATE PEJI( TIlt. ~ ELfVAllllN PEJI( STO~ PE~ IJJTFLaI
FIlEIlI.EII:V "IrtlTES FT ABOVE 115I. ACRE FEEl CFS
2 YEAII 11-14-1"5 .18.. J8Z.4t I. tlI" 6.756
5 YEAR 11-14-1995 .18.. JaZ.~ I. tlZ6~ Mil
" VEAA 1/-14-1995 .18." JaZ.:i6 .. .U17 9.~
2:l VEAA 11-14-1995 1118.. JaZ. .. "'1:\41 It.~12
..VEllll II-IH99~ .18.. JaZ.71 .. tl816 13.'I~
.
SUBAREA J
fU.E llilWtlMII WRI PKI' GrKflI4
.
.
IIlTlC>>R. HETIClO - 1oE16IlTED 'C' YIlI.(S
FOR Jill, 116-415 - IUill'S Sl:RVICES, /Ie;
CllIllATED lJIll-ZI-I"~ AT 1I1111~ All
IDENTIFIED ASI PlET [(VElOPED - SUBAREA J
IEFEJ(Ic;(
IUlER
'1
E
COYER [(SCRIPIIlJI
(TYPE. TIlEATHENT. . CONDITllJIl
IIHRVIll.6
lJlEH SPACE
'C'
YIlI.(
L9ll
..~
TOTIl AJiEllI
AJiEll
~RES
L9ll
1.411
2.38
PRllIltlT
'C' . A
'.818
'.B
1.168
AVERAIiE I(IGHTED 'C' 1/. 1611 2.3811 ..~.
" .
.
IIllllF lED RATlC>>R. NETIIlO HY~ PEJI( 1lE5U. TS
FOR JOB: II6.C - IUill'S SERVICES, lie
~ 1Il1l'Zl-Im AT 1I:161~1 ,..
PElIl AmfElHENTI "10
STOIlIl FllElUlI:IEsl Z ~ II 25 188 VEARS
F1UlSl CIlEATEOI POJIl.HYD
SUIIlRY lJ BASIC HYOllOOmt PARlW:TERS
INITIAL DATE OF sTOIlIl IS 11-14-19'5 AT ....... "INUTEs TINE lJ ClXENTMTllJj, "INUTEs, ...
INTElISITV TABlE FlU: PEIfH. TBL lEl6HTED 'C' FACTOR: L.
IDENTIFIED AS. POST DEYELlJIED - SUMIIEA 3 1lIlA1NA6E IlIIEA, ACIl5: 2. ~
~ RESLlTS,
INITIIl HYDIOilWlH TINE AVEJll6E MINFIU MINFIU MINFIU IlElIRIMiD PElIl
STllfII S1lJllIl IlURATllIl INTENSITY lIIlJIT IIeIlEHENTS IIeIlEHENTS INTENSITIES Fl.III
YEAR DATE WINlTES INIHR IIDES IIDES INIHR lNIHR as
2 YEAR 11-14-199~ .1~.88 2.n 1.67 1.14 1.62 4.1' 4.tn
~ YEAR 11-14-1'95 .1~.. J.ZI '.88 1.16 1.97 4.11, 5.6i!4
II YEAR 11-I4-199~ .1~. J.n 1.93 Lat 2.38 MI Ull
25 YEAR 11-14-1995 1I81~. 4.11 I.IZ LZZ 2.64 5." 6.193
I.VEAIl 11-14-199~ .I~." ~Iili 1.25 1.27 3.25 7.32 U!I
r\
.
-, " .
.
APPENDIX C
STORM DRAIN
l'II.r: II....J~"1I WRI PKf GCKBU
".
No. 95-4Q6
CUNBU:u.~
COUNtY SUlOIVISION/LAND CiViLCPKE~ REVIEW REPORI
Nun~o~p.Uty
H~mr.d"n
ilat T1tle HU~G'S ~.tvLc.s. Inc.
Surveyor LSC
Ptel~min.ry ___ 'In.l -!- '10_1 (~lnor Subd~Y1I,on:
En~lnlier
JQninq Outr~ot
I.a
Land U.e !ndustrlal
Reol1l&tiona: N'..nioi\l<ll X
County
Date ~C.iv.d 1'/28/95
Total 2.8'1
&Nellinq Unit. ~
County ~ev1'w 12/21J9~
ZoninQ .JL.. Aore_Qe: Sutdlvlded
Sa~D X Number of Lots
Stdf Re'/~ew OfUcial
plat appears to comply with ap~licabl" reoul.tl~~s,
Plat ap~rl to qenerally corr.p_y With applicable r.?ulationl: revi.ion. m.y t.
reql1ired, as indlcated.
X Plat .ppearl to need s~t.t.nti.l reviaion. .. ~nd~c.ted.
aeviewed by ~ Checked by JZ
Review comment. with cited ordinance provisions at' based on m~nJcipaJ regul.eJons on fJl.
with the County Pl.nnJng Commission.
1.
When applicAble. street., sewer, water, Itorm drain_.., and other infr,"truct~re
element a to be vitrified a. ad.quate by Municipal staftJeOQineer.
When applicable, zonlnq compliance to be verltl~ by Munlc1pal Zon1nQ Otticer.
AppropriAte stw_oe module component should be processed prior to tlnAl plat
approval.
PinAl plats must be reQordG~ withln 9) days of approval.
The Addre.. And telephone numbitr ot the d.veloper .hould be included (Sub. Ord. Sec.
403.2.0.) .
2.
3.
..
5.
6.
7.
The plan must te certi:led by the surveyo:JenQlneer.
A locatlon ~a~ 1s not 1ncluded wlth tne plan.
The distanee ot ths eastern toundaty line. adjaeent to the PA Railroad, ~s not
Indicated.
All edjAcent property ownen sho'~ld t>. no~ed.
Total atea ot thlS tract should be listed.
ixistino and proposed lot cov4raq9 is not indlc~tsd (Zoninq. Sec. 1407'.
Buildinq setb.ck distAnees should OR shown en thO plan (ZOnlnQ. Soc. 14081.
Pavl~ width ot Industrial Orlve should be noted.
The zonlnq of thlS trAct and adjacent zonin; In Camp H111 ahould be liseed.
The plan should include a parkinq schedule indlcetin. the number of r~Jired and
proposed parklnq spaces.
The status of the plan (preliminary or flnall should be clarified on the plL~.
HOW w1l1 this devitle~~ent l~act the traf~ic volume on Industrial Road And St. Johr..
Church Road? W111 1mprovitments be neeessary7
The plAn ahol11d ,nelude e statement of ownership, si.rood ty the owner.
Approprilte a~prov.l blocks should be shown.
a.
9.
,.,.
1\.
12.
13.
14.
15.
IS.
11.
lB.
1 ~.
)00. .
NO. 95 -406
Ct.mIR1P.1IT ..l!\ln
COUNTY SUBDIVISION/LAND CEVELOPMENT REVI!W REPORT
MUn1cl.pali ty
Hamoden
~14t Title Huaa'~ SerVices. Inc.
Surveyor t.SC
Preliminary
Zoning District
'inal ~ 'inal (Minor Subdivision)
engineer
I-G
Land Use !nQustrlal
Regulations: MUnicipal X
County
Data Recei'led "/~q'Q5
:oning -A-. Acr9aqe: SulxHVld..d
5&LD :< NUmber "r Lots
Total 2.97
Dwell1nq Units -2-
County Rev.'!w 12/;1/~i
Statf 9.avidw
Of f .l..: ~d:
!?lat ..ppears to comply '''Hhapplicabla requlatlons.
X ;>lat .ppears to 'Jenerally Gomply '''lth appl1,:..ble r9qul..tlons; raV1.S1,Jn:3 may be
required. as ~ndicated.
?la.e appea.:3 to :teed 3ub3::.lnt~J.":" :.3V1.310n, 1;:3 l.nd.lC.ltad.
Reviewed by ..lL.. Checked by 1Z
Review commenes with .~i.eed ordi?ance prOViSions .are based on municipal regulations on file
with ehe Couney Planning Comm1sSion,
1. When applicable, strget3. sewer. '''at..r. storm drainage, and other 1nfrastructure
elementa to be "ertri'!d as adequate by munictpal starf/..nq1neer.
2. When applicable. zoninq ~ompl1ance to be verlfled by MuniCipal Zoninq Orficer.
3. Appropriate sewage module component should be processed prlor to rinal plat
approval.
4. ?inal plats must be r..corded ."tthin ')0 days orlpproval.
S. The plan must be cert1fled by the surveyor/enqineer.
6. All adjacent property owners should be noted.
7. ?avlnq .....1.dth at :ndustr:a1. :Jr':'l/e should be :lcted.
a. The adjacent zoninq 1n C..rnp Hill 3hould be 11sted.
9. The plan should lnclude a parklnq 3chedule 1ndicat1nq tha number or reqUired parking
spaces. The number or ..mployees should be noted to Glar1=y the reqUired nwnber ot
park.lnq spaces.
10. The status 0: the plan (~rel1minary or f1nal) should be clar1fled on the plan.
11. How will this development impact the traffic volume on Industr1al Road and St. Johns
Church Road? Will 1mprovemencs be necessary?
12. The plan should be slgned ,'y the owner and notarized.
I. INTRODUCTION
A traffic analysis was performed by Acer Engineers & Consultants, Inc. (Acer) for the
Warehouse/Office Addition, as proposed by Eastern Consolidated & Distribution
Services, [nc, (Eastern). to be located along Industrial Park Road in Hampden
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Sources of data include information provided to Acer by Eastern and the "Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Proposed Waste Transfer Station," prepared by Acer in July of
[995, A copy of the aforementioned report is included in the Appendix.
The proposed development will be a [25,325 square foot addition. to an existing
warehou&e building located along the south side of Industrial Park Road and
approximately 150 feet east of Slerling Street. A site plan which illustrates the site,
showing the existing building as well as the proposed addition, is also included in the
Appendix.
n. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is currently used as a trailer parking area leased to the Quaker Oats Company
for stockpiling loaded trailers. The trailers are shuttled out of the parking lot to be
unloaded and then returned to the lot to await pickup at a later date. At times the lot
contains in excess of 70 trailers waiting to be unloaded. Provision of additional
warehouse space will eliminate the need to stockpile the trailers on this property as
well as eliminating the shuttle operation between the parking lot and the warehoWle.
E[imination of the shuttle operation will result in the reduction of approximately lli
trios !ler dav. including 10 triDs durinl! Deak hil!hwav hours, These trips currently
contribute to entering and exiting traffic at the intersection of St. John's Church Road
and Industrial Park Road.
- 1 -
aC~1
.'.,
Appendix
. .
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings and results of a traffic study conducted by Acer Engineers and
Consultants, Inc. for the proposed Waste Management Waste Transfer Facility located along
Industrial Park Road in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA.
The purpose of this study was to conduct the necessll1'}' engineering and traffic studies in order to
(I) determine the level of service under existing and future conditions at the intersections of
Industrial Park Road & SI. John's Church Road, Trindle Road & SI. John's Church Road and
Main Street & SI. John's Church Road; (2) to evaluate PADOT traffic signal warrants at the
intersection of Industrial Park Road & SI. John's Church; and (3) to evaluate the pavement
sections under existing and future conditions.
Future traffic analysis included the potential traffic expected to be generated from the proposed
addition of a waste transfer facility at the existing 16 acre Waste Management Facility opposite
of Terminal Street along Industrial Park Road.
The Scope of Services undertaken for this analysis include:
. Data collection including AM, Mid.Day and PM peak period manual turning
traffic counts and automatic traffic counls along each approach of the subject
intersection.
. Evaluate the existing conditions including capacityllevel of service analyses at the
previously mentioned intersection.
. Develop and detennine the trip generation characteristics of the proposed waste
transfer facility.
. Conduct future conditions capacity analysis at the subject intersection with the
consideration of the proposed waste transfer facility.
. Evaluate the pavement section to determine the effects of the additional truck
traffic. .
. Develop a list of conclusions resulting from the additional traffic expected to be
generated by the proposed waste transfer facility.
Sources of data include Hampden Township. Waste Management of Pennsylvania, the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Pennsylvania State Data Center, the Law
, ' Offices of Eugene E. Dice, Asphalt Institute the Transportation Research Board, the Institute of
Traffic Engineers and the files and field reconnaissance efforts of Acer Engineers & Consultants,
Inc.
I
a~
I. Robert E. Bashore, reviewed the relevant infonnation in the pennit documents. including
comments of the Department of Environmental Resources and response there to, I also relied on
past experiences with waste transfer stations and observalions there of, My professional
qualifications arc included in the Appendix of the report.
DATA COLLECTION
Automatic 24-hour machine counts were conducted by Acer from Thursday, February 16, 1995
to Friday, February 24, 1994 at each approach of the intersection of Industrial Park Road and SI.
10hn's Church Road. The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along each approach is as_
follows: . '/:I~- .d.
,.~ -: /p'
· Industrial Park Road Eastbound - 2,S41 vehicles per day (VP~ ( S 3 Z q
· Industrial Park Road Westbound. 2,788 VPD '----=-~.
it SI. 10hn's Church Road Northbound - 8.437 VPD
· St. 10hn's Church Road Southbound. 8,397 VPD
Manual turning movement counts of the existing traffic volumes were also conducted to
ascertain the peak hour traffic periods, volumes and existing conditions at the subject
intersection.
....
The manual countS were conducted in accordance with P ADOT's criteria under average day
conditions on Tuesday, February 14, 1995 from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and
- from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM with turning movements, number of trucks and volumes recorded for
each intersection movement at fifteen minute intervals.
It was detennined from the counts that the morning peak hour occurred generally between 7:15
AM and 8:15 AM, the mid-day peak occurred between 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM and the evening
peak hour occurred between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. Figure I illustrates the existing traffic volumes
for each intersection counted and peak periods analyzed.
The results of the traffic counts indicate that there are approximately 2,572 trucks (16% of the
ADT) that utilize St. 10hn's Church Road and approxiIIllltely 1,965 trucks (37% of the ADT) that
use Industrial Park Road. It was also detennined that 76% of the trucks on SI. 10hn's Road
originate or are destined for Industrial Park Road.
2
!~
,0:
n~ ...
"'
L- 27/81/108
~~~
NN - 451/51W871
TRINDl.E JIL r- 209/221/248
ROAD
54/57/115 -..J lli
9231549flll4 -
11312001143 --, 21~
IJ
~~
n L- 70199fl5
IL
r- 18/35/24 INDUSTRIAL
PARK ROAD
Ii
~~
h
:l~~
~....
~~~ L- 188/388/382
..~~ - 27814021523
MAIN JIL r- 11/32/37
STREET -..J lli
122191/68
438/358/51
12118/16 --, :;:
.i'"
5l"S;
~:;C!
"'~...
NN"
FIGURE 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (xxJyy/zz = AMlMID-DAY/PM)
II
ii
(
I
WASTE TRANSFER STATION TRAFFIC ANAYLSIS
HAMPDEN TOINNSHIP
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 3
ac~/ Acer Englneeru &
Consultants, Inc.
ANALYSIS
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
From an operations perspective, the traffic volume passing through an intersection is normally
more critical than the volume at a mid-block location, Traffic congestion is more likely
experienced where traffic must stop at a traffic signal or stop sign than where it can otherwise
flow freely in mid-block, A road which IllI1fOWS or vehicles turning into or out of on-street
parking spaces, or buses stopping to pick up or discharge passengers can slow traffic in
mid-block.
f-.-
The degree of traffic congestion at an intersection can be ranked according to six Levels of
Service ranging from A, which is free flowing traffic, to F, which is a forced movement. The six
levels as they apply to signalized and non-signalized intersections are described in detail below.
In this study, the methodology used in determining intersection Levels of Service is the method
prescribed in the 1985 Hil1hway ClIpacity Manunl Special Report No. 209 published by the
Transportation Research Board and its software developed by the Federal Highway
Administration. In this manual. signalized intersection capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio
demand flow rate to capacity (V /e ratio), while Level of Service (LOS) is evaluated on the basis
ofaverage stop delay per vehicle (see/vehicle). For unsignalized intersections, capacity, reserve
capacity, and Level of Service are evaluated in terms of critical gap size and conflicting traffic.
The generally accepted industry standard is that levels of service A, B, or C are acceptable, D is
marginal, and E and F are unacceptable.
-
~
Several quantitative methods exist for objcctivdy determining Levels of Service at
signal.controlled and stop sign-controlled intersections. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
method was used to calculate levels of service at the intersection where turning movement counts
were taken. .
Slgnallzed Intersections
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, Delay iudicates the
degree of driver discomfort, frustration. fuel consumption. and lost travel time, Specifically,
level.of-service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a
60-minute analysis period.
Delay may be measured in the field, or may be estimated using procedures presented in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of
variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the
volume/capacity (v/c) ratio for the lane group or approach in question.
4
~
Lev.1 of Service A describes operations with very low delay, Le" less than 5,0 sec per vehicle.
This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and mest vehicles arrive during the green
phase, Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute (0 low delay.
Lev.1 of Servlc. B describes operations with delay in the range of 5,1 to 15,0 sec per vehicle.
This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than
for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level of S.rvlc. C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25,0 sec per vehicle.
These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at
this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping,
Lev.1 of S.rvlc. D describes operations with delay in the range of25.lto 40.0 sec per vehicle.
At level D. the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, Longer dlllays may result from
some combinations of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high vlc ratios. Many
vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
Level of S.rvlc. E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60,0 sec per vehicle.
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate
poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high vlc ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
Lev.1 of S.rvlc. F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is
considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, This condition often occurs with oversaturation,
I.e., when arrivall10w rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high vlc
ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor'progression and long cycle lengths
may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels,
Un.ignallzed Int.....ction.
Level of service criteria for this methodology are states in very general terms, and are related to
general delay ranges. The criteria are given below and are based on the reserve (unused) capacity
oflhe lane in qnestions. This value is computed as:
CR = CSH - V
Where:
CR
CSH
V
pcph
= reserve or unused capacity of the lane, in pcph;
= shared-lane capacity of the lane in pcph; and
= total volume or l10w rate using the lane, in pcph
= passenger cars per hour
5
Levels of service range from" A" to "F" and are defined below.
A Little or no delay is expected at an intersection where the reserve capacity is equal
to or greater than four hundred passenger cars per hour,
8 Short traffic delays may be expected at levels of service B, where the reserve
capacity is 300-399 passenger cars per hour.
C Average traffic delays may be expected at a level of service C, where the reserve
capacity is 200-299 passenger cars per hour.
D Long traffic delays arc encountered at an intersection with level of service D,
where the reserve capacity is 100-199 passenger cars per hour.
EVery long delays are encountered at an intersection where the level of service is E,
as reserve capacity is 0-99 passenger cars per hour.
F When demand capacity exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be
encountered with queuing, which may cause severe congestion affecting other
traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants
improvements to the intersection
Table I shows a summary of the criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersection
levels-of-service while Figure 2 illustrates the signalized levels.
. .
,...
6
~
.-
-
-
-
-
~ ~ .:.!:! >>
01
~~ 00&> -
':I 01 ~ -0
i\ ~ on u i.!:!
ut:: u
U';::l ..
:g ~ ',2 ,~ ~g t -0,%
- ufo
~ ... ,~ 8 U \~
~ .... on
Z t: o .~ .... 0 ~
Q ~ .ROll o e
t ~S ~ ~'i ~ ~ .... u~
... g e 0 ~
UJ &1 .: 9 ~j '~
en on
~ -
-
, l
-
II) .!l
CJ ~ 0 .:.
~ . on ~
II) C) > .,.; .,.; .:. -
- .. 0 M <t'
'C en - 9 ~
. .,.; 9 9
S D;, VI 9 -
- - - 0 ^I
CJ ! .,.; .,.; .,.; <t'
e - M
~ !
Q) 0 ~
-
,g Q)
lU CJ
t- .-
~ .. on ~9
0 on
~ j on .;- III ~ 1=
.;- ~ ~ :g ~ ., c
Z 05 - ~ e 0
- 0"- ~ ~ ~ U I ~.=
0 i= E! u l
g u ~ U III 0 ~
t:: .;-"
- CJ C!..- e Co!!
CI) UJ .. .. "a =
> ~~1 0 = S ~ ~.5 .:
., ., i \'~
~ - t: OIl ell oS
::: ~ t .:
,~
- oS ~
'" ...
01 .,
-&1 ... ~ ~
,
R
u
!.- ~ ~ ~
~ ..:: 8 ~
en CJD. '" M - 0
<t' , . ,
Z .CJ 0 8 . VI
::I ~!:. ^' 8 0 0
. '" M -
:
a:
...,.
,!:!1Il
~ci -< co u Cl \.l.l "'"
~d.
on
..
...
-
~
~
...
.S
1
~
::!
l
u
.s:.
~
!
1
Q
'i
~
1
ell
1
'"
,~
~
i
...
..
....
'-
t
c'l
'Qo
-
..
,.
~
,
~ ~
0
~ -4
I
,
,
l
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVELS OF TRAFFIC SERVICE
Presentation Based On HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL.
Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board. 1985
~
~
i:j;ll
:-~
'Q - %~ a::n c@ a:t;l a:=
~ ~C:P t:Q ~
~ ial
~
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
A
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
B
Stopped Delay
Per Vehicle
5.1 - 15.0 Seconds
Stopped Delay
Per Vahiele
< 5.0 Seconds
r.\ \~ a:;1
\t1~%~ ~:it:l ~ ~
'Q liP ~ d!!! it]:I
. _. % ~ii:J:l
--0:= ~ It:!l a:f!l
,.. .' LEVELOF C
r.\claC SERVICE
\t10\~""
",_~-'a
.1.113 -
~i ~~
j,~ ~
~';~It _ "",II a::;;'tZl ~ ;pl
'C' -- ~1'b~:t;!l itJ:
~ -, ;, cP-l '~itJ:~ o:::c ~
~..'" .a; ,P\)
'::~
r\c~ LEVELOF E
1'O::'.e.. SERVICE
,-'"
flS\~'"
-.....\'!:I
~ ~~
Stopped Delay
Per Vehicle
15.1 - 25.0 Seconds
Stopped DalBY
Per Vehicle
25.1 - 40.0 Seconds
.
StoPped Delay
I'lIr Vehicle
40.1 - 60.0 Seconds
IL
%\~ ::..:
1"\_0 ~""'" et::
l'Ocr.-- ~ ~-
'C'-ag a:::~~ a:;ll ~~ c.~
~.. g ~ ~ itJ:c::Q ~ ~ --
~ C ~ Ita
(OJ -~.... LEVEL OF F
Ia%\a~ SERVICE
~~~.~ Stopped Delay
\;) Per Vehicle
%l]~~ :> 60 Seconds
...
8
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAt=FIC
The new traffic generated by the proposed waste transfer facility was assumed to be distributed
onto the existing roadway network based upon existing traffic flows and travel pallems already
established.
The directional distribution analysis reflects the fact that motorists will choose Ihe minimal
impedance path both to and from the site. The results of this analysis indicate thatlhe primary
route of traffic, approximately 74 percent, to and from the site will be from Ihe north along SI.
John's Church Road. Table 3 exhibits the summary of approach routes for traffic and Fillurc 3
graphically illustrates these results, The "new" truck traCtic volumes generatcd and previously
discussed were distributcd onto the roadway network bascd on thc followinll perccntallcs. The
distributed site gcnerated traffic volumcs can be found on Figure 4.
Table 3
Directional Distribution of Site Traffic
To I From
East along Trindle Road to SI. John's Church Road
West along Trindle Road to St. John's Church Road
North along SI. John's Church Road
West along Main Strcet to SI. John's Church Road
East along Main Street to SI. John's Church Road
South along St. John's Church Road
Percenta e
2S%
21%
28%
S%
13%
8%
100%
PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE
The total future traffic volume assignment consists of the sumrnntion of the 1995 tranic volumes
and the traffic volumes expected to be gencrated by t~e propused wnste transfer station. The
projected traffic volumes with development arc illustratcd in Figure S, Capacity I level of scrviee
analyses of the projected volumes from the waste transfer station were conductcd on the subject
intersection. Table 4 displays the results of the capacity I level uf service analysis.
As can be seen. the signalized interscctions of SI. John's Church Road with Trindle Road and
Main Street will continue to operate at nn acceptable level of service which is consistent with
existing conditions. The intcrsection of SI. John's Church Road at Industrial Park Road will
experience decreased levels of service during both the AM and Mid-Day peak periods.
II
During the AM peak period the westbound approach will drop from a level "8" to a level "C"
and during the Mid-Day peak the southbound approach will drop from a level "A" to a level "B".
This decrease in level of service at the intersection of St. John's Church Road and Industrial Park
Road would be the result in the addition of the 198 "new" daily truck trips which the waste
transfer facility would generate.
ROADWAY PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
The existing pavement sections along St. John's Church Road and Industrial Park Road were
analyzed under existing and projected traffic conditions to determine the impact of the "new"
truck traffic generated by the proposed waste transfer station. The pavement sections were
analyzed utilizing software developed by the Asphalt Institute (0 determine the expected
pavement life and to determine if the asphalt pavement is thick enough to facilitate the additional
loading.
The average daily traffic volumes and the percent of trucks were determined from the manual
traffic counts and the automatic recorder counts. The projected population growth rate for the
area was provided by the Pennsylvania State Data Center in Harrisburg and the existing
pavement cross sections for St. John's Church Road and Industrial Park Road were supplied by
PADOT and Hampden Township, respectively,
The fesults of this analysis indicated that the life expectancy of the existing roadway pavement
would be reduced with the addition of the "new" truck traffic generated by the proposed waste
transfer station. The life expectancy of the pavement along St. John's Church Road would be
decreased by 47-percent and by 51-percent on Industrial Park Road under the proposed traffic
and loading conditions.
QUEUING AREA
The facility appears to have a queuing area for approximately 8 to 10 vehicles before the waiting
vehicles will spill out onto Industrial Park Road. As outlined under the Site Trip Generation on
page 10 of this report, it is estimated that 18 percent (I2 transfer trailers and 24 collection trucks)
of the daily traffic will enter/exit the facility during the f..M. peak hour of a weekday. Assuming
a 10 to 25 minute turnaround time for vehicles entering the transfer station, it is possible that ten
(lO) vehicles could be waiting at anyone time during the A,M. peak period. This would impact
Industrial Park Road traffic during the moming peak hour,
In addition, the site plan shows a distance of approximately ISO feet between the proposed scales
and the throat of the 32 foot wide access drive which will permit only one lane of traffic in and
out. With more than five trucks waiting. entering transfer vehicles as well as collection vehicles
will be impeded.
12
!~
'"
'"
TRINDLE
ROAD
28%
. r 25%
21%.
74%
L
r----l
: SITE :
I I
L_ __...I
r
26%
INDUSTRIAL
PARK ROAD
L 13%
. MA:N
STREET 5% ..J t
8%
.
FIGURE 3
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF STlE TRAFFIC
II
i
I
~
~
WASTE TRANSFER STATION TRAFFIC ANAYlSIS
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP. 13
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
aC~L Ace, EnSlin..,. &
Conaultantl. Inc.
"'
~~
,0:
'~m Iii
-s~ L 27/81/108
~l:j~
- ~51/51W811
TRINDLE JIL r- 212122J12~8
ROAD
5<11511115 -.J llr
923/50491184 -
1 111120211<< ---, ~r'
I~I
~~
h L 85/109/83
IL
r- 21/31128 INDUSTRIAL
PARK ROAD
Ii
~~
:!l....
:ll!
.-
!i~
~-~ L 161/381/383
-8
.-- - 2181~02l523
MAIN JIL r- 11/32/31
STREET -.J
123/9111l1 llr
~381358/51
12118/18 ---, :I
S~~
-~
P\_,...
.......
FIGURE 5
PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (xxJyy/u. = AMlMID-DAY/PM)
II
ij
I
i3
i
WASTE TRANSFER STATION TRAFFIC ANAYLSIS
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania IS
ac~z Acer Engln..... &
Consultants, Inc.
,-
..
::I u u
0 ::c ~ .
:z: .~ ~
... r!
II i i
.. ~
Go <0( <0( Cl
J :II 15 'i5
Go :z :z
JJ!I ...
U II u ..!l
.. ~ .., .
Go.. .. ~
>0::1 .!.! <"l
~~ a. i -
Q, ~
<0( <0( Cl
i 'is 'is
Ii :z :z
..
::I
Go ~ u u .
i ~ ~
i <"l
.!.! -
i i -
~
:II <0( <0( Cl
<( 'is 'is
Gl :z :z
u
'E 1
Gl
I/) i i ~
...
0 '"
.!! e II I-
a. :z :z 11,
Gl .s 'is 'i5
>
~ :z :z _en
~
.! c ..
.a 0 ::I
~ ~ ~ . . . .
~ ~ . .
Gl ... '" '" OG'00-
e II oci ,.; ~:'!..
.. M ..,
.s Go ~ ~ ~
c .. :II Q Q ClW
- .lil Go
" ~
.s ..
~ CIl ...
0 II
.... .. . . . .
e J// Go.. ~ ~ . .
"= .. 00'0-
a. .. >0::1 :!
! II 0 ::J .....
q:z: ~ ~ c.~
'a I U Cl ClW
S
~
e ..
::I
Go ~ . .
. . . .
~ ~
... .. ~~
~ '" :8;::
II oci
.. ~ :c.t!.
Go ~ Cl
:II U <o(u
<(
1il e..c
"3 "3 :':'1
I ! ~a
'" ~"3~~
..c 1il~
1il ~ ~i!ll~
!~ !~
il
..!I.a en.a
]: .5~
~ul ...'0
I-en en,5
~
..c
~
~
1
~..
'.l!jU
c u
~j
,- ~
>. '
..en
~q
..J
u c
"0
e,-
uti
.< ~
~.!l
Vl c
d:;;
-i !.!
'0:.::3
,~ ~
1'~
,- ::J
Vl,
, .
. .
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study has been to analyze the impact of the additional truck traffic from the
proposed waste transfer station locatc:d within the existing Waste Management Facility along
Industrial Park Road. The major findings and conclusions reached through this analysis are
listed as follows:
I. The existing conditions capacity analyses indicate that the inlersection of St. John's
Church Road and Industrial Park Road currently operates at an unacceptable levela of
service during the Mid-Day and PM peak periods.
2. The projected development of a 600 to 800 tons/day waste transfer station will generate
approximately 198 "new" truck trip on an average weekday. Of these new trips, 18-
percent (12 transfer trailers & 24 collection trucks) would enter/exit the facility during
the AM peak hour of a weekday, 12-percent (8 transfer trailers & 16 collection trucks)
would enter/exit the facility during the Mid-Day peak hour of a weekday, and 10-percent
(6 transfer trailers & 14 collection trucks) would enter/exit the facility during the PM
peak hour of a weekday.
3. The directional distribution analysis revealed that the primary route both to and from the
site would be from along St. John's Church Road, approximately 74 percent to the north
and 26 percent to the south. Approximately 46 percent will utilize Trindle Road, 25
percent from the east and 21 percent from the west.
4. The queuing area located at the entrance to the scales for the facility appears to be
sufficient for 8 to 10 vehicles before the waiting vehicles would back-out onto Industrial
Park Road. With the possibility of ten (10) vehicles waiting during the AM peak period,
through traffic along Industrial Park Road would be impacted,
5. It was determined the interseclion of SI. John's Church Road and Industrial Park Road
will experience decreased levels of service during both the AM and Mid-Day peak
periods as a result of the proposed traffic which the waste transfer facility would generate.
6. The results of the pavement analysis indicated .that the life expectancy of the pavement
along St. John's Church Road would be decreased by 47-percent and by 51-percent on
lndu~trial Park Road under the proposed traffic and loading conditions based on the
required roadway section as per the Hampden Township Ordinance.
G(~ c!: ~~Q_
7-1-1.95
Robert E. Bashore
Senior Traffic Engineer
Date
L
17
ac~
r
Agenda Meeting Minutes
December 28, 1995
Question on the Motion
President Finkelstein asked the Solicitor if the extension could be
.conditioned," and Solicitor Snelbaker said,he djdn't feel it was a problem since the
developer had agreed to the conditions, It w:as also agreed that the Township was to
receive copies of correspondence generated between the homeowners' association and
the developer.
President Finkelstein asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried
unanimously,
President Finkelstein dosed the public hearing, and the agenda meeting was
reconvened.
A d' P'"
u tence artlclpatton
Correspondence Received from Keeley and Company
William D. Keeley informed the Board that a house at 5911 Stephen's
Crossing had inadvertently been positioned on a storm sewer easement that ran in a
north/south direction between 5911 and 5913 Stephen's Crossing, He said that
particular storm sewer easement was 30 feet wide, while others in the subdivision
were only 20.feet wide, and he asked the Board to consider vacating ten feet, fin feet
each side, of the 30.foot wide easement in order to allow dear title to the property.
After discussion, it was agreed the Board would consider vacating a portion of
the storm sewer easement after appropriate documents were provided by the
developer for review by the solicitor,
Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for United Cerebral Palsy
George E. Ferry, Jr" representing United Cerebral Palsy, said the expanded
concept of a day care at the facility had been abandoned. He said, as a result of that,
approximately 2,000 square feet had been eliminated from the proposed building and
the parking and impervious areas had been reduced, He said the variance request had
also been amended to request that 40 percent lot coverage be permitted rather than
50 percent as originally requested. Mr. Ferry said UCP had tried to meet the
concerns of the Township and still construct the facility te) meet the needs of children
with disabilities.
l__
Manager Bradley stated he felt the commissioners had to wait for a decision
from the Zoning Hearing Board; however, if UCP was going to amend its variance
-2-
Agenda Meeting ~Iinutcs
December 28, 1995
request downward from 50 to 40 percent, his recommendation, different than it W.\S
lJSt month, would be to not oppose the variance:
Comm Rendler asked what the lot cOlleClge requirement was in a Residential-
Suburban Zone, and Manager Bradley said tbe maximum lot coverage in a
Residential-Suburban Zone W.l!l 30 perCfnt, Mr, Bradley said the applicant's original
request was for approximately 70 percent, reduced to 50 percent prior to
consideration by the Zoning Hearing Board and, now, to less than 40 percent. He
said there were two points which he thought were important. He said, due to the
higher teacher-to-student ratio, parking requirements for a school might not be the
requirement best suited for this type of facility. Secondly, the outdoor playground
area had to be a hard surface because of the requirement of the disabled children, a
requirement that was not necessary for a normal school.
Solicitor Snelbaker suggested, if the applicant wished to have the new coverage
requirement considered, that information should be forwarded to the Zoning
Hearing Board as soon as possible. He said the Zoning Hearing Board had all
obligation to hold a hearing on the new application but, if everyone agreed there was
no need for another hearing, the Zoning Hearing BOilrd might be able to render a
decision on January 3, Discussion followed.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to not oppose the amended application for variance
received from United Cerebral Palsy of the Capital Area, Motion
seconded by Comm McCallin.
Question on the Motion
Comm Rendler said it was his hope that, if the motion was approved,
it would not affect future decisions concerning the Residential-Suburban Zone,
Comm Funk asked if it was correct thilt, if the playground area did not
have to be paved, the plan would be in compliance. l\ildnager Bradley said that would
be true if the parking could be reduced and the playground did not have to be paved
but, because of the uniqueness of the facility, those things were necessary.
President Finkelstein asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Preliminar:yrFinal [ and Development Phn for Hugo Services. Inc.
'.-...
Paul K, Francis, Land Survey Consultants, Inc" informed the Board that the
Preliminary/Final land Development Plan for Hugo Services, Inc. had be.en
-3-
r
I' .
Agenda Meeting Minutes
December 28, 1995
presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission had
requested that a traffic study be completed, which he believed had been h.lnd-
delivered to the Township offices that day, Mr. Francis said the applicant was under
a very tight schedule to get a warehouse adc;litio!) constructed by June, and he asked if
a special meeting of the Board of CommissiQners could be arranged once the Planning
Commission made its recommendation.
Manager Bradley informed the Boarc~ that the time limit deadline was
March 16, 1996, He said the Planning Commission had concerns about increased
storm water runoff and traffic and had asked the applicant to address those issues,
Concerning increased traffic, he said the Planning Commission had specifically
requested that the applicant provide a letter from PADoT stating that St. John's
Church Road would not be harmed by the increased tractor-trailer traffic and he felt
the Township's traffic engineer should review the traffic study provided by Hugo
Services, Inc., all of which was going to take some time.
Concerning stormwater runoff, Manager Bradley said the calculations
provided by Waste Management, Inc. and Hugo Services, Inc, showed less
stormwater being created on the Waste Management, Inc. site and more being created
on the Hugo Services, Inc, site, yet Hugo Services, Inc, wanted Waste Management's
calculations rejected and its accepted. Manager Bradley said, again, it was going to
take time to review the information provided,
Concerning Mr, Francis' inquiry about a special meeting by the Board of
Commissioners, Manager Bradley informed Mr. Francis that the applicant would
have to send a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners requesting a
special meeting. He said, if the Board was inclined to grant the request, the meeting
would have to be advertised, with the applicant bearing the cost of that
advertisement. Mr. Francis thanked the Board for its time and consideration,
Approval of the Minutes
Concerning the October 19, 1995 special minutes, Comm McCallin said the
discussion entitled "1996 Employee Compensation and Benefit Package" on Pages 5
and 6 did not reflect the fact that inflation was less than three percent for the year and
that was why the argument was oriented to less than a six percent salary increase. He
said he felt that information needed to be made a part of the record.
MOTION by Comm Funk to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of
October 19, 1995, with the addition requested by Comm McCallin.
Motion seconded by Comm Stathas. Motion carried unanimously.
-4.
( .
I...
Agenda Meeting Minutes
December 28, 1995
informed the Board that Whelan Crossing w~s a proposed development that crossed
the township line with East Pennsboro directly n'orth of Orr's Bridge Road, He said
the study would include traffic coming out of the proposed development onto
Wertzville Road and the Orr's Bridge Road intersection, Manager Bradley assured
Comm Rendler that the recommendation and intersection improvement design
prepared by Benatec in the 1980s would be forwarded to Grove Miller Engineering,
MOTION by Comm Rendler authorizing Grove Miller Engineering to conduct a
traffic study for Whelan Crossing, with the cost to be borne by the
developer, Motion seconded by Comm McCallin, Motion carried
unanimously.
Traffic Studies for Hampden Court. Hampden Heights. Countryside, and Chestnut
H.il1.i
Engineer Spease informed the Board that traffic patterns in Hampden Court
had not changed since the initial traffic study for the subdivision. He said a traffic
count to update the traffic study would be done at the intersection where traffic
control signs had been requested once the weather broke.
Concerning Hampden Heights, Engineer Spease asked for authorization to
install 25 mph speed limit signs at the three entrances to Hampden Heights, as
recommended in the 1990 Grove Miller Engineering traffic study, and the Board
reaffirmed the recommendation of the study.
Concerning Countryside and Chestnut Hills, Engineer Spease said the traffic
counts had not been completed, again, due to the weather.
Airport Drive Update
Engineer Spease informed the Board that the staff had met with the affected
residents of Airport Drive, He said, as a result of that meeting, he was going to
"stake out" the proposed cui-dc-sac, so the residents would know its physical location.
In response to Comm Stathas' question asking if there was a problem,
Manager Bradley said the problem was trying to get the affected property owners to
agree and the fact that they had to give land. He said, at this point, all the residents
were willing to do that, with the exception of one who had concerns about
stormwater runoff. He said negotiations were delayed until the snow cover was gone
and the concerned resident returned from Florida in the spring. Discussion followed.
-6-
(
!
,
Agenda Meeting Minute,5
December 28, 1995
MOTION by Comm McCallin to ,Ipprove Resolution No, 95-40, authorizing the
disposition of certain public records, Motion seconded by
Comm Funk. Motion carried unanimously,
Sale of 1973 Caterpilbr 0330, Generator
Manager Bradley informed the Board that a bid had been received the second
time the generator had been advertised for sale, and he asked the Board to award the
sale of the generator to that sole bidder,
MOTION by Comm McCallin to award the sale of a 1973 Caterpillar D33Cc
standby generator electric set to Tom Stephensen Generator Service,
Duncannon, in the amount of $525,00. Motion seconded by
Comm Funk. Motion carried unanimously.
Warrants Payable
MOTION by Comm Funk to approve the Warrants Payable for December 1995.
Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Signs in Residential Zoning Districts
Manager Bradley stated there were permitted, and some conditional, us~ in
residential zones, such as animal hospitals and riding stables, that had a need for
signage, He said in response to that need the staff had prepared a proposed
amendment to the zoning ordinance. The Board reviewed the proposed amendmenl
and agreed on one sign, not to exceed a maximum sign area of six square feet.
Manager Bradley said he would refer the proposed amendment to the Planning
Commission for ir.s review and recommendation.
Matter of Record
President Finkelstein called fora recess, and the meeting was reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
Corre'ipondence Received from St ~brk's Pbce Condominium Association
Manager Bradley referred to correspondence received from the St, Mark's
Place Condominium Association requesting that the stop sign at the southeast corner
of the St. Mark's/Charles Road intersection be relocated to the northeast corner of
the intersection, Discussion followed,
t,
-8-
,.
e
Paul
Land
Cumberland County Con"lVlllon Dle~~~.
43 Brookwood Avenue, Suue 4. Carllelit, Pennaylvan,a 170fC'E\VtU:l4g.S832
Francis RE .: '- /
Survey Consultants, Inc OEC 29 1995 /'1.
HAMPDEN lU'w'mSHIP
156 N, George St.
York, PA 1740 I
RE. Eiosion a~d 3adimintativn Control ?1an. HUGO'J $E~VICE5. INC.
Hampden Tow,ship. Cumberland County, Pennsylv~~ia
Dear Mr Francis.
:.~ }
r. ,J C;
. ~-
r.';::;:;':>
The FINAL plan has been reviewed and is.NOT ~O;oOU:'TE to melt the t....-.,...-
requirements of PA ritli :S. Ch~pt~r 10:. E~osicn CJntrol.
The revised plan must ~I resubmitted with carre:ticns as indicated
in the attache~ raport.
The Conservation District has reviewed this olan soley to determine
whether it is adequate to satisfy the requirements of :5 PA Code ssIO:,1 et
seq" the erosion control regulations of the Department of Environmental
Resources, By reviewing the plen neither the district nor the county assumes
any responsbility for the implementation of the plan or the proper construc-
tion and operation of the facilities contained in the plan, The design.
structure integrity, and installation of the control measures are the
responsiblity of the landowner and/or earthmover, Before any construction
or earthmoving activities begin the appropriate and necessary local. stat..
and federal permits must be secured from the agency having specifiC permit-
ting authority.
Please resubmit one copy of all the necessary plans and supporting
narrative and ~pecifications within 30 days to continue processing your
plan unless otherwise e~tended by the District.
If you have any questions concerning this project. please
contact our office at the above address and telephone number,
Sincere ly,
J //)
'" f.. ,t. r.,
Brian Kliaym..s
District'lechnician
cc, John Bradley, Jr., Hampden Townshi~
n;';.;POEN TOWNShiP
r::--~-J\/C."'i
II' ') l~r'
I.... . _,. ..,""
~Nl.:..~d.'I.\a jjf?T
CCNSER'/ATlON ~ OEVEl.OPMENT. SELF.GOVERNMENT
JAN-llil-l396 10: 25
:iRO'JE M I LI.ER E/'(j I 'IEEFWlG
-
l ~17 ~~4 ~~~ P.~2
,. Trip leneratlon al~. bucd wpon llle uillinl and plopollCd me of tII
wartllouwo(ficc facility. indicar.. that tile site eJlPlillsion Iw Ihc potenlJal to Incr
!rips as Ihown in the folie win. labia:
TrIp GelMl'IIlloa. lTE Rata
<I"-HOUR .M peAK HOUR 'M "AK,HOUR
LAND USE TWO.WA Y TRIPS TRIl'lS
\lOLUMi Enl.' Exit Inl... hit
238.000 GSF W....hou.. 1181 98 JS ~2 i II"
383.000 GSF W."ho.... 1771 I., 58 ... I1S
'nc'.... 810 51 <10 32 81
6, Detailed traifie analy* ~ould be perfonned 10 determine tile impact of till!
sir. expansion upon the intersection of St. 1w's Church Road and lnduslrial Park load
TIte July 199' trall1c Impact sludy alIIduclCd by AClJr Enain..rs " Consultanls. me. ti
a proposed waste transflf slali~ indic:ates that the intenection of St. John's Church
and Industrial Park Road currently has capaclry dellclencles and has sufJicfnt tra!JI
volumes to justify traffic slallal control.
!~-le-1995 10:25
:;ROVE MILLER EU:'I'IEERING
1 ~1? 5E4 9433 P,03
!ASTnH
SUMMARY OJ' TRIP QDEM'rION CALCULATION
FOR 238 TH.GR.SQ.P'1'. or WAREHOUSING
1/9/96
I aIVE
AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMEIlT WAY
RA'1'E D!VIATION rAC'l'OR i LtlHE
,
AVe WXDY a-WAY VOL 4." 4.03 1.00 161
7-9 AM PIr KR ENTER 0.41 0.00 1.00 98
7-9 AM PIr KR EXIT 0.16 0.00 1.00 31
7-9 AM Pit HR TOTAL 0.57 0.83 1.00 136
4-6 PM PIC HR ENTER 0.26 0.00 1.00 U
4-6 PM Pit KR IXIT 0.48 0.00 1.00 , 114
4-6 PM PIC HR TOTAL 0.74 0.9B 1.00 176
AM GEM PIC KR ENT!J\ 0.29 0.00 1.00 68
AM caIN Pit KR EXIT 0.29 0.00 1.00 158
AM GIN Pit KR TOTAL 0.57 O.Bl 1.00 136
PM GEN Pit HR ENT2R 0.13 0.00 1.00 31
PM caD Pit HR lXIT 0.41 0.00 1.00 111
PM GEM Pit KR TOTAL 0.60 0.8~ 1.00 143
SATURDAY a-WAY VOL 1.22 0.00 1.00 aio
PI( n IlN'rIR O.OB 0.00 1.00 18
PIC HR EXIT 0.04 0.00 1.00 10
PI( n TOTAL 0.12 0.00 1.00 a9
StlNDAY a-WAY VOL 0.79 0.00 1.00 188
PIC HR IlNT!J\ 0.04 0.00 1.00 9
PI< HR IXIT 0.03 0.00 1.00 8
PIC HR TOTAL 0.07 0.00 1.00 17
Note; A zero rate indicate. no rat. data available
Source: Inetitute of Tran.portation Engineere
Trip Generation. 5th Edition, with reb. 1995
I
I
UPdfte.
I
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
2
January II. 1996
one lot. zoned I-G, owned by Eastern Cansolioation & Distribution Services, Inc"
submilled by Land Survey Consultants. Inc,
PCFile 1195-12-01 TLD: March 16, 1996
Paul Francis was present 10 speak for this s'Jbmission, He explained the plan ~ad been tabled last month
for the lack of two items: (I) Stormwater management -.c9mputations were submitted to the Township
Engineer. Engineer Spease stated he was satislied with1fie stonnwater calculations, (2) Traffic study.
the study was presented last week and reviewed by the Township Engineer as requested at the Board of
Commissioners Agenda Meeting last week, They did not know the results with P ADoT. Acer
Consultants was hired to perform the traffic study. Engineer Spease stated he had received their
engineer's traffic study stating traffic volume would not be increased, At the last Board of
Commissioners meeting, we were given authorization to have our traffic engineer review this report.
Their report used calculations for traffic volume by number of square feet of warehouse space. With the
warehouse space increased, the traffic volume would increase. This operation alone may not increase
traffic, but has the potential to increase traffic iflhe operation is turned into another type of warehousing.
Both traffic engineers would need to discuss. Mr. Urling asked if this was approved, then the general
use could produce more traffic based upon the traffic study of the Township?
Mr. Bradley stated there is nothing wrong with recommending approval of a plan which has an effect on
traffic. Recommendations or conditions could be put on the plan to have the applicant help with traffic
improvements, Grove Miller, our traffic engineer, suggested this increase in warehouse space would
increase traffic, One of the flaws in Acer's traffic study was they took as the beginning point the tractor
trailers being used today as warehouse space, Those tractor trailers leaving and the warehouse being
institutionalized by brick and mortar; therefore. they were not increasing any traffic, His question was:
How much traffic was increased or effected when they started storing goods in those tractor trailers? At
that point, they increased traffic and there is no record, Mr. Hill asked if they have a sense of traffic
increased, Engineer Spease did not ligure out percentage, the total is over 600 trips a day. Mr. Hill
asked for total trips at present. Engineer Spease had to check Acer's ligures,
Mr, Francis asked if the traffic engineer addressed the use of railroad and how that might reduce that
count. Engineer Spease indicated that was not addressed. They could not enforce delivery by rail and
was not taken into consideration.
MATTER OF RECORD:
Greta Line arrived at 7:40 p,m.
Ms. Roberts wanted c1arilication on PADoT. Nothing was included in the report by Acer Engineers.
Mr. Francis stated he will have the engineering linn conlirm in writing to the Chairman of the Planning
Commission. Comm Stathas asked because of the determination by the traffic study that they are
increasing traffic, would they be willing to give towards the maintenance and upgrade of St. John's
Church Road? Mr. Francis indicaled Mr. Linsenbach would have to make a determination and respond.
Engineer Spease stated there is a daily average of 5,329 vehicles,
Mr. Bradley indicated, if there is a motion to recommend approval of the plan, that conditions be
included that we hear from P ADoT and the traffic situation be resolved.
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
)
January II. 1996
Ms. Line asked questions on page 14 oflhe traffic study prepared by Acer Engineers, Mr. Francis staled
his office did not prepare the traffic study, Ms, Line reviewed traflic counts given for Waste
Management and asked for c1arificalion on figures provided in the report. Mr. Francis indicated they
could address that malter, He stated there could be differences which do not necessarily add up 10 the
baseline and projects based on traffic flows,
MOTION: by Mr. Hill to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval of the
PreliminarylFinal Land Development Plan for Hugo Services, Inc, conditioned on resolution of the
traffic engineering study and upon consideration by the developer of contributing toward improvement
at the intersection of Industrial Road and St. John's Church Road, Ms, Line seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Roberts asked if that includes clarification from PADoT. Mr, Urling
explained that will be the method of the clarification, Motion carried 5-0,
b, United Cerebral Palsv of the Calli tal Area - review of PreliminarylFinal Land
Development Plan. property located at South 38th Street, Camp Hill, 2,67 acres,
one lot, zoned R-S, owned by Keys-Pealers, Ltd., submitted by H, Edward Black
& Associates, P.C,
PCFile #95-12-02 TLD: March 16,1996
Craig Bachik was present to speak for (his submission. After the meeting last month. they revised the
site layout and schematic plan. The YMCA day care component had been eliminated, They
reconfigured the parking in the front of the facility. The Zoning Hearing Board granted approval of the
variance request to permit a 40 percent impervious coverage which is 10 percent greater than what is
currently permitted in the R-S district. They have not had time to revise the plan necessary to seek
approval at this meeting, Mr, Bachik requested the plan be tabled until next month for engineering
review and revision.
Mr. Bradley explained various options to the applicant. Mr, Bachik indicated a 30 day extension of the
time limit deadline to April 16, 1996 was desirable. They will make a request in writing.
New Busi~
a, James D Kearns and Joyce W. Kearns - review ofPreliminarylFinal Land
Development Plan, property loeated at 4836 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg,
1,83 acres. zoned A-OL. owned by James D. Kearns & Joyce W, Kearns,
submitted by D'Angelo Consulting.
PCFile#96-0 1-0 I TLD: April 9, 1996
Mike D'Angelo was present to speak for this submission, He explained the history which began in June
1994. Dr, Kearns' architect discussed the explUlSion of the dental facility with the Township Codes
statT, Mr. D' Angelo had discussed the public sewer availability with Engineer Spease. He wrote letters
to everyone in the lributary area for participation in public sewer. The response was 40% in favor of
private participation to construct sewer in the Kunkle Lane and Trindle Road area. That sewer would
have tied in with the existing Sugar Shack sewer line, Because of the need for additional floor space,
Dr. Kearns asked for prepara~ion of a sketch plan which was submitted at a statT level. Due to the lack
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
4
January II, 1996
oC response, they have prepared the plan with additional parking, stormwater management, and a grinder
pump and pressure sewer through Dr. Kearns property southwardly to a right-oC-way and connect into an
existing manhole at the intersection of Sugar Shack and Kunkh: Lanes.
Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which arc attached to and made II part of these
minutes. were reviewed. Engineering Comment Nos, 1-5 will be done, Comment No, 6, II HighwllY
Occupancy Permit wa.~ issued and curb conslructed according to that permit on Dr, Kearns' o~iginlll
remodeling of the property, Engineer Spease Slated the reason for the note was the Township was told
any time a building permit issued for any property that accesses a state road, PADoT has the right to say
whether a permit is required or not. Mr, D'Angelo stated they oppose PADoT's position, but they will
put a note on the plan and seud a copy of the existing permit to PADoT, They will comply with the
remaining Engineering Comment Nos, 7-11.
County Comment Nos. 1-2 will be done, Comment No, 3, because of the nature of the sewer
construction, a module with DER would not be required, That goes back to conversations in July or
August 1994. Comment No.5, there is an unopened right-of-way. This is a drafting item which they
can address. Comment No, 6, they will mark trees which will be removed, Comment No.7, the buffer
is labeled as 20 feet wide, Mr, Kelly indicated it is grass, Mr, D' Angelo stated it is intended to be a
lawn. He could tie this with the screening which the Township Engineer had indicated, Comment Nos,
8 and 9 can be done. Comment No, 10, it was Mr, D'Angelo's understanding that in 1994 the architect
discussed this item. Mr. McMillan explained the pertinent sections, Mr, Kelly discussed with Mr,
McMillan. Comment No, II will be done,
Mr. Bradley indicated the sewer authority should take care of the sewer connection issue, The Township
Sewer Authority approval is required as a condition.
MOTION: by Mr, McConnell to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval of the
PreliminarylFinal land Development Plan for James D, Kearns and Joyce W, Kearns subject to
Engineering Comment Nos. 1-11 with special emphasis on I(d) and County Comment Nos, 1-9 and II.
Ms. Line seconded Ihe motion. Motion carried 5-0,
b. United Cerebral Palsy oflhe Capilal Area. review ofDER Sewage Planning
Module for land Development Plan.
Engineer Spease recommended the Planning Commission proceed with the DER Sewage Planning
Module review.
MOTION: by Ms, Roberts to approve the United Cerebral Palsy of the Capital Area Sewage
Planning Module. Mr, McConnell seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.
c. Graystone Manor Estates - review of DER Sewage Planning Module for
land Development Plan.
Engineer Spease recommended approval of the DER Sewage Planning Module.
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
5
January II. 191)6
MOTION: by Mr. Hill to approve the Graystone Manor Es!ah:s Sewage Planning Module, Ms,
Roberts seconded the motion, Motion carried 5-0,
d, Ryder Truck Rental and Leasinl: . review of DER Sewage Planning Module for
Land Development Plan,
Engineer Spease recommended approval oflhe DER Sewage Planning Module,
MOTION: by Mr. McConnell to approve the Ryder Truck Rental and Leasing Sewage Planning
Module. Ms, Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.
e. Request by the Board of Commissioners for review and recommendation of
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for signs in residential zoning districts,
Mr. Bradley explained the background of the proposed change for signs in residential zones. The Board
asked that signs for nonresidential use in a residential district should be no larger than six (6) square feet.
Mr. Bradley indicated there had been discussion 0.1 where this sign should be allowed. Mr. McMillan
provided an example of the 2' x 3' size for a single-faced sign and I 1/2' x 2' size for a double-faced
sign. Ms, Line, Mr, Hill and Mr. McConnell asked questions and discussed optior.s with Mr. Bradley,
Comm Stathas indicated the commissioners were concerned mainly with the R-S and R-C zones that
commercial is not allowed, Even though this is a conditional use, they did not want to make it look like
a commercial area, Mr, McMillan clarified even without a pennit a three square feet sign is allowed, but
cannot contain any commercial message or advertisement, Ms, Line asked about the height of the pole.
~lr. McMillan advised 20 feet is the maximum. She indicated that was too high for an R-C zone.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: Mr, Jay Fitzgerald commented the signs are pennitted as
conditional uses which have to be approved or allowed by the Commissioners. He stated if they are
pennitled uses, then they should be pennilled to have a sign which can be seen. He agreed with Ms.
Line's comment that the pole height could be reduced, If the sign is required on the building, it could be
difficult to see from a distance. He gave an example ofa car upholstery shop on the WertzVille Road
which was difficult to find because they had no advertising sign and the sign on the building was
difficult to see. He felt this would create a hazard if the sign is not easy to see from the road,
MOTION: by Doug Hill to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval of the change in the
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for signs in residential zoning districts with the addition ofa '
stipulation that the overall height of the sign should not exceed six (6) feet. Ms. Roberts seconded the
motion, Ms. Line included the editorial correction in 5 A (3) should read n. , . which exceeds a
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA OF twenty-five (25) square feet." Motion carried 5-0,
6. Good & Welfare
a. Golf [)rivin~ Ranlle - review of sketch plan for property located along Lamb's
Gap Road, north of/-81, 24 acres (II acres for driving range), zoned R-C,
submitted by Robert Spangler, Jr,
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
6
January II, I I/')6
Mr, Robert Spangler prescnted the sket<:h plan for n:view. Township Enginecring Comment~, copies of
which arc attached to and made a part of these minutes. were reviewed. Engineering Comment No. I, he
explained the lighting would not be that strong, A tree line could be added to prevent light shining on
residential properties, Comment Nos, 2 and 3 would be done. Comment No, 4, he was not sure if
wetlands were in the area. Comment No.5, they could add a visual screen with trees, Comment No.6.
he indicated in an R-C district, a golf course muy be allowed us a conditional use. He is proposing a golf
driving range which includes a retail golf shop. snack bur, and miniature golf course, He wanted to be
sure that it is close enough to a golf course to be considered by the Planning Commission. Comment
No.7, he would work with the state to get the Highway Occupancy Permit. Comment No, 8, he had no
plans for future development or expansion than those presented,
Mr, Bradley stated there is no permitted conditional use. Conditional uses are listed with the possibility
of use, which is solely at the discretion of the Township Board of Commissioners, As Zoning Officer.
his recommendation is that this does not fit as a conditional use, First, miniature golf is a recreational
area which would bring children and a commercial venlure that would not tit in the R-C zone. Lighting.
of any sort, in an R-C zone does not fit. Hours going until 10:00 p,m. on Saturday and Sunday do not fit
in an R-C zone. A public snack bar/restaurant does not fit. These are a few of a number of things which
stop this as a conditional use, Mr. Hill agreed with Mr. Bradley's slatement. His concerns were lighting
and traffic, Ms. Line was in agreement with the Zoning Officer and would be reluctant to move ahead
on this plan, Ms. Roberts had been to the site and did not think it would be conducive to the zoning.
The zoning indicates it is not to be for profitable gain. This is definitely a commercial endeavor. Mr.
Spangler acknowledged the comments on the zoning and use of the property as a conditional use.
b, Item for Discussion - Review of ordinances for elimination of conditional use.
Mr. Bradley stated the Board of Commissioners asked for a critical review and report on the conditional
uses of the zones, If the planning commission members have thoughts and suggestions, mark a copy of
the zoning ordinance, Comm Stathas noted the reason for this request is that the conditional uses in
some of the zones an.' causing problems for the residents and the Township, There will be ten good
years of development. They want to be sure the development is done right. Mr. Bradley stated some of
the conditional uses are obsolete. He will go to the Board of Commissioners first, then it will go to lhe
planning commission for review, back to the Board for a public hearing. and then enacted.
Ms. Line stated it would be good to have more than five days for this review. Mr. Bradley advised he
would get the information to the planning commission the day after the board approves it. Mr, Bradley
explained the process. Further discussion followed with Ms. Line, Mr. Urling, Mr. Hill, Comm Stathas,
and Mr, McConnell. Mr. McConnell asked specifically about the High Associates property. Mr.
Bradley had a conversation with them the day after the Board of Commissioners took no action on their
rezoning. High Associates must present a plan to the Planning Commission that matches the zoning.
For the past month. Mr. Bradley has had no further conversation, He had talked with Mr, Getz, attorney
representing High Associates. and they have not made a decision, He explained their options,
Ms. Line made a motion that the December 14. 1995 minutes be amended on page 3, paragraph 4, to
reflect her comment. "It did not matter whether Hugo Services was the Plaintiff against the Township or
not. The impartiallraffic study would be for their benefit as well as the Townships. We were not
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
7
January II, 1996
requiring it because they were Plaintiffs," Chm Urling agreed to the amendment. Ms, Roberts seconded
the molion, Motion carried 5-0.
Ms, line advised Planning Commission members of the PeM Slate Conference on Zoning Law and
Administration Status scheduled for April 13 at State College, She acknowledged the article on
Hampden Township in llle December 22 issue ofCenlral PeM Business Journal. All members had
received copies,
Chm Urling stated the Comprehensive Plan had not been recendy reviewed. Before the meeting, he had
discussed with Mr. Bradley the traffic problems with the Carlisle Pike, He asked the members to
consider (his situation,
6, Adiournment
Having no further business, Chm Urling adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p,m.
Respectfully submined,
~htvrtl. Wn~
Barbara Worden
Recorder
o I I 196M. DOC
Engineering Comments
Page Two
January 11, 1996
(8) A visual buffer screen is required, The type of screen is to be added to plan.
(9) Curbing may be required..
(10) After approval by Board of Commissioners, fIVe (5) copies and one (1) mylar of
the corrected plan, IS"x24", signed, sealed and notarized, and a certified copy of the
associated electronic file, tying the property to the nearest Township monument must be
submitted.
(11) Bonding is required,
DISCUSSION: The Hampden Township's official sewage plan (Act 537) states this area
is to have public ~ewers by the year 2000:
(a) Extending public sewer; or
(b) Sewer easement.
Iteamcmt.doc
..... ...~ .0101""" .......... I
~-o/f ~
Ho. Ji.:-l-.-
CUMBERLUID
CCtJh"1''l SUBOl'ilS1CH/l.ANO O!;'IIlLOfMSH'L' IIEVIEW UfO"'"
Hunic1p.l1ty Ka~od~n Tnwnshin
Plat f1tl. J'am8!1 D. and .In.'~. w. !(ea:"n~ (LOPl
Surv.~o: ~~cha.l otAn~.lo
pr.lI~inary ___ Final -1- Final (Hinor S~ivilionl
Enqinee' Hienael ~'Ana.lo
zoninq DUf:ict
A-Of.
L~nd use Commerelal
,,-oulatlons: KunlciQal x Zonlnq ~ Ac:,eaqe: Subdivided
county SlLO X Numter ot tots I
oat. lI,ceived ]2/27/9S Sta~t ..eview otficial
I Plat aQplars to comply with applic~le requlations.
(X 'la: appeers to qenerally c~~ly with APplIcable requlations;
requIred, as ir~lcated.
,lat appears to need substAntiSl revision, as indicated.
Total
OWelHnq Units
County lIeview
1.8~
..2.-
1/18/~~
revisions may be
.eviewed by ~ Chec~ed by JZ
~.vi.w comm.nts with cited ordinanc. provisions are ~sed on mun~cipal r.gulations on ~~l.
with the, County 'lanning Commi..ien.
I. When applicAble, str.ets, .ew... wate:, 8torm drainaq.. and other intrastructure
.lements to be veritied as adequAte by munlciQal stattlenqlna.r.
2. When applicable, ~oninq compliance to be veritied by ~~icipal Zonin90tticer.
3. APpropriat. sewaqe oodule component should be processed prior to tinal plat
approval.
4. Final plats must be record.d within 90 days ot apprOVAL.
S. Th. adjac.nt landowner to the south should be id~~titi9d.
6. The plan should note whic~ trees ara to ce remov~d ~y this dsv.l~,me~t.
1. ~h. bufter yard aro~~ the n.w par~~q araa should be descri~ed. Scr..ninq ~s
required 1n a~cordanc. w~th Se~tion 1802.
8. the t~ ot ~s. to be e~ar.d.d sho~d be Indlcated on the plAn.
9. the ~athod ot water supply ~s not noted.
10. A portion of the proposad .~ans~on encroaches on the ex~stL~q side set~A=k. Is &
s?cial exc.ption required? (Section 2004.1.0.)
I'. Tha plat. ~~.t be siqned by tho owner and notarl:ed.
TOTFIL P.02
PropolCd Golf Drlvlnl RunKe
..
..f J I"::'
.... ,"".:
J',.t.-'
Localloo:Lambs Gap Route. just nonh of 1.81
Parcel Code 10.15-/279-6 LoI I
Plan Book 37 page 1~8 . " ,:.
R.C 176,8IOs.(...,\. ....::......... ~-'
Propeny consists of ap". 24 acres In Hampden Twp, and 29 acres is ~ilm Spring'Twp.
Propert)' Owner:Iean Cignello, under COnltllclto Roben Spangler, Ir,
Informalloo 00 AppllcanllRoben Spangler,Ir. 26 East Simpson Stn:et. Mechanicsburg, Tel. 697.96UU.
uEe ';: , \9~5
Speelncs of Golf Driving Runle Opera lion:
Sue of LoI Used for Operallon:Of the 53 acres on the propeny, ap". 12 acres (II in Hampden, I in
Silver Spring)
Bulldlnp:2 buildings would be needed, One a maintenance shed constructed of cinder bloc:k,
approximately 20' x 20' containing electric and plumbing. The main building according to prelimin,11)'
plans would be approximately 12,00\) square feel. Including in Ihis building would be a sel\'ice coumer
for customellto pay for and pick up golf balls. 2 small service areas for equipmentrcpair. an office.
public rcstrooms, a snack shop wilh Indoor and outdoor scating. stomge areas, and the bulk of the space
would he oc:cupied by a golf pro shop. which Is a retail operation alTering for 5011e allrypes of golf related
men:handise,
DrlvlnB RlmIle:WouJd consist ofapproximalely 60 golftecs aligned in an an: so thaI all aim for a central
part of the landing area, Approximatel)' 12 of the tees would be covered for bad weather use. anolherl2
of the tces would be natural grass, The remalningtecs would be grass mals on top of concrete.
Mlnlalure Golf:An outdoor miniature golf course consisting of 18 or 19 holes of which one or more
would be buill around man-made water hazards (ponds or streams).
Praellce Putting Green:A praclice puning green would be included on the property. The pUlling green
would nol be lighted. Building of a pUlting grC1:n would require sJll:cilie base material and grading.
The base would likely consisl of crushed slone topped by sand and then a sand soil mixture,
Parklog:Parking facilities would be pro\'ided in accordance with township reb'Ulalions.
Sewage:Public sewer is nOlavailable so seplic would need 10 be inslalled.
Ugbllng:The parking lot. miniature golf. and driving range would all be lighted for nighl use. The
distance of the lees and the landing area. in my opinion. from the adjoininll properties would pre\entthe
.overflow" of Iighling onto said properties,
Slgns:Tasleful signuge would be erected on the driving range property. All signs may be lighted. but
understandably not 10 detracl from the neighborhood or intrude upon the adjoining properties,
Houn:Atlhis lime I eslimate summer hours 10 be 10 am-lU pm Monda) Uuough Friday, 8am.lUpm
Saturday and Sunday.
Snack Bar:Preliminary plans call far the snack bar 10 include sodas. prepackaged snacks. such as
crackers, popeorn, chips, prctzels. ele. ice cream, son prelZels. hOI dogs and possibly other lunch items
such as soup. chili, bar-b-que, etc. I ha\'c no intention of oITerinll beer or any olher alcoholic be\'emge for
sale.
Townblp Llnes:AlI buildings and improvements (other than gmding) will be an the Hampden Township
side of Ihe property. A part of the ball13nding orca is in Silver Spring Township.
01/Z8/8S 1S:ll fAl 11771102U8
RT/ECD_SVCS
1411001
II...
...
HUGO'S SERVICES, I~C.
PO. O. Boll 3158
SHIRIMANSTOWN. PA. 17011
17171 781.2084
)\ S f\
,
J&A~fY 2'. 1'"
'J rl.
.tv
l I
/
UJDllD 'I'OWII..n
230 1O~~n Sporting Hill Road
M.ollan~c.burg. iA. 17091
attn I J.'~ R. Sp..... P.I,
Subj.ct: Traffic Flov
St. John8 . Ind~.trial Rd.
)
/
....~'
/ I
J
Jerry
P.r o1hcu..lon. lIDd AI ,.p,esent.el in our t::affic study. the
c:cmpl.tiem &114 opuatiem of tba p::Qpo..o1 additional va::eAO\1l. aod orUce
apao. a~ 405 IItuHng. R.C.D. Ser/ic.. op"atio~, wUl resul~ 1A a
reduction 1n the uafUc flow at tbe iDt.nactl.OtI of It Joh:la &Ad
Inc1uet::ial Rd. IIfHc:ia:>cy of opar"t.iolla. reduotiCl1 1n atock-pUing loacl.d
t::aihn and tba .UmiJlation of ~h. le...eI 125 te; 150 traUe:: pU'kill9 ern
vi.:1.1 vaHdAt. thia 'eo1~otioll.
Altnougn approval of cur 51::0510...01 ao1di~.!.o:1 vill result in a trarfic
flow::8eluot1011. v. ,ecognir. tbe ~ceaal.ty ior imp::ovementa a~ It, J~a
lIDd I:lll\Iae::1al and would therdon like to auiet. the tc_ablp by l:WciDg
the fol1ow1ng cCI1tr1Dutioaa toV&ro1 the atuely , improY~~n~
i~lemeatational
S 5.000 - UpCl1 nc..iv1Ag p.mie approval for connnctiou
of our propo..d ad4it1OA
plue &II aWt101l41.
S 5,000 - upon receiving an OCcupAnCY permit. to:: the
propoe.d addit.ion.
In ad4itiCl1. .bo~l:S a coop.rative improv.ment. vent~. be propo..cI
with the Departne:it of Tranapo::tati.oll. Townahi.p. and aun=din9
b~.initae.a. we would ba r.c.ptive to p.~ioip.tiDg.
TbaIIlc you fo; taking the 1:1r.le t.o h.a:: our concern. regarding tl1.
b~11ding and: operatir.g or a trllll.hr station witl1in the Kanrpda:: Iaclun::ial
Pa::k.
7.(.
.... .ct.fully.
o
,
ni~.J~-.
ddent . ClO
~
c:
John E, S::.dl.y. Jr., Townehip M&aagar
'iLlI:I" IUV~I'ttitm"
I'. . '0'0"'-"11::,
I WHY NOT Go WITH HUGO'S I
,IAN 29 1996
. ... '1E'"r
~NL. .ct.:.II'..:a U : ,
".03
,.-
;
IIi i
j I.. " ~
fit '. ~
Iii I I ~ r~.. II
) II I I d
, 'I '"
-:::J --- .,
, L '( .1 !
II "
'j !
I I ,f.!
, t i " I 1111 'iI
' ~ i.t' , H
_1""'--,-- 'I 1.1 I I d gl
I.... .
," · III II III I
t
M
II'
. I
I
~
I
I.
TQTk. P.~
JAN-31-139& 11:51
L.:tID 3lJRl lEY ':01'15.11.. T...lTS
=>,1a4
~
. ~rIeIM C_" c-'''UOlI DIelItcI
) .oolwuod A_...IUlIit 4. CttI~ .......''''.n.. 1101). ""'.. (117) HI.1a2
"~. ~. T. ~I"..nb.~h, Pr'.ldvnt
Hu90's ..~~l~.s. In~.
.a~_ DI~ ."ty'bw~9 Ao.~
CO"'ll "'i 11,"" &70 II
Jon,.orll 31. '99.
Hu90" I.~VI~.., Inc.
~.r.'t ~b.r P"A 10 H091
H4m~d." TOHn.hlp, Cumb.rl.~ Cou"t,
D..r Mr. Lln..nD.ch,
Inclo..d '0 tho .bov. rof.ronCOd porml' which ,u'horl... tho
dlICh.r9. Of ,t.rm wa~.r frDm 'hO CO".truCtl0" .ctlvlty d~rlb.d
'" tho f'''.l .ro,iO" o~ ..dl.."'.t'o,, control ,l,n .nd th.
..r.', .ppIIC.'lon. '1.... .".wr. th.t th. approv.e .rD"." .nd
..Olm.nt."on oDn,r.l pl." '0 fullll '.plem.,,'.d .na .v.ll.bl. .,
'h' co",tructlon .,t..
ThO Cumborl.n4 CDu"ty Con..rv.t'Dn Dl"rIC' r.vl~. th.
.r..lo" '"d ,.dl.on..tl.n control pl." to d.t.rm'~ whe,".r i. ls
.f.qu.t. to I.t"f" tho r.qulro.ont. of 'h' Ch.pt.r 10f, Iro,lo"
~on'r.l ~ul., ond ~.qul.tlons. Th. Co"s.rvotlD" D,.trlct ...u..,
no r..pon.'~l'l'" f.r 'he l~l.mont."D" of tft. pl." ,. tho
pr.p.r con,truc"o" .nd o..rot'on of th. foc"ltl.. cont.I".d In
,ft. ,Ion.
Pl.... ro.d ..r.'ully P.rt. .. B .nd C of tho p.rmlt which
dotoll' th. ,.r., and co~ltlo". ef t~L. a~thD~L'a'ion.
CO"'o~v.I'gn Dl.~rlct "aff And/or ropres."t.ti~.' of t~e
D.D.~t~O"t .f invirDn-.n'ol ~rotoct'o" eDEPI m.v 'n~p.cl '~i.
o,rt~~ovl"9 ~ctlYl'" to dotor.ln. rDmpllan~' ...'th .ppl1cobl.
p.rait req~lromen", Chapt.r .e, 101 and 102 R~l.. .nd
~09ulot'O'" ~nG t~e C'..n S,r.om. L.....
P.rm,t requlrwmont. .nd f.dora, r'QulatiD". at 40 C.'.A.
..122.IIC~1 r.qulr. t~.' "whe" 0 ~ocllltv gr ac,'v't~ I. cwn.d by
en. p.r,on but I' oporo..d by ano'~.r por.on, it i. tho
o~.rO'Gr'. duty to obt.'n . P..~,t". Pl.... ~e .dvl..d t~.t Dnce
o eo"er.ctor h.. b.OI'\ ,.loct.d for the prOJoct. t1'o 1l0~..lt m~'t
oL'nor bo .dded 01'1 .. , co-p.rmittoo or ~A.O tl'lO D.r~lt
ro.pon.ibllllv Ira".f.rr.d to 'hem. The co-p.rmlltow/'ra",'orr..
to?~ _U.t ~. r.c..v.. Dy 'hi. of'Lc. ., I.a,t 30 d.y. prLor to
I"'. co-pormltt../.ron.'o... ac"on '.klnq plac.. Tho enc'o..d
'or. ~.t _0 U~.. to odd a co-permltto./tron,'.ro..
Incla.Od .1'0 i. . NotlC. of T.r..''''.'Lo" eNOll ,o~. 10
co.pl."O .nd fllod Nlth t"O dlctrict/doportment onc.
con,tryctiDn .ctlvltl.. ~.v. coa,od and final .'.~illl.tl.n
D..n ochlev.d. ,l
ha.
'IrlJC:;/~
O,.....,_!,uv~/~i:iI':IL
I~... I r
COhSC...,,,TIOflI. OIVnQIIMENT. IUF.QOVlAA...tNr
, IAN S 1 199,1
~'IVL... II
Ct..I/~.;, L'E':./
(''''
I
,
,
Agenda Meeting Minutes
January 31,1996
there, and Mrs. Harvey said she had never had water in her back yard in the 20 years
she had lived there, Mrs, Harvey said she had photographs which showed the flow
coming directly from the detention pond.
, . -
Harry Reed, 4806 Brian Road, said, an'the day of the problem in January, he
could see the water running underneath the snow from the overflow and could hear
it running through the piping. Mr. Reed said the residents had been assured in July
that the overflow piping would be redirected away from the Brian Road properties.
James M. Harvey, son of Carole J. Harvey, said, 15 minutes after the fire
company started pumping the detention pond, the water had stopped flowing.
Comm McCallin said he thought the problem had been addressed in July, and
he asked what had gone wrong.
Manager Bradley referred to a drawing and described the layout of the site.
He said, when the Emergency Services Building was designed, the engineers found
the lay of the land created three basins with three ways that storm water flowed. He
showed an area in red and said the water from that area flowed toward the homes in
Delbrook. He said the engineers had modified the "red area" and increased the flow
by adding an area indicated in green on the drawing. He said because the "green area"
had been added, a detention pond was needed to detain the water,
Manager Bradley said, by July of last year, the detention pond had been built
but not seeded, and he described the failure of a banded union as the cause of the
problem in July, He said, since then, the union had been welded by the contractor
and was now all one piece. He said, by design, there was an orifice, 9 inches in
diameter, which allowed water to flow from the pond at the same rate as prior to the
Emergency Services Building being there.
Manager Bradley said he had been instructed in July to move the outfall away
from the back yards and as far to the north as possible. He said that had not been
done yet, but that the orifice had been blocked off, although it was not watertight.
Manager Bradley said, in January, the water had risen to the level of the
overflow piping, through the outfall, and into Mrs. Harvey's back yard. He said,
since then, another section of pipe had been added to raise the overflow piping which
would allow the water in the pond to rise at least another foot before it would reach
the overflow stage. He s~.id, in January, at the same time the pond was being
pumped, Mrs. Harvey's neighbors were digging a trench through the snow in the
next door neighbor's yard. Mr. Harvey refuted Manager Bradley's claim and said the
pumping did not commence until after the neighbors had discontinued their futile
.2-
-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
January 31,1996
attempt to divert the flow, Manager Bradley said lowering the level of the water in
the pond would have stopped the water from flowing into Mrs, Harvey's back yard
but would not have .sucked" the water out of the yard, He said something allowed
the water to pass through the neighbor's y~rd. tq the stream, Mr. Harvey said, once
the flow of water was stopped at the source,.the water that was already there drained
naturally.
Manager Bradley said, in the Township's opinion, there were two options to
solve Mrs. Harvey's problem. He said one option was to reduce the size of the
opening of the orifice and continue to allow the decreased amount of water to flow
naturally through the swale behind the homes, He said the other option was to hard
pipe the outfall of the pond through PP&L's easement, across Oelbrook Apartment's
property, and into the stream. Manager Bradley said the cost of that project would
be approximately S10,OOO and could cost more or less depending on rock excavation,
'. ._-~
Manager Bradley said, after last July, water from the back parking lot and all
but one roof drain of the building, originally flowing to the detention pond, had been
redirected through an IS-inch pipe placed between the two soccer fields at an
approximate cost of 520,000. Mr. Harvey said he would take Manager Bradley's
word that pipe had been installed, but he stated no water was exiting that pipe during
the storm in January. Mr, Reed stated that water from that pipe "broke loose" on
Saturday morning and almost ended up in the PP&L substation, Manager Bradley
confirmed that the water from the pipe did, in fact, flow south toward the substation.
Mr. Harvey stated that the residents had been told that, once vegp.tation took
hold, there wouldn't be a problem. He said, prior to construction of the building,
the property had been heavily vegetated and that was not the case any more, He said
water in years past was nothing in comparison to the present because now there was
flat land, He said there was no problem before the land was cleared,
Mr, Reed said, although the engineers said the amount of water leaving the
site was an allowable amount, it was being concentrated in one area, in the ballast.
stone pit, and once that became saturated, it flowed into Mrs. Harvey's back yard,
Comm Rendler said there was no doubt that, once the vegetation took hold, it
would help because vegetation did hold water, Mr, Harvey said, unfortunately, the
vegetation hadn't taken hold, and he askp.d what the Township was going to do about
the problem.
Comm McCallin asked if the detention pond could be enlarged, and
Comm Rendler said the engineers had said the size of the pond was adequate.
.3-
-,.,
Agend.l Meeting Minutes
JJnu.lry 31, 1996
Comm McC.lllin solid he knew mJthemJtics and theory and, perhJps, the theory was
wrong in this case.
Mr, Harvey asked if the Township was o/illing to admit thJt the water that
had come into his mother's basement wa:; bCCluse of the detention pond, and
Comm Rendler solid the Township was not willing to admit anything until it found
out what had caused the problem, Comm McCallin solid the Township had never
experienced the accumulation of snow with rJin and melting in the past 100 years, as
it had in January and that it was an unusual situation. Mr. HJrvey said he could
appreciate the events that had happened and the conditions that the Township had to
overcome, however, this was a Township problem that had not existed before.
Mr, Harvey asked Comm Rendler what the Township's position was, since it was
not willing to assume responsibility for the damage caused to his mother's property.
Comm Rendler said he could not say what the Township's position was because it
was going to have decide what could be done.
Mrs. Harvey said she never had water before and did not "buy" that it was an
ice jam or not the Township's problem. She said she could appreciate that the
Township was trying to do its job but she felt she was being victimized.
Comm Stathas asked. if the Township spent 510,000, would that guarantee
this problem would never happen again. Manager Bradley said he could not
guarantee anything like that but that it would guarantee that the outlet of the
detention pond would be hard piped away from all the homes on Brian Road.
Manager Bradley said, theoretically, one thing that could happen was that, if it would
rain so hard that the overflow pipe could not handle the amount of water, the water
could overflow the sides of the detention pond. He said he didn't know if it would
ever rain that hard but that he couldn't guarantee it,
Comm Stathas asked if the detention pond could be relocated to the other side
of the property, and Manager Bradley said, if it was, water would have to be pumped
to the pond. Comm ~;kCallin said, if all it was going to take was to turn on a pump
to get the water away from the homes, maybe that was the simpler solution.
Manager Bradley said he strongly recommended against that because there could be
electrical problems with the pump or problems with accessing the pump because of
water or ice.
'\,,,.
Comm McCallin asked if the residents could be given a timetable in which the
Township would explore a series of options and then it be brought up at a subsequent
meeting to review the options with the residents, Manager Bradley said that could be
done but that the engineering department and he had "boiled it down" to the two
options which he had presented previously. Comm Rendler asked if "swaling" had
-4-
Agend.1 Meeting Minutes
J.1nu.1ry 31,1996
I--
I
been considered, .1nd ~l.1n.1ger Br.1dley s.1id .In open sW.1le would h.1ve to be 10c.1ted
on the residents' property. Comm McCallin asked if the options proposed by
~l.1nager BrJdley could be accomplished .It this time, and Comm Statlus s.1id they
could not but, at least, the residents would p.1ye.the .1ssurance th.1t they would be
done.
Comm Rendler asked the Board to keep in mind that, even if the W.1ter W.1S
piped or swaled, there still would be water, not associated with the pond, draining
toward the Oelbrook properties. Mr. H.1rvey said, since the building and soccer
fields were built, that was true. Jean Rogers said. even during the Agnes Flood, the
Oelbrook residents did not have water in their homes, that it had happened since
then.
President Finkelstein said another thing that could be done, in addition to
piping the water, was that the Township could fill or raise the level of Mrs. Harvey's
yard to keep the water away from her home. He said he had done that in his own
back yard to keeF' water away from the wallR of his home. Mrs. Harvey asked how
that would be accomplished with the trees and shrubbery th.1t were already there.
President Finkelstein said, somehow, somebody, had to stop the water because
Mrs. Harvey couldn't keep getting water in her home or living with the threat of it.
Mrs, Harvey said, if that was done in conjunction with the swale, the water was only
going to flow to her neighbors and they would then be unhappy, In response to
President Finkelstein's question, the residents agreed that piping the water was the
best solution. Comm Rendler said mounding on the Township's property would
guarantee no water would flow onto the residents' property. Mr. Reed said there
would still be a discharge of water that would have to go somewhere.
Comm McCallin said mounding would, in effect, be like "sand bagging" the whole
area and would be a temporary measure because the Township couldn't do anything.
as far as piping, until there was a thaw. Manager Bradley said all that would do
would be keep it out of one yard and put it in all the others, Comm McCallin said he
was suggesting mounding the entire length of the property.
MOTION by Comm Stathas directing the staff to look into the option of piping
the water at an approximate cost of S10,OOO. Motion seconded by
Comm McCallin.
Question on the Motion
Manager Bradley said the staff would start to work on obtaining the
necessary easements from PP&L and the Oelbrook Apartments,
,
~
.5.
(
I
I
Agenda Meeting Minutes
j.lnuary 31, 1996
Comm Rendler said he didn't believe in "panicking" into things and
that was what the Board was doing. He said it was not known if piping the water
was going to solve the problem. He said he felt the engineer and the manager should
report back to the Board with options, Cornm .stat has said the m~nager had already
presented two options. and Comm Rendler uid he didn't feel two options were
enough, He said, if the property was mounded, it would stop the water and, if it was
swaled, it would stop the water, He said he could not believe the residents had never
gotten any water from the vacant field, based on the gr'lde lines,
Comm Funk said he wanted to be sure that, by piping the water away
from the residents' property, another problem was not being created somewhere else.
President Finkelstein asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried
4. 1. Comm Rendler voted against the motion.
Mr, Harvey asked if the temporary mounding was going to be done, and
President Finkelstein said he didn't think so, that the problem was going to be
corrected by piping the water and raising the spillway.
President Finkelstein asked if Mrs. Harvey had water on her property on
Friday Uanuary 26], and Mr. Reed said water had flowed onto the property for about
10 to 12 feet but that it had not gone into the house. President Finkelstein said there
was more water on Friday than earlier in the month. so the overflow piping must
have been working, He said it was also understood that, if the detention pond filled
again, the Township was going to have to pump it and that it would be the
Township's responsibility to monitor the depth of the water in the pond.
President Finkelstein asked Mrs. Harvey if it wasn't true that he had told her
on the telephone to send her bills to the Township and that the Township would
worry about who was going to payor how, He said it sounded like an engineering
problem to him and, regardless of whether it was the Township's engineer or an
outside engineer. the Township had created the problem. President Finkelstein said
he was stating, in a public meeting, that the bills should be sent to the Township and
that the Township would see what it could do.
Mrs. Harvey said, in the mean time, she could not use the room and there was
furn;ture sitting in her living room and garage. She said she had canceled
appointments to stay home when rain was forecast. She said she wanted to know
which engineering firm had originally studied the problem and why an outside
engineering firm was not being consulted now. She said one or two men could up
with one idea but an engineering firm could possibly come up with something
entirely different. She said something must be done. She said she felt she was being
.6-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
January 31,1996
doubly taken advantage of because she W,IS not being reassured th'lt it was not going
to happen again and she could not check it out herself. She said she lived on limited
finances and could not replace her furnishings that were lost due t~ water damage,
, . .
Mr, Harvey presented an estimate to.the Board for repl'acement of the
carpeting in his mother's home and said additional bills would be forthcoming, He
said, before the carpeting could be replaced, a one-third down payment was required
and Mrs. Harvey did not have the money to do that, Comm Funk asked why the
bills were being presented to the Township, Comm McCallin asked if Mrs, Harvey
had insurance. Comm Funk said he did not remember anybody saying the costs
incurred by Mrs. Harvey were the Township's responsibility. Mr, Harvey asked if it
was correct that the Township was denying responsibility and denying payment for
the carpeting. President Finkelstein said the Township was going to turn the bills
into its insurance company and that he had told Mrs. Harvey to also turn the bills
into her insurance company, although they might be denied. Comm Stathas asked if
there was only one estimate, and Mr, Harvey said they had obtained an estimate from
the same company that had replaced the carpeting a year ago,
Comm Rendler asked what it was the Harvey's wanted from the Township.
Mr. Harvey said the bills had been submitted to the Township and they wanted some
action. Comm Rendler said they would get action, Mr. Harvey said he wanted to go
record that he found Comm Rendler's attitud: and conduct in the meeting very
offensive. He said he wished Comm Rendler would put a little more sympathy into
his comments. Comm Rendler said that was Mr. Harvey's opinion and he was
entitled to his opinion. Comm Rendler said the president of the board had already
told the Harveys to submit the bills to the Township, and he asked, again, what the
Harvey's wanted from the Township. Mr. Harvey said they wanted to know what
action the Board was going to take. Comm Rendler said no additional action would
be taken that evening, that was why the Township had insurance carriers.
President Finkelstein asked Mrs, Harvey if she had submitted the bills to her
homeowners insurance, and Mrs. Harvey said her homeowners insurance would not
cover it, that she did not have flood insurance, and that this was surface water.
President Finkelstein said she should still submit the claim and let her insurance
company deny it in writing, Mrs, Harvey said the adjuster for her insurance
company would not even come out to the house.
Mrs. Harvey said she had called the Township prior to the meeting and had
requested that she be accommodated due to her visual handicap. She said she had not
been able to see the drawing Manager Bradley had presented earlier from where she
was seated, and she asked that someone from the Township personally explain the
I'
.7.
I,
Agend~ Meeting Minutes
J.IOlWY 31, 1996
dr~wing to her. Comm Rendler suggested the dr~wing be given to Mrs. H.lrvey, Jnd
that w~s done,
An individual from the audience, w~o.id.entified herself o1SMrs. H~rvey's
daughter, said it seemed to hel' that some of the commissioners were going bJck ~nd
forth with the issue of whose problem it Wo1S. She said she understood that
President Finkelstein had said the Township had created the probiem,
President Finkelstein said the manager had stated the pipe WJS not long enough, so
she understood correctly, regardless of whether the Township created the problem or
the detention pond was designed improperly. Mrs. Harvey's daughter thanked
President Finkelstein and said she had wanted that clarified because it seemed the
commissioners were going back and forth a bit. President Finkelstein s~id the Board
had taken action that evening to try to help Mrs. Harvey. Mrs. Harvey's daughter
said she understood that, but it had been stated that evening that it was not the
Township's problem and she wanted to make sure she understood correctly.
President Finkelstein said, "1 am on your side,"
i,
;
!
\
I
\
\
i
\
\
;
f
;
I
I
l
\
I
l
"
!
Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Hugp Services Inc.
Paul Francis, Land Survey Consultants, Inc.; R. T. Linsenbach, President and
CEO of Hugo Services, Inc.; and Eugene Dice, legal counsel, were present to speak
on behalf of the submission.
Mr. Francis said the applicant had been requested by the Planning
Commission to address several items. He said, concerning Condition No, I,
resolution of the traffic engineering study, a traffic study had been prepared for
review by the Township engineer and it wo1S his understanding there had been a
resolution regarding the traffic issue. Mr, Francis said Condition No, 2.
consideration by the developer of contributing toward improvement at the
intersection of Industrial and St, John's Church Roads, had been addressed by virtue
of a letter offering the Township monetary compens~tion tow~rd improvements at
the intersection, Concerning Condition No.3, approval/review by Camp Hill
Borough and Cumberland County Soil Conservation District, Mr, Francis said Camp
Hill Borough had waived its review procedure, and Engineer Speo1Se acknowledged
that Item No.3 could be removed o1S a condition of approv~1. Concerning Condition
No, 4, submission of five copies and one mylar of the corrected plan, IS" x 24'-
signed, sealed, and notarized and a certified copy of the o1Ssociated electronic file,
tying the property to the nearest Township monument. Mr. Francis said five copies
and a mylar of the corrected plan would be submitted upon approval by the Board of
Commissioners, Concerning Condition No.5, bonding, Mr. Francis said, to his
knowledge, a bonding amount had not been set, but that the applicant would provide
.S.
r-
Agend.l Meeting Minutes
j,lnU.lrY _\1. 19'i6
MOTION by Comm St.lth.ls to reapprove the Fin.11 Subdivision Plan for
Turnberry II, Phase I, Planning Cdmmission File No. 95-10-0",
contingent upon (1) reviewlJpproval by (a) DEP, (b) the Cumberland
County Soil Conservation Ois~ri~t, and (c) the Hampden Township
Sewer Authority; (2) submission of five copies and one myl.lr of the
corrected, approved plan, 18" x 2"," signed, sealed, and not..rized ..nd .I
certified copy of the associated electronic file, tying the property to the
nearest Township monument; (3) a note being added to the plan
s~ating th.lt jerusalem Road will be widened to the north property line
being the same width as existing to the south; (..) bonding; and
(5) Township Engineer approval, Motion seconded by
Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously,
Traffic Studies
Concerning the St, Marks/Charles Road traffic study, Engineer Spease
recommended that, due to the intersection configuration and mature shrubbery, the
stop sign not be moved as requested by the St, Mark's Condominium Association.
Concerning Countryside development, Engineer Spease stated traffic studies
on Countryside and Mandy Lanes showed that a 25 mph speed limit was w..rranted.
He asked the Board to authorize the installation of the signs.
MOTION by Comm Stat has to authorize the installation of 25 mph speed limit
signs along the entire lengths of Countryside and Mandy Lanes in the
Countryside development. Motion seconded by Comm McCallin,
Motion carried un..nimously.
Concerning Country Club Park, Engineer Spease said, due to the weather,
traffic counts had not yet been obtained.
Concerning Hampden Court, Engineer Spease said. after review, it was his
recommendation that no changes be made,
Township Manager's Report. ,fohn E. Bradley. Jr..
Blinard/Flood Recap
Concerning the budget, Manager Bradley informed the Board that $125,000
had been expended on the blizzard/flood thus far and that the General Fund could
probably handle one more blizzard_
-13-
,,---
Agenda Meeting Minutes
J.lnu.uy 31, 1996
Concerning equipment, MJnager BrJdley s.lid he felt the Township's
equipment had operated satisfactorily, He said three front.end hIders and a snow
blower had been rented through private contractors and that the snow blower was
probably one of the most efficient and effective pieces of machinery used, He
referred to quotations received for a snow blower and asked the Board to authorize
the purchase in the amount of $6,995,00, which it did, ~bnager Bradley said the
money would have to come out of the Capital Improvement Fund, and he suggested
that the curbing project along Orr's Bridge Road or the bike path along the fire house
be delayed, Discussion followed,
Manager Bradley informed the Board that the 30 to 40 marked fire hydrants
throughout the Township had been found without difficulty during the blizzard. He
suggested the Board might want to continue the program of marking the hydrants
with a sign or buying whips which would be bolted to the hydrar:ts. Discussion
followed, and Comm Rendler suggested the matter be turned over to the West Shore
Council of Governments.
Manager Bradley said he fdt the snow emergency policy had served the
Township well during the blizzard; however, vehicles. with and without snow
tires/chains, were out and about which delayed the snow plows, as well as creating
ice grooves on the road which the plows could not remove, He suggested the Board
might want to consider redoing the ordinance to not permit travel on Township
roads during a snow emergency. Discussion followed, and the Board authorized the
Manager to prepare a stricter ordinance for its review,
Manager Bradley referred to the snow plow routes used by the Highway
Department personnel and said the routes were run in the opposite order every other
snow, He said the routes were arranged so they were geographically efficient.
Comm McCallin suggested that, perhaps, the routes could be done differently for
better control, especially during a snow emergency. Discussion followed, and the
Board agreed the routes should be reviewed,
".
Manager Bradley informed the Board the Township had also experienced
wastewater problems, specifically at Pump Station Nos. 19 and 4 and in Forrest
Acres. He referred to a letter received from the Gulichs of 6301 Chesterfield Lane
requesting the Township install an underground holding tank. Manager Bradley said
a gate valve had been installed on the sewer at the residence two years ago so the
sewer could be turned off during high flows. He said during recent high flows, the
Gulichs did not turn the gate valve off and sewage backed up into the residence. He
said the Gulichs did not care to use the gate valve because then they had no way to
dispose of their wastewater, He said the Gulichs wanted an underground holding
tank installed so that, when the gate valve was closed, they could continue to use
.14-
Agend~ Meeting Minutes
J~nuary 31.1996
their facilities, Manager Bradley said it would cost $280 to install a I,CCO-gallon tank,
Discussion followed, and the Board agreed the Gulichs should plug the toilet since
the sewer line w,u installed and the grades established prior to the installation of the
~~ .
, . -
Manager Bradley informed the Board there were .1 number of people that had
sustained damage because of sewage backup. He said the residents were sending
damage estimates to the Township, which the Township would, in turn, forward to
its insurance company. Manager Bradley said, because of the PA Torts Claims Act,
he was sure the insurance company would not pay the claims, and discussion
followed.
Golf Carts. Street Sweeper. and I eaf Picker
Manager Bradley asked the Board to authorize the advertisement for bids for
golf carts, a street sweeper, and a leaf picker, all of which were included in the budget.
MOTION by Comm Stat has to authorize the advertisement for bids for ten new
golf cartS, a street sweeper, and a leaf picker. Motion seconded by
Comm Funk. ~lotio,11 carried unanimously.
Recreation and Highway Maintenance WorkeqJ
Manager Bradley asked the Board to authorize advertising for Recreation and
Highway Maintenance Workers 1.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to authorize advertising for Recreation and
Highway Maintenance Workers I. Motion seconded by
Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously.
Correspondence Received From The McNaughton Company
Manager Bradley informed the Board that The McNaughton Company had
requested a one-year extension to the phasing schedule for the Westbury Planned
Residential Community. He said Phase IV, under the current schedule, was due
July 14, 1996.
Comm Rendler said, if he recalled correctly, there were II phases in the PRO
He said he felt the developer should be held to the II-year schedule because changes
made to the ordinance since the original approval could not be imposed.
-15-
l~ollary 3 \, \')')6
J\i.eoda Meetioi. Mioutes
~nn..'\tion 1 i<t No~
"',....' .,,.\'')' ~k.J ,h< \lOud '" """ '''' .,0","'0' Ll' No. ,I"'
the 'faX '(earl')');' ' . .
"'OtlON . Co.... fu,k '" """ ,.;. boo""'oO c.' No. 'I?"" ''''
~'" ,,,, " ,.' ,..ou", 01 "".oG '" ". "u",~.' ,od''''~' ,od,
1 "~,,,..,". ",,,,'00>,,00'" b, Co.... "'''',\\". "'''''"' """
uoaoimoUS\Y.
~~:~r:';;~~ ~Il~
..."",,, .,.1'" ~k" ,b' \lO'" '" ,,"". ~ , "",," 01 """" ,,",n'
'fo'Hoship audits.
",anON 'Y Co.... fuok '" """. ~,..,"" 01 -,'. ,h< "" Ci.uld f~"
'''' ,udi', ,.' "" f-"'" ...,,,,,,,, """",'''''' "..,y pu""
"",..,,, P".,.. M"', '"' ,h< Co.."uO"~ Co"", r.~'"
,odido"" yo< ,,'" "",b'" ,,,,. ",,,,,00 ","" y
Cororo McCa\\io, Motioo carried uoaolrooUs\y.
MO'f\Ot'l
'Y Co.... ",,""lio '" ,",,'" ,b' '" ~n'" p,,,'" I~' ,
l'"u"Y ,,,.. ",,,,'00 ,,",'''''' Co.... funk. ",,,,,00 "",.J
unanirooUS\Y.
'SiL ~rr~nt~ t>~~bk
~. n J'\ y 'ncor~ed the Board that a ret\uest had beeo received froro
,~.anai.er Drao e It'" . 'b f
.' 0'" "'u~' "o"oow"" _""ioO "."",'" ,,,,, ""~"' "'OO~
t \e 7aum 'fhe . ",' io<"''''' ",,",.,, . ,.I"Y '" ,,,po"~ " ,., ,,""'"',
p o'Hlni. eltpenses, U
~.5rheduk
",0'\10 N by Co.... ""C'\Ii' '" "',,' ,h< ."'"'~ """i,' "b"u'" '"
,""",y, f"""" '. ,,,., ",,,,10' ","",db' Co.... su,'~,
Motion carried uoaniroouS\Y.
.\7-
--
( .
Agenda Meeting Minutes
J.lnuary 31, 1996
C ..
ommlS5:oners
Commissioner Stathas
, . -
Comm Stathas said she wanted to go.on record as having thanked the highway
crews for their many long hours and for doing their best during the recent snowfalls.
She said she also wanted to thank those employees who assisted the Red Cross in
setting up the shelter at the Facilities Building, the Wastewater Treatment
Department employees who visited homes that incurred sewage backup, and the
employees that answered tne phones and handled the complaints,
Comm Stat has said she had attended a HATS certification progr.un conducted
by a federal review team at HACC the previous week and that the 12-year plan
would be reviewed at the next meeting in February.
Comm Stat has said she felt very strongly that the Red Cross shelter should
have been located at the Emergency Services Building. She asked if the memorial
contributions made on behalf of William H. Taylor, Sr. had been expended, and
Manager Bradley said the $1.100 received in memory of Mr. Taylor was in a PUGIT
account. Comm Stathas recommended that a refrigerator and microwave for the
Emergency Services Building kitchen be purchased with the money, and discussion
followed,
MOTION by Comm Stat has to purchase a refrigerator and microwave for the
Emergency Services Building kitchen with the funds received in
memory of William H. Taylor, Sr. Motion seconded by
Comm McCallin. Motion carried 4 - 1. Comm Rendler voted against
the motion.
Comm Stat has said another matter that had been brought up at the HATS
meeting was that the closest driver's license photo center was in Carlisle, since the
center in Silver Spring Township had closed, She recommended the Township send a
letter to PADoT requesting that a center be opened in Hampden Township, in
addition to referring the matter to COG,
MOTION by Comm Stathas directing the Manager to request that PADoT
provide a driver's license photo center in Hampden Township.
Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously,
Comm Stathas asked that the necessary steps be taken to have the car parked
on the Carlisle Pike in front of the Hamilton Bank removed.
-18.
'V
-..
I
lalDpden 1'o~nsblp
- -
,
\
'""'.. ~...........
eM" C, ~\..."', """lOCO'
,-II SO......' 'o/ItC ,..o\OCOI
...... a, ~
_V/,PuI'IL
0lJII0Id II, MCcalllO
T~ .........
JQIV\ a. 8IadlCY. If.
February 2. \996
Paul K. fr'~ncis. P .E.
Land Survey Consu\tants. InC.
\;6 N. Geor%e Street
'lork. P^ \7401.\\19
RE' .""""",,,/1""" 1.>'" D<~\""'''' .... I" Hn.' ""....''''
'C fil, ,",0. ,~\1~' ,\.0' M.~h \6. ""
Dear Mr, Francis:
"". will ",.f"" "".. 01... H.""" 'ow"""~l' eo_""o"" " 'u .......
.....,.. 01 Jm"'" n. ,,,.,,~.. .h"~,,I'''''' ,m
"" Ilo". will-"'" on f,hn"" 19.".'" .'" ",io. on .h, .h. "~.ici.,,ol"
.... .,on<.
ti yon h." mY q~n'o", ,I"'" <>II J. R. ,p"". 'ow.."" E..,..".
Sincere~
/fla..J/-------
UHN E. BR^DLE'l. lR.
1'oVll\5hip Mana%er
lEB:s
9; 120\.doe
c:
R. 1'. Linsenbach. Hu%O Services. InC.
1. R. spease.1'OVlnshiP En%ineer
Darren L. 1\I\cM\\Ian. codes Enlorcement Ollicer
~
,,~) S' ,;poOlng .011 At.", . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,st><.l\. p,' 1700,:;.)001
....".,11">1"'.......-:"''',.,..,,,. conI, . f,..... 17.71 7111.,.-JII7 . 11lIlI1.7111\."':u..
._~_.."n~'."" ~_.,,,n~'~' .-""""'-' _..."n~'"'"
., '
.',
~
f Illel
-~
Cumberland County Con..nallon DI.lrlct
43 B,ookwood Avenue, Suite 4 - Ca,lIsle, Pennsylvania 17013 - Phone (717) 249-8832
Mr. R. T. ~ins.nb~ch, President
Hugo'S Services. Inc.
2244 Old Gettysburg Ro~d
C~mp HIli, PA POll
Hugo's Services, Inc.
Permit Number PAR 10 H091
H.mpden Township, Cumberland County
~,~<lOf'\991t
, . ..l.J /
... . t/'"
FES 5 1998 ;t-
HAMPDb\l1 U v\INSI1II'
De~r Mr. ~Insenb~chl
Encloseei is the ~tov. referenced perm;t which .uthorlzes the
dlsch~rge of storm w~ter from the construction ~ctivity described
in the fln.1 erosion ~nd sedlment.tlon control pl.n ~nd the
permit ~ppllc.tion. Ple~se ensure th~t the ~pproved erosion ~nd
sediment~tion control plan is fully Implemented .nd ~vall~ble .t
the construction site.
The Cumberl~nd County Conserv.tlon District reviewed the
erosion ~nd sediment~tlon control pl~n to determine whether It is
~dequ.te to s.tisfy the requirements of the Chapter 102, Erosion
Control Rules .nd Regulations. The Conservation District assumes
no responsibility far the implementation of the plan ~s the
proper construction and oper~tion of the f~cilities contained in
the plan.
Please read c.refully Parts A, Band C of the permit which
det.ils the terms and conditions of this authoriz.tlon.
Conservation District staff and/or representatives of the
Department of Environmental Protection (OEP) may inspect this
e.rthmovlng activity to determine compliance with appl1c~ble
permit requirements, Chaptllr 92. 101 and 102 Rules and
Regul.tlons and the Clean Streams ~aw.
Permit requirements and federal regulations at 40 C.F.R.
ssI22.2Ilb) require th.t "when a f.cillty or activity is o",ned by
one person but is operated by another person, it is the
oper.tor's duty to obtain a permit". Please be advised that once
a contractor has been selec ted for the pro jec t, the perml t must
either be added on as ~ co-permittee or have the permit
responsibility tr~nsferred to them. The co-permittee/transferree
form must be received by this office at least 30 days prior to
the co-permittee/transferee action taking place. The enclosed
form must be used to ~dd a co-permittee/transferee.
Enclosed also Is a Notice of Termination (NOT) form to
completed and filed ",Ith the district/department once
construction activities have ceased and final stabil1za.~lo~.!i~ IUI\I'"t....
been ~ch ieved. CC'''-:'IIIC ~
CONSERVA TION . OEVELOPMENT . SEL.F-GOVERNMENT
F"" - 1\ "04
'~NGi~:;:E":n'$ OEPT
-.
Th. county conserv~tlon district must b. notified by
t.lephon. or certified mall at I.ast s.ven days prior to the
start of constructiqn. A pre-construction conf.r.nce is
requ.st.d.
This authorization does not r.li~v. the ~pplicant from
.Pplyin9 far and obtaining ~ny and all addltlon.1 permits or
approv.ls from local. state of f.d.ral ag.ncies for the
ca"structlan .ctivlty descrlbed in the p.rmlt appllcaUon.
Slnc.....ly,
~
'~I / L 1/(. .
"/) f /
~~i.n 1</. YIlI s
Dlst...ict.. ,.;;tician
Enclosur.
cc I ~!'li ....."'" TOtomsnlp
SL.WC, P.rmi ts So CQmp1i~nce S.ction
P.ul Fr.ncis, L..nd Surv.y Consultants, Inc.
Olstrlct Fil.
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
DATE, TIME
FAX ~./NAI€
AT ON
~,e: ( )
~B't
62/2& 11:14
7413654
60:00:53
02
OK
STAI'lDilRO
ECM
.~
7671
p~~{
~,\ ,
IJlJ'C'-.Y
tJ
-+\,~l L() )L../
,fr(L \'~J
'\
(; C .
j...-.
rlj'
..J
TIME
NAME
FAX
TEL
02/2&/199W?1 :15
HAIof'OEN T IP
717-7&1-7 &7
717-7&1-0119
LAW OFFICES OF
KOLLAS AND KENNEDY
(~
fo"flV
11114 FERN WOOD AVENUE
CAMPIIILL,PENNSYLVANIA 171111
WilliAM C. KOLLAS
MARY KOlLAS KENNEOY
f~bruary 27, 1996
TELEPHONE NO. (717) 731.1600
FAX NO. (717) 783-_2
M,IL.ltJQ ."IiiIRIi&&;
p, O. BOX .33
C:,\4P tillL.. p. l1QUt tM\1J
John E. Bradley. Jr.
Township Manager
Hampden Township
230 South Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsbu'g, PA 170~~
RE: 8UIO'S Sen'ices, Inc., IIId Eastern
Consolidation & Distribution Sen'ices, Inc.
RECEIVED J
FES 29 1996 ~
HAMPDEI~ roWNSHIP
Dear Mr. Bradley:
The above plan is scheduled for consideration at your nexl meeling to be held on
February 29. It has come to our attention that the Commissioners feel thaI approval of our
plan may necessitate improvements on the part of the township. such as inslallation of a
traffic light al the interseclion of St. John's Church Road and Industrial Park Road. While we
feel Ihat the traffic will nol be increased because of our addilional building. we would still be
willing to assist financially loward the implementalions and improvements. This offer to
assisl is nOl to be conslrued as an admission on our part that a traffic increase will result from
our being issued a building permit.
0....\ ' Be advised thaI Hugo's Services, Inc., would be willing to contribule Ihe sum of
~.,..~ 1\ $5,000.00 upon recording of our approved plan and an additional sum of $10.000.00 when the
c'''o' ~improvements have been accomplished by the township. Be further advised Ihat this offer is
open only if Ihe plan is approved al Ihe February 29 meeting. Unfortunately, if Ihe plan is
not appro\'~d at the February 29 meeting, we will ha\'e to rescind our offer of participation in
the expense of the improvements. The rescission of the offer is not to be construed as a
condition imposed by us on the Board for approval but rather as an opportunity for us to re-
evaluate our position in the event approval is not immediately forthcoming. We have some
very serious time constraints placed on us by our customers. In fact, it is (hey who require
that we make Ihese changes to our existing structure.
V:;e~
1/
William C. Kollas
WCIc~/den
/ ,.:;;1"
f "i'.)
()/I{~
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
EVALUATION OF HUGO SERVICES, INC. 's
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. Waste Management of Cenlral PelUlSylvanla has reviewed lhe Hampden Township Zoninl
Orrllna...... (No. 84-02), as revised December I, 1994, against the Land Development Pian
("Plan") of HUlo Services, Inc. and notes the followlnl areas where the PIan Is not In
compIJance wllh Ihe ordinance:
I. Section 1405: BuildinK HeiKht Limit: The maximum building height is slated as being 35
feet. Nowhere on the Plan is the building height listed. However, there is a condition provided .Ihal
the hlight limil may be illcreased aile fOOl for each addi/ional foollhe width of each yard txcteds Ihe
minimum required". The Plan does not make clear how this height limit restriction is dealt with and
there is no information as to whether the height limit is exceeded.
2. Section 14011: Yard Rellulations: The side yard depth is 25 feet from each side of the
property line, "e.tcepl whtll Ihe property lille is a railroad spur /Iud 10 service Ihe buildillg(s) olllhe
property where 110 millimum yard deplh is required." The proposed warehouse addition is loca(ed less
lhan 10 feel fromlhe property boulldary with a railroad spur paralleling the eastern property
boundary. However, the Plan does not show the connection (0 the main Pennsylvania railroad line.
Is this spur active? Does Hugo use (his spur to ship goods in and out of their warehouse? If the spur
is active, will it extend into the new section of warehouse" If the spur will service the new
warehouse. that is, if it is Hugo's plan to use the rail spur, then there is no problem. However, if the
spur is inactive, does not extend into the new warehouses, and will not be used, or if the spur is
usable but will not be used, the addition should not be permitted, under the ordinance, to cross the
setback line. Nothing on the Plan resolves this issue.
II. Waste Management of Cenlral PelUlSylvallJa has reviewed the Hampden Township Land
Development Ordinance (No. 95-(1), dated March I. 1995. against the Pian, and notes the
following areas where the Pian Is not in compliance with the Ordinance:
1. Section 506.6A: Slope of Detention Basin Embankment: At the emergency spillway the
embankment slope is greater than the maximum slope of 3 horizontal to I vertical. According to the
ordinance "if side slopes exceed J. J, lhall a six (6) fOOl high fellce shall be illSlalled alollg Ihe
perimeler of lhe basill". No such fence is shown on the Plan.
2. Section 506.6C: Slope of Basin Bottom: The bOllom slope of the second basin (the basin
which is located to the south of the pond/first basio and to the west of the proposed 11O,5811 square
foot warehouse drains into) is less Ihan 2%, a minimum grade of 2% is required 10 ensure proper
drainage of the basin. The contours of this basin should be modi tied so that sheet now can be
maintained.
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
RECEIVED
fES 29 1996
ENGINEERING DEPT.
}fJJjiJ I 21:Ni'H-t
I. Hugo's Iraffic sludy has nOI been but should be Ihoroughly evalualed. This is particularly at issue
depending on the resolution of Ihe rail spur mailer noted above. as ilS use may resuh in addilional
Iruck and trailer traffic to move goods received at Ihe sile by rail.
General Orawin, Review'
1. The co",ret~ loading dock pad shown on C.I is 10 be detailed on C.3. No delail is shown for
a concrele loading dock pad on C-3.
2. The Paving Details on C.3 are nOllabeled as 10 which is 'Heavy DUly" and which is "Light
Duty".
3. The Sediment Trap - Riser Spillway cross seclion is nOI complele. there is a reference 10 a
Riser detail which is not shown on the drawing and the detail of the water flow under the
embankment, if any, is unclear and is marked only by dashed lines,
DATED: February 29. 1996
WHJIlJ11JJ%
-3-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
February 29, 1996
MOTION by Comm Stathas to adopt an ordinance, to be prepared in the future,
an ordinance of the Township of Hampden, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, amending Section 1621.5, Part 16, of Chapter 27 of the
Township of Hampden Code of Ordinances as originally enacted on
July 3, 1984 to (a) limit ~ign area to a maximum'of 25 square feet in
circumstances prescribed in Subsection A(3), and (b) in new Subsection
A(4), tc permit one wall sign not to exceed a ma.ximum of 12 square
feet to be erected only on zone lots containing, at the time of the
enactment of this subsection, an approved permitted or approved
conditional non-residential use in any R.S, R.T, R.C, and F.S.C zoning
districts, Motion seconded by Comm Rendler. The vote was 2 . 3.
President Finkelstein and Comms Funk and McCallin voted against
the motion.
MOTION by Comm Funk to adopt an ordinance, to be prepared in the future, an
ordinance of the Township of Hampden, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, amending Section 1621.5, Part 16, of Chapter 27 of the
Township of Hampden Code of Ordinances as originally enacted on
July 3, 1984 to (a) limit sign area to a maximum of 25 square feet in
circumstances prescribed in Subsection A(3), and (b) add a new
Subsection A(4) to read, .One sign not to exceed a maximum sign area
of si.x square feet and a maximum height of six feet may be erected
only on zone lots containing, at the time of the enactment of this
subsection, an approved permitted or approved conditional non-
residential use in any R.S, R-T, R-C or F-S-C zoning district. Motion
seconded by Comm McCallin. The vote was 3 - 2. Comms Rendler
and Stat has voted against the motion.
President Finkelstein closed Public Hearing No.2 at 8: 14 p.m.
Presentation to Jay Fitzgerald
President Finkelstein presented a plaque to Jay Fitzgerald and thanked him for his
service to the Hampden Township Sewer Authority from 1990 to 1995.
A d' P" .
U lence artlclpatlon
Preliminacy/Final Land Development Plan for James D. and Joyce W. Kearns
Mike D'Angelo, D' Angelo Consulting, was present to speak on behalf of the
submission. Mr. D'Angelo informed the Board that all conditions had been met and
(-
-2-
Agenda Meeting Hinute~
February 29, 1996
i.,.
that the Hampen Township Sewer Authority had granted permission for the
property to be connected to the sewer system. .
MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the.PreliminaryIFin.i1 Land
Development Plan for James D; and Joyce W. Kearns, property located
at 4836 E, Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, 1.83 acres, zoned A-OL,
owned by James D. and Joyce W, Kearns, submitted by D'Angelo
Consulting. Planning Commission File No. 96-01-01 with a time limit
deadline of April 9, 1996. Approval contingent upon
(1) review/approval by (a) PA DEP, (b) PADoT, and (c) the Hampden
Township Sewer Authority; (2) submission of five copies and one
mylar of the corrected plan, 18" x 24," signed, sealed, and notarized
and a certified copy of the associated electronic file tying the property
to the nearest Township monument; (3) bonding; and (4) Township
Engineer approval. Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion
carried unanimously.
Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for United Cerebral Palsy of the Capital
A..cu
Craig Bachik, Vice President, H. Edward Black and Associates, was present to
speak on behalf of the submission. Mr. Bachik said the Planning Commission had
recommended approval of the plan and he would be happy to answer any questions
the Board might have.
Comm Rendler said the plan showed curbing along 38th street but no
sidewalk on 38th street or on the driveway. He said, since this would be a school, he
felt there should be sidewalks on the north side of the driveway and on the east side
of 38th Street. Mr. Bachik said there currently were no sidewalks on 38th Street and,
because of the nature of the school, a facility for handicapped children, most of the
children would be dropped off at the door. He said it was the applicant's preference
to not incur the additional expense of installing sidewalk. Discussion followed.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve, without the need for sidewalks, the
Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for United Cerebral Palsy
of the Capital Area, property located at South 38th Street, Camp Hill,
2.67 acres, one lot, zoned R-S, owned by Keys-Pealers, Ltd., submitted
by H. Edward Black & Associates, P.C. Planning Commission File
No. 95.12-02 with a time limit deadline of March 16, 1996. Approval
contingent upon (1) review/approval by (a) the Cumberland County
Planning Commission, (b) PA DEP, and (c) the Cumberland County
Soil Conservation District; (2) submission of five copies and one
-3-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
February 29, 1996
mylar of the corrected plan, 18" x 24," signed, sealed, and notarized,
and a certified copy of the associated electronic file tying the property
to the nearest Township monument; (3) bonding; and (4) Township
Engineer approval. Motion iecoDded by Comm McCallin. Motion
carried unanimowly.
Preliminacy/Final Land Development Plan for Hugo Services. Inc.
William C. Kollas, Esquire, Kollas and Kennedy, was present to speak on
behalf of the submission. Mr. Kallas said the applicant had met the conditions for
approval, and he asked for discussion.
Michael A. Finio, Esquire, Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, representing Waste
Management of Central Pennsylvania, presented a document entitled "Evaluation of
Hugo Services, Inc.'s Land Development Plan" to the Board, a copy of which is
attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Finio was informed and
Mr. Kollas agreed that any violation of ordinance could be included under the
condition, Township Engineer approval.
.-
Comm Funk asked if there had been any resolution to the traffic study, and
Manager Bradley said, if by resolution, Comm Funk meant agreement between the
parties, there was not. Manager Bradley said Hugo's traffic study had been reviewed
by the Township's traffic engineer and the opinion provided by Grove Miller
Engineering, Inc, differed from that of Hugo's.
Mr. Kollas asked if it wasn't true that the Township's traffic engineer had said
traffic would be increased six to seven percent during peak hours, and
Manager Bradley confirmed that was correct. Mr. Kollas said the applicant had set
forth a contribution which was well in excess of that percentage, and he said, with
respect to resolution of the traffic engineering study, Hugo Services, Inc. would
accept the Township's traffic engineer's study. Managel' Bradley said, with those
words, Condition No. I, resolution of the r,raffic engineering study, had been met.
Cemm Funk said he didn't feel that, if a business wanted to expand and that
expansion created a situation w here an intersection had to be improved, the taxpayers
should have to bear any of the cost to bring the intersection up to the standards
required. He said he felt the cost should be totally borne by the business creating the
situation. Comm McCallin said he agreed that, if a safety hazard was created, the
business creating the hazard should rectify the situation. Mr. Kollas said he believed
it would be difficult to characterize an increase in traffic by six or seven percent over
the peak hours as a hazard, He said he believed the developer had conformed to the
statutes.
-+-
-'
Agenda Meeting Minutes
FebruJrY 29, 1996
Manager Bradley said, if the plan was approved, the 515,000 contribution
offered by the developer would be put toward the cost of installing "truck-size"
curbing on Industrial Park Road and adding a passing lane on St. John's Church
Road. He said he didn't want anyone to think this amount of money was going to
guarantee a traffic signal.
Mr, Kollas said that Hugo Services, Inc, was community-minded enough that,
if its expansion would create any kind of a hazard, it would consider contributing
further, if conditions warranted. Manager Bradley said, in its letter dated January 29,
1996, Hugo Services, Inc. had stated that "In addition, should a cooperative
improvement venture be proposed with the Department of Transportation,
Township, and surrounding businesses, we would be receptive to participating."
Comm Rendler suggested that statement be made a condition of approval and
discussion followed.
Comm Funk asked what the reasoning was for offering a 55,000 contribution
upon recording of the approved plan and another 510,000 when the improvements
were accomplished by the Township, as stated in Mr. Kollas' letter of February 27,
1996, rather than the entire amount "up front." Mr. Kollas said the reason was
simply that, if a traffic signal was not installed, Hugo Services, Inc. did not want to
make the contribution. Comm Stathas said the Township had never said the 515,000
would be used for a traffic signal, but rather would be used for improvements.
Mr. Kollas said that, if the Board wanted to apply that condition, that would be okay
and that Hugo Services, Inc. would contribute 55,000 upon recordation of the plan
and another S10,OOO upon the issuance of the building permit.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the Preliminary/Final Land
Development Plan for Hugo Services, Inc" property located at
Industrial Park Road and Sterling Street, Camp Hill, 15.89 acres,
one lot, zoned I.G, owned by Eastern Consolidation and Distribution
Services, Inc., submitted by Land Survey Consultants, Inc. Planning
Commission File No, 95-12-01 with a time limit deadline of March 16,
1996. Approval contingent upon (1) resolution of the traffic
engineering study; (2) a S15,OOO contribution by the developer toward
the improvement of the intersection of Industrial Park Road and St. .
John's Church Road (55,000 upon recording of the plan and $10,000 at
the time of issuance of the building permit); (3) submission of five
copies and one mylar of the corrected plan, 18" x 24," signed, sealed,
and notarized, and a certified copy of the associated electronic file
tying the property to the nearest Township monument; (4) a note
being added to the plan stating the developer will be receptive to
participating in a cooperative improvement venture proposed with the
-5-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
February 29, 1996
Department of Transportation, Township, and surrounding businesses,
(;) bonding; and (6) Township Engineer approval, including a review
of the written objections posed by Waste Management of Pennsylvania
dated February 29, 1996. Motiol! seconded by Comm ~.tcCallin.
Motion carried unanimously...
Preliminary/Final [ and Development Phn for Herre Bros.. Inc.
Mitchell Kemp, J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc" was present to speak on
behalf of the submission. Mr. Kemp stated that plan revisions had been submitted
and reviewed by the Township Engineer. Manager Bradley confirmed the only
conditions remaining were bonding md Township Engineer approval.
Comm Funk asked what explanation had been provided concerning the
building being built without the proper permits, and Manager Bradley said the
Township had been told that the owner thought the contractor had applied and
received the permits and the contractor thought the owner had applied and received
the permits. Comm Funk asked whose signature Wa.3 required when applying for a
building permit, and Manager Bradley said the Township accepted either the owner's
or the contractor's signature on the application.
i' .
Manager Bradley said, upon applying for a building permit, it was found the
project required land development approval. He said the owner had provided a land
development plan which had been reviewed by the Planning Commission, but that
no representative from Herre Bros. was in attendance at the Planning Commission
meeting. He said the Planning Commission had recommended disapproval and that a
citation had been filed with the District Justice citing Herre Bros. for building a
building without the necessary permits or an approved land development plan. He
said, subsequent to that, Herre Bros. had provided a revised plan addressing all the
reasons why the Planning Commission had recommended disapproval.
Manager Bradley said the hearing date was scheduled for April 9 at 9:00 a,m,
MOTION by Comm Funk to table the Preliminary/Final Land Development
Plan for Herre Bros., Inc., Planning Commission File No. 96-02-0;,
Motion seconded by Comm McCallin.
President Finkelstein asked what difference it would make if the Board
approved the plan that evening. Discussion followed, and Comm Funk withdrew his
motion.
Solicitor Snelbaker said he sensed a strong feeling of moving toward a penalty
and, under those circumstances, he recommended the plan be tabled. In response to
-6-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
February 29, 1996
Mt. Kemp's que~tion, Solicitot Snelbaker said the applicant would not have to relile,
that the same plan would be reviewed after the hearing.
MOTION by Comm Stat has to table the l'reliminary/Final Land Development
Plan for Herre Bros., Inc., Planning Commissio'n File No. 96-02-05.
Motio\l seconded by Comm Funk.
final Ltnd Development Plan for Penn$ylvania Contractors Insurance Company -
A~dition to Lynndale Court Facility
Doug McAninch was present to speak on behalf of the submission.
Mr. McAninch said, concerning Condition No.1, review/approval by the Hampden
Township Sewer Authority, he had spoken with the sewer authority's engineer and
did not feel there would be a problem.
Comm Rendler asked where the facility was located, and Mr. McAninch said
the proposed addition was to an existing building located on the Lynndale Court cul-
de-sac.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the Final Land Development Plan for
Pennsylvania Contractors Insurance Company - Addition to Lynndale
Court Facility, property located at Lynndale Court, Mechanicsburg,
2.032 acres, one lot, zoned I.G, owned by Pennsylvania Contractors
Insurance Company, submitted by Hartman and Associates, Inc.
Planning Commission File No. 96-02.03 with a time limit deadline of
May 7,1996. Approval contingent upon (1) review/approval by the
Hampden Township Sewer Authority; (2) submission of five copies
and one mylar of the corrected plan, 18" x 24," signed, sealed, and
notarized, and a certified copy of the associated electronic file tying the
proper'lY to the nearest Township monument; (3) bonding; and
(4) Township Engineer approval. Motion seconded by
Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of the Minutes
MOTION by Comm Funk to approve the Agenda Meeting Minutes of
January 31, 1996. Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion
carried unanimously.
l..,_" ,
-7-
Febr~ary 29, 1996
Agenda Meeting Minutes
Pl:1nning commission
Final Subdivision Phn of Kingswood Pbase Vll
Ronald M. Lucas, Hetrick, Zaleski, &. Pierce, was present to speak on behalf
of the submission. Mr, Lucas said Phase VII was a continuation of Saffron oind Pamay
Drives, with connection to the Highlands of Hampden.
, . -
MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the Final Subdivision Plan of Kingswood
Phase VII, property located at the end of Saffron Drive,
Mechwicsburg, 7.21 acres, 15 lots zoned R-S, owned by Pamay
Development Company, Inc., submitted by Penn Terra Engineering,
Inc. Planning Commission File No. 96-02-01 with a time limit
deadline of May 7, 1996. Approval contingent upon
(1) review/approval by the Cumberland County Soil Conservation
District and the Hampden Township Sewer Authority; (2) submission
of five copies and one mylar of the corrected plan, IS" x 24," signed,
sealed, and notarized, and a certified copy of the associated electronic
file tying the property to the nearest Township monument;
(3) bonding; and (4) Township Engineer approval. Motion seconcied
by Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm Rendler said he wanted to remind the developer that there had been a
problem in the last phase in that sidewalk had not been installed on undeveloped lots.
Mr. Lucas said the developer did not install the sidewalk, the builder did, although
sidewalks were bonded by the developer.
final Subdivision Plan for Pinehurst Phase IV A
Ronald M, Lucas, Hetrick, Zaleski, wd Pierce, was present to speak on behalf
of the submission.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the Final Subdivision Plan for Pinehurst
Phase IV A, property located at the end of Monterey Drive,
Mechanicsburg, 12.565 acres, 9 lots, zoned R-C, owned by Pamay
Development Compwy, Inc., submitted by Penn Terra Engineering,
Inc. Planning Commission File No. 96-02-02 with a time limit
deadline of May 7,1996. Approval ~ontingent upon
(1) review/approval by the Cumberlwd County Soil Conservation
District and the Hampden Township Sewer Authority; (2) submission
of five copies and one mylar of the corrected plan, lS" llH," signed,
sealed, and notarized, and one certified copy of the associated
-S.
Agenda Meeting Minutes
February 29, 1996
MOTION by Comm Rendler authorizing the President to sign an agreement
with Hampden Commons concerriing offsite development issues.
Motion seconded by Comm Stat has. Motion carri~d unanimously,
, . -
PreliminaQ'/Final Subdivision rbn for rbmpden C.ommons '
David Schwartz, President, Olympic Realty and Development Corporation,
and Ronald M. Lucas, Hetrick, Zaleski, and Pierce, were present to speak on behalf
of the submission. Engineer Spease asked Mr. Schwartz to explain to the Board the
modifications proposed in the plan.
Mr. Schwartz stated that, due to a change in tenants, a minor change in the
architectural design was being requested, He presented a new rendering showing
what the shopping center would look like, He said Circuit City would occupy a
40,000 square foot building and that other tenants included Staples, an office supply
company, and PetzSmart, a pet supply company. He said all the tenants had agreed
to use a split-face block on the exterior of the buildings, and he showed the Board
samples of the material. He said the Home Depot Center would basically remain the
same as previous I}' presented.
Mr. Schwartz said that, since the property had frontage on two public roads,
Brandle Boulevard and the Carlisle Pike, the ordinance allowed two pylon signs. He
presented renderings of what the signs would look like and showed their location on
the property.
Mr. Schwartz said Circuit City required a pickup area that would be
accommodated by constructing a one-way road from the front to the rear of the
building. He said that one-way road would also allow access to the car stereo
installation area located to the rear of the building.
Mr. Schwartz referred to a letter he had received from Overnite
Transportation, a copy of which he had previously provided to the Township, in
which Overnite said it did not intend to connect to Brandle Boulevard but was
pleased with the plan,
Comm Funk inquired about the status of the cross-access agreement with K-
Mart, and Mr. Schwartz said Olympic Realty had an agreement with K.Mart and
Cumberland Partners, owner of the K.Mart property, whereby, in exchange for the
cross-access agreement, K.Mart had an option on several pieces of Olympic's property
for anticipated future expansion.
-10-
Agenda Meeting Minutes
February 29, 1996
Comm Stat has inquired about the status of speed bumps in front of the stores
to slow traffic, and Mr, Schwartz said Grove Milter Engineering, Inc. had
recommended something similar to a rumble strip, rather than the speed bumps.
Mr, Lucas said there was a note on the plan whij:h gave the Township the option to
require speed bumps, if desired.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to reapprove the Preliminary/Final Subdivision
Plan for Hampden Commons, Planning Commission File No. 95-12-
02, contingent upon (1) review/approval by (a) PA DEP, (b) PADoT,
(c) Hampden Township Sewer Authority, and (d) Cumberland
County Soil Conservation District; (2) submission of five copies and
one mylar of the corrected, approved plan, 18" x 24," signed, sealed,
and notarized, and a certified copy of the associated electronic file
tying the property to the nearest Township monument; (3) a signed
agreement concerning offsite development issues between the
developer and the Township; (4) bonding; and (5) Township Engineer
approval. Motion seconded by Comm McCaIlin. Motion carried
unanimously.
Ken Hess, 6 Wingate Drive, inquired about the status of the necessary P ADoT
permits, and Mr. Schwartz said the required PADoT permits were "in hand." He
said the traffic signal permits, one to remove the light at Wingate Drive and the other
to instaIl a new traffic signal at Brondle Boulevard, and the Highway Occupancy
Permits for 0111 the driveways involved had been issued.
Resolution No. 96-05
Engineer Spease asked the Board to approve Resolution No. 96-05 so the
sewer planning module for Whelan Crossing could be submitted to DEP.
Comm Statltas said she felt submission of the planning module at this time was
premature because the plan had not yet been approved. Discussion followed.
MOTION by Comm Rendler to approve Resolution No. 96-05 for submission to
PA DEP to provide sanitary sewer service to Whelan Crossing.
Motion seconded by Comm Stathas. Motion carried unanimously.
Manager Bradley informed the Board that the sewerage would go to East
Pennsboro Township, and Engineer Spease said the planning module also had to be
approved by East Pennsboro.
, .
-11-
Agendol Meeting Minutes
Februolry 29, 1996
Comm Rendler s.lid he felt the property should be dolmmed the whole WolY to
the PP&L property so tholt, if the detention pond overflowed, it would overflow
onto Township property.
, . -
Good Hope/Creekview Roads Intersection Improvement Pro1ect Update
Manager Bradley said the Township had hoped to improve the physical
portion of the Good Hope/Creekview Roads intersection in 1996. He said the
Township had been notified tholt PADoT would not issue any permits for the project
until the adjoining properties hold been reviewed by the State Historical Society. He
said that review had just been started and would take some time. He said PADoT
had been asked to approve a traffic signal permit based on current accident and traffic
counts. He said PADoT did not agree with the information provided and was
requiring an additional traffic study, Manager Bradley said the requirement was
probably a reasonable one because the new interconnector and interchange may have
affected traffic more than the Township had envisioned. He said the Township was
in the process of conducting that traffic study. He said, if the traffic study showed
that a signal was required, the geometrics of the intersection would require turning
lanes in all directions. He said eight lanes without a light would require a "novel"
way to control the intersection until the traffic signal was installed the following
year. Manager Bradley said he would provide the Board with the results of the traffic
study at its next meeting and, if a traffic signal was warranted, he was going to
recommend the entire project be done in 1997. He said, if a traffic signal was not
warranted, he was going to recommend the current design of the intersection be
revised to a turning lane on Creekview Road only and do the project this year,
assuming P ADo T and the historical society issued the permits.
Comm Rendler said he thought PADoT was going to conduct traffic studies
to see what affect the new interchange on Creekview Road had on the flow of traffic
on Good Hope Road. Manager Bradley said he was not aware of that.
Comm Rendler asked what was historical at the intersection, and Manager Bradley
said it was not the intersection; it was, in fact, Mrs. Fetrow's home and, since Good
Hope Road was a state road, review by the historical society was required.
Recreation/Highway Salt Storage Building
Engineer Spease asked the Board to authorize the advertisement for bids for a
new Recreation/Highway salt storage building.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to authorize the advertisement for bids for
construction of a new Recreation/Highway salt storage building.
Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously.
-14-
Febru~ry 29, 1996
Agend~ Meeting Minutes
be removed from the roads and the second st.lge where vehicles would not be
permitted to drive on the ro~ds unless there was an emergency ~nd the vehicle was
equipped with snow tires or ch~ins or was a +wheel drive vehicle. Discussion
followed,
, . .
Comm McCallin s~id he was also interested in reviewing the policy
concerning plowing that was being developed, M~nager Bradley suggested he and
Comm McCallin met to review the current policy.
7nning Ordin~nce
Manager Bradley said, in response to the Board's request for the staff to
review possible elimination of conditional uses in the Zoning Ordinance, he was
recommending elimination of approximately 85 percent of the conditional uses.
Comm Rendler said he felt the permitted uses should also be reviewed, and
Manager Bradley said he would glad to do that. Discussion followed.
MOTION by Comm Stat has to refer to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation proposed Zoning Ordinance changes eliminating
certain conditional uses from the various zoning districts and direct the
staff to review the Zoning Ordinance for possible elimination of
certain permitted uses. Motion seconded by Comm Rendler. Motion
carried unanimously,
r,omprehensive Plan
Manager Bradley in~ormed the Board that the Planning Commission had
suggested the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed, Comm Stathas said the Planning
Commission felt the plan should be reviewed mid-life to see how closely it was being
followed. Manager Bradley said, in accordance with the MPC, the Planning
Commission did not have the authority to review the Comprehensive Plan unless
requested to do so by the Board. Discussion followed.
MOTION by Comm Stathas to allow the Planning Commission to present to the
Board its reasons for wanting to review the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously.
~e7.oning
Manager Bradley said he had, at the request of Comm Stathas, put on the
agenda for the Board's consideration rezoning the northern portion of the Township
zoned Apartment-Office to Office-Park. He said, if the Board agreed, its action
-17-