HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05684
"-",,,~,,~,,,,L',,,~!-,,
',,,''''!''''''-c~.,--
""",,-.
\
,'.1"'"
~~5~,"'i'~
:~7t:ii;'f:?
:"r"";S"F;" ;i'~' -. ."
"""-..%.=>-~, ," '
. ;,. >:;- 1;,;."';:...L" "
',' -..
- -" -'"
, ','
\
"
./
UMAKANT DASH,
AppeUaDt
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
: NO. 96-5684 CIVIL TERM
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
: LAND USE APPEAL
CERTIFICATION OF LAND llSE RECORD
.
AND NOW COMES the Appellee. the Board of Commissioners of East Pennsboro
Township. by their ~tary and cmify the following attached documents as tnIe and accurate
copies of:
1. Township Subdivision and Land De\'elopment Ordinance No. 82-60. as revised
through January 4. 1983 with attachment Ordinance No. 548.95. dated February 7. 1995.
2. Memo from East Pmnsboro Township to Umakant Dash. dated August 16, 1993.
3. Memo. dated June 26. 1996. from Dawood Engineering to East Pennsboro
Township.
4. Hydraulics Report for Land Oe\'elopment concerning Umakant Dash p1upestY' by
Dawood EnaineerinJ. Inc. with subllllssion date of June 26, 1996.
5. Memo. dakd July 2. 1996. from East Pennsboro Township to Tri-County
Rqional PIannina Commission.
." \
, , ..,
. , .
.,.. ''1
,,' I
.,
"', , ,
,
t.
t :~,
. ,
, .
.
" \',
'1 "
t ~) ....
,
6. Township Staff Review Notes, dated July 10, 1996.
7. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda and Minutes, dated July II, 1996.
8. Letter of Transmittal from Dawood Engineering, Inc. to East Pennsboro
Township, dated July 17, 1996.
9. Memo from Dawood Engineering, Inc. to Mr. Richard Ernest, East Pennsboro
Township, dated July 25, 1996.
10. Memo from Township Environmental Advisory Council, dated July 25,1996.
11. TownshipStalTReview Notes, dated July 31.1996.
12. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda and Minutes. dated August I, 1996.
13. Memo from William T. Sprague, II to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
dated August I, 1996.
14. DEP Memo. dated August 6. 1996. from Mr. Paul Curry to the TO\llmship.
15. Memo from Dawood Engineering to Code and ~ing Officer, Worm\eysburJ
Borough. dated August 12, 1996.
16. PrcliminarylFinal Land Development Plan for Umakant Dash propeny, last
rrnxd August 28, 1996. and rcc:civcd by the Township on said date.
17. Township StalTRrvicw Nota. dated ~t'ktnber 3,1996.
Ill. P1annina and Zonina Commiuion Minutes and Aaenda, dated Sqltcmber $,
1996.
19. Memo. datnJ Scptanbrr 6. 1996. from the PIannint and latina Commiuion to
the BoIrd ofComm~ of East ~ Towmlup.
20. Fall documentation a- fMt \"omboro Township to UtNbftt !lash.. dated
Sqltcmber 12, 1996.
2
21, Township Staff notes on Dash PreliminarylFinal Land Development Plan, dated
September 16, 1996.
22. Minutes of Board of Commissioners Meeting of September 17, 1996.
23. Board of Commissioners Meeting of East Pennsboro Township Workshop
Agenda; Regular Session Agenda and Minutes, dated September 17, 1996.
24. Memo from East Pennsboro Township to Mr. Dash, dated September 20, 1996.
25. Memo from Cumberland County Conservation District, dated October 4, 1996,
to Dawood Engineering, Inc. stating that the Final Plan as reviewed was not adequate to
meet the requirements for erosion control.
All documents consist of the entire record of Appellant's Land Use Appeal and
is hereby forwarded to this Honorable Court in accordance with Section 1003-A of the
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (M.P.C.) Act of July 31, 1968 P.L. 805, as amended.
53 P.S. Section 11003-A.
RapectliaUy submItted,
BOARD OF COMMISSIO"'ERS
TOWNSHIP OF EAST PENNSBORO
rzJ2.~/"
at Secntary
3
96.5684 CIVIL TERM
litigation. 65 Pa.C.S.A. 278(a)(4). The executive session exception is limited in that all official
action must be taken at an open meeting and the executive session shall not "be used as a
subterfuge to defeat the purposes of (Section 274)." 65 Pa.C.S.A. 278(c).
Nter reviewing the certified record, we arc satisfied that the Sunshine Act was not
violated in this case. According to the minutes of the September 17th board meeting, the
purpose of the executive session was to determine what action would be taken concerning Mr.
Dash's plan. The Board of Commissioners. evidently, were satisfied that if the plan were denied
there would be litigation and they wished to discuss that mailer with their solicitor in an
executive session. See Cert. Rec. Ex. 2.1 The Sunshine Act exprcssly provides for executive
sessions to discuss strate&y in connection with litigation. The Act. in turn. defines "litigation:
among other things. as any .current action or mailer subject to appeal before a conn of law...the
decision of which may be appealed to a court of law." This is ipso facto such a mallcr.
Accordingly. the requiremcnts under the Sunshinc Act wcre met.
The next point of appeal is that Section 302.I.e.(2) and Section SOl of thc Subdivision
and Land DevcloDment Ordinancc of East Pennsboro Township are too gcneral or otherwise
inapposite to allow denial of the instant development plan. With this contcntion we agrcc.
Article III, Section 302.I.e,(2) pl'05Cribes residential ronstruction on land that is "topographically
unsuitablc." Article V, Section 50\ prohibits the subdivision. for residential purposes. of land
"subject to hazards to life or property. such as quarry land. open ditches, ctc." Our courts havc
consistently hcld that provisions of ordinances _ilidl contain purely subjective criteria for the
suitability of land for residential development are too vague to permit cnforttmcnt. Stt Slml$l
v. Township of loM:r Menon. I~ Pa.('ommw, 2.~7. 2M-6.~. 587 A.2d 879. AA.\ (1991). ~
5
96.5684 CIVIL TERM
denied. 529 Pa. 660, 604 A.2d 252 (1992); Pace Resources. Inc. v. Shrewsburv Townshio Planninl!
Commission, 89 Pa.Commw. 468, 473-74, 492 A.2d 818, 820-21 (1985); 11. Goodman v. Board of
Commissioners of the Townshio of South Whitehall. 49 Pa.Commw. 35,41.44.411 A.2d 838.
841-42 (1980); Vallev Run. Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Swatara Townshio, 21 Pa.Commw.
649,652-53,347 A.2d 517, 519-20 (1975); Harrisburl! Fore Associates v. Board of Supervisors of
Lower Paxton Townshio. 21 Pa.Commw. 137, 141-42,344 A.2d 277. 281 (1975); Brauns v.
Boroum of Swarthmore. 4 Pa.Commw. 627, 634-35. 288 A.2d 830. 834 (1972).
Even more importantly, Section 302. \.e.(2) is effective only as to land where a flood
hazard exists. There is no evidence in the record of this case of any such hazard nor any
indication that the improvements on the property lie within the flood plain. While the Board of
Commissioners expresses "grave concern" aver the slope of the land in question. nowhere in the
ordinance is there any objective criteria regarding this matter.
Article V, Section 501 makes a general reference to "hazards to life or property" and then
goes on to proscribe the subdivision. for residential purposes. of "quarry land. open ditches. etc."
We agree with the appellant that this property is not quarry land and there are not open ditches.
A specific hazard. mentioned by the Board. is that the box tulvert win increase the flood
elevation on five neighboring properties. uke the appellant, we can find no basis for this
comment in the record. To the contrary. the design of the box culvert appears to have passed
muster at each stage of its review.
Next. the appellant complains that various reasons for the p1an's denial ha\'\: not been
made in r,ood faith. /U the coun noted in Raum v, RnanJ of SuDCrvison of Tredvffrin TWOSD..
29 Pa.Commw. 9, 370 A.2d m (19n):
6
96-5684 CIVIL TERM
water management plan has been submilled to the Cumberland County Planning Commission or
Cumberland County Conservation District. In facl, the plan was pending before the Cumberland
County Conservation District at the time of the Commissioner's meeting on September 17, 1996.
The appellant contends, properly, that the plan should have been conditioned for final approval
upon the issuance of an erosion and sedimentation permit by the Conservation District. In any
event, the ordinance violation cited appears to have application to storm water management
plans only in the context of subdivisions. We agree with the appellant that his proposal is a land
development plan and not a subdivision plan.
Thus, several of the grounds for the denial of this plan involve considerations of form
rather than substance. Dash can easily amend the plan by including the existing sewer easement
and inserting thc required vertical datum. Furthermore. Dash is willing to provide evidence of
review by the Cumberland County Conservation District (even though the review may not
nccessarily be required).
Finally, appellant contends that thc Commissioncrs applied provisions of the township
ordinance that have no application to his plan. Onc such ordinance section is 303,2.c which
requires "a plan of any proposed water distribution system showing pipe sizes and location of
valves and fire hydrants." As noted in appellant's brief, the plan does show existing water lines
at the site. Mr. Dash is proposing no other water S}~tem nor any fire hydrants.. Dash cannot, of
course, plot that which is not proposed. The section cited in the ordinance simply states that
propmed water lines or fire hydrants should be slKJIlill. In this case. they cannot be shown
becau.\C they are not proposed.
Similarly, the driveway on the proposed plan is not in violation of Secttoo 602 of the
II
96-5684 CIVIL TERM
ordinance dealing with the specification for streets. As early as July of 1996. the township staff
recognized that the roadway on the plan was not a street but rather a private driveway.
In a related vein, the township expressed a concern with inadequate access for emergency
vehicles. In its brief, the municipality notes that the access of emergency vehicles requires a
minimum width and, in this case, "appellant fails to meet that standard," Nowhere, however, are
we directed to any provision in the ordinance which suggests that a cartway width of twenty-eight
feet is too narrow. The township goes on to argue that it is the nature of the off-street parking
"counled with" the narrow ingress and egress which trigger nonconformity with the township
ordinance, Again, we are at a loss to find any prm'ision in the ordinance which bears out this
assertion.
Based on the foregoing. we will remand this mailer to the Board of Commissioners of
East Pennsboro Township. The purpose of the remand is to give the appellant a reasonable
opportunity to amend his plan in accordance with the technical requirements which we have
discussed above,
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11. day of June. 1997. the decision of the Board of
CommilSioners of East Pennsboro Township is reversed and this mailer remanded to the Board
of Commissioners for proceedings consistent with the opinion filed of even date herewith.
BY TIlE COURT.
/It/.-
9
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(musl be /;,pewTJllen Bnd submJlIed in dup/icBlij
TO THE PROTHONOTARY/OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the within matter for the next:
o Pre-Trial Argument Court
________________~__Ar~m~~ourt.__________
CAe.TION OF CASE;
(ENTIRE CAPTION MUST BE STATED IN FUll)
UMAKANT DASH,
(Plaintiff)
e \0 ~
...
Ii; .." ",
,..,
c:~ ~ .-n
I" .u
;.; N ~~J
_.J
~l.' ~ ~
~ :J: (j
~t, :;~ ;5
~. . -'4
Civil 19 ..i!i..- . ~ ~
-l
-<: c""
v.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
(Defendant)
No. 05684
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., p1aintifl's motion for new trial, defendant's
demurrer to complaint, etc.):
Plaintiffs Land Use Appeal
2. Identify counsel who will argue the case:
(a) for Plaintiff(s):
Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire
Reager & Adler, PC
2331 Market Street
Camp HiU, PA 17011--1642
(717) 763-1383
(b) for Detendant(I):
Henry F. Coyne, Esquire
3901 Marttet Street
Camp HiU, PA 17011
(717) 737~
3.
I will notifV III pw1IeI in '" itiIlQ within two
8fVIM'*Il
that this ~I been listed for
~~
E FenicIe, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated Fetlr\My 12, 1997
HENRY F. COYNE
AnORNEY AT LAw
3lKlI MARKET STREET
CAN" HILL PO" . 701 ,
1717.737..0.&..
UMAKANT DASH,
Appellant,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 96-5684 Civil Term
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP,
Appellee.
: LAND USE APPEAL
ANSWER TO LAND USE APPEAL
AND NOW COMES. Appellee. the Board of Commissioners of East Pennsboro Township, by
and through their attorney, Henry F. Coyne. EsqU". and files this Answer to the Land Use Appeal and
in support thereof aVCl" the following:
I. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
S. a.g, Denied. The majority of the allegations of these sub-paragraphs constitute conclusions of
law and pure argument 10 whi<:h 110 rapoDsive pleading is rcquiml and. accordingly, the same are dmicd
and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. if relevant. By way of further answer. the Township's
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance as Wfll as Exhibit A speak for themselves to the exlent
lhey ha\~ bml paraphrased or edrtoriahzcd by the Appellant. It is specifICally denied that Appellant's
land development PreliminuyiFlI1al Plan IS in confomllty .nth the Township' s Subdiv1sion and Land
I~-dopment 0l'duIana
6. Admilled in Dart: Denied in Dart. It is admilled the Township's staffs review process
and comments were communicated to Appellant. It is denied that staff comments as stated are complete
and are the only source of review required under the Ordinance. Rather. the Planning Commission, the
Environmental Advisory Commission each make independent reviews and evaluations of the Plan which
were communicated to the Appellant. It is denied that Appellant's PreliminarylFinal Plan is in
compliance with the Township' s Ordinance and it is denied that the Appellee failed to act in good faith
in the public review, evaluation. comment. and official action concerning the said Plan
7. Admilled. By way of further answer, the President of the Board took a short break in the
meeting which occurred approximately one hour after the start of the official meeting of the Board
Furthermore:, the Township Solicitor was not present during the period immediately prior to President
calling the brief executive session.
8. Admitted in oart: denied in oart, It is admilled tliat the executive session lasted
approximately tc:n minutes. It is denied that the Board deliberated. reviewed and/or prc:parc:d a motion to
deny the Plan. It is denied the Solicitor admined that the purpose of the executive session was the
deliberation on the Plan and the preparation of the motion to deny. Rather, the purpose of the brief
Cllecutive session as stated in the Minutes of the meetin& was to discuss the motion to approve or
disapprove Appellant's PreliminarylFinal Plan in light of the situation that Appellee reasonably foresaw
litigation in that the Planning Commission had n:commcnded disapproval of the Plan.
9. Denied. It is denied that counsel for Appellant indicated his opinion concemina the
alleged violation of the Sunshine Act upon the n:openina of the publ~ 1IlCCtlng. Rather, Appellant's
Counsel made that alleption only afta- approdmatdy a half hour of pubbc discussion 0( the Plan and
after the Appellee voted to properly deny the Plan as It was dtflClall and not in compt__ W\tlI the
T 0\l0-nslUp Ordinanct.
2
10. Admitted in Dart: denied in Dart. It is admitted that the President of the Board called the
brief executive session in order to confer with its Solicitor who was not present at the time that
Appellant's Plan was scheduled to be: reviewed by the Board. The balance of the Appellant's allegation
constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and, accordingly. the same is
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
II. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded
at trial.
12. Denied. It is denied that Appellant's PreliminarylFinal Plan meets the requirements of
the Township's Ordinam:e. By way of further answer. the deficiencies of the: said Plan wen: properly
enumerated in Appellee's official notice to Appellant. (See: Appellant's Exhibit "A")
13. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no
responsive: pleading is required and, accordingly, the: same: is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded
at trial.
14. Admitted in DlrI: denied in oart. It is admitted that Appellant submitted his
PreliminarylFinal Plan to the: Cumberland County Conservation District. It is denied that the Plan should
have none the: less been approved by the: Appellant despite: the: lack of n:vic:w by the: County. By "'lIY of
further answer, the: Plan wu disapproved by the Cumberland County Consen-ation District and if
Appellant wanted to have: the Plan tabled. then Appellant should have requested that the Plan be tabled
sInce absent action by Appellee: on Scptc:mber 17. 1996, the: said Plan would have: been deemed appro\-ed
punuant to tI-.e Township's SubdlviSlOll and Land Development 0Ntnancc.
3
IS. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute mere argument and conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same an: denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer. it is specifically denied that the Appellee abused
their disaetion, that they failed to act in good faith. that they failed to rely on substantial evidence, or
that they committed an error oflaw in properly denying Appellant's Plan.
WHEREFORE, Appellees, the Board of Commissioners of East Pennsboro Township,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court find in favor of Appellee and dismiss Appellant's Land
Use: Appeal with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted:
Date: February 28, 1997
y . COYNE,
90 1 Market Street
CIDlp HUI, PA 17011....117
(717) 737-0464
PL SapreDle Curt No, 06150
..fntmlq for Appdln
..
... (". ,.+
(<.~ <;..;
. ,
..C1 "
~: ~ ,
<.'
i'
,
'- ,
)
, , OJ>
.:
, "\J.
,. . )...:,..,
- .t
" r- '.,
,-' t:i"~ fJ
J
:i
a g ~ '- \11 "~
"\
. ..; '.i <': ,--
~ "
l- .. >~
,"ue, r'"
-' ';)
- ~~;
rr.' .' . . ~~1
"...~.
c..;' \,"""\
~ c; ;
L;.
c" " a
.. ,-'-
i '-'
'" .. . . ,
1- c' ~. '"
':) ,.-"",
('. v.
~ ..,
VI ~
~ ~
~
),..
)
~
i!~5i'
Itc!sl
.Ii~~
!Bif:
~
.
..
UMAKANT DASH,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
NO. (It. . .:;" i' 'I Cu"tJ -r;-<~......
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
AND NOW COMES, Appellant. Umakant Dash, through his attorneys, Reager &: Adler, PC, Linus
E. Fenic1e, Esquire, and files this Land Use Appeal pursuant to Section IOO2-A of the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code, Act of 1968, P.L. 80S, No. 247, as reenacted and amended, and states
as follows:
I. Appellant is Umakant Dash ("Dash" herein). an adult individual residing at 2890 Sunset
Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. Appellee is the Board of Commissioners of East Pennsboro Township ("Board" herein)
with offices located at 98 South EnoIa Drive, Eno1a, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025-2796,
], On or about July I, 1996, Dash submitted I prdiminary/linalland development plan
(hereinafter "Plan") to East Pennsboro Township for the development of certain property owned by
Dash located off of Erford Road.
4, By letter dated September 20, 1996 &om Ridwd Ernest, Code Entoc<<nle.\t Officer of
East Penollboro Townslip. the Board let forth the basis for its dcniaI orthe said Plan, which was denied
at the Board orcommissioners' meetina on September 17, 1996 (heseinafter "Decision"). A copy of
the letter of September 20, 1996 ofEut Pcnnsboto Township is attached hemo and muted "EIlllbit
A,"
.
S. The denial of the said Plan was an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial
evidence and constituted an error of law for the following reasons:
-
a. The Decision indicates that the Plan does not comply with Article III, Section
302(IXeX2) of the East Pennsboro Township Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance. That Section is entitled "Land Subject to Flooding." The Section is not
applicable to the Plan submitted by Dash. The Section does not contain specific
standards and, therefore, rejection based on said Section is improper. Furthermore, Dash
submitted a detailed flood study, and flood plain delineation was shown on the Plan,
The Plan included seed incorporated blankets designed for erosion control since there
were steep slope areas behind the one four (4) unit structure. A stabilized rock
embankment was provided on the Plan. furthermore, head wall. wingwalls and rip-rap
was to be installed for bridges and culverts as required to pass flood flows without loss
of stability. The remainder of the items provided in paragraph one of the Decision. as
to width of private street, is not IllC/lbolled in Section 302(IXeX2) of the East Pennsboro
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance,
b,
The Board alleges thaI the Plan does not state the vertical datum 10 which elevation are
referenced as required by chapler 22, Part I, Section 302,Ig of the Ordinance This
tedmical requirement and inadequacy in the Plan had never been mentioned in the
previous reviews by the Township Ensineer and the Township staff The first time that
Dash ever heard of this problem with the Plan was in the letter ofScplember 20. 1996
A municipality has I legal obIiprion to proceed in sood faith in reviewing and
proctssina dcveIopmatt plans. which obIiption includes a duty to discuss IKhnical
requ;.__lb an4 provide an applicant . reuonabIe opportunity to respond to objections
or to modifY the plans Dash was never made aware of this problem in the prt\ious
reviews In addition the Plan is Rft'lctl(;ed to the Township RWCl' system as pemvtlal
2
.
in other similar developments and meets the requirements of the Section. If the
Township had asked the datum be changed, it could have been easily changed to the
satisfaction of the Township,
c. Paragraph 3 of the Decision states that the street is not shown to be constructed
according to Township standards and specifications which is in violation of Section 602,
of the said Ordinance. There is no street shown on the Plan. There is a private driveway
shown which is not required under the Township ordinance to meet public street
requirements, In the previous reviews by the Township stafT. it was acknowledged that
this was a private driveway, and it was never indicated to Dash in any prior review by
the Township that this private driveway had to meet the street standards of Section 602
or was in any way inadequate.
d. The Decision provides in paragraph 4 that the Plan does not show the location of a water
line and fire hydrant proximately located to the site to provide fire protection which is
in violation of Chapter 22, Part I, Section JOJ.2.c. Section J03,2.c. reads as foUows
Plans and Jlfofiles ofpro~sed sanitary and/or storm water sewers, with
grades and pipe sizes mdicated, and . plan of any froposed water
distribution system showing pipe sizes arid location 0 valves and fire
hydrants.
No water distribution system is proposed for this development, The development is
sen.iced by the pubtic water company, The location of the public water line WIS shown
on the Plan as provided by the public utility company,
e In paraaraph S of the Decision, it is SIlted that the Plan is in vioIIrion of Article V.
Section SOl, because "the site contains an open ravine in wbich you proposed to
construct . bo~ culvert wbid\ constrUCtion is 'huar1:kM to lift Of ploperly , and the
)
-
- .'
hazards have not been eliminated by the provisions reflected in the Plan'." The Plan
shows a large box culvert to control surface water from outside of the Dash property
limits to meet the Department of Environmental Protection guidelines. A detailed flood
study was prepared and submitted to the Township and Department ofEnvironmenlal
Protection analyzing the flood elevations for the project and showing the proposed box
culvert. There is no hazard to life or property. Section SO I of the Ordinance contains
only general standards and not specific standards and as such does not constitute a basis
for denial of a Plan. Furthermore, this matter had never been brought up in any prior
Township review of the Plan and, in addition. the Plan does not violate such section.
f
In paragraph 6 of the Decision. it is Slated that review comments from the Cumberland
County Conservation District regarding an Erosion and Sedimentation Plan had not been
submitted, The Plan was submitted to the Cumberland County Conservation District on
September 16, 1996, prior to the consideration of the Plan by the Board. The comments
from the Cumberland County Conservation District were not received by Dash until
October 4, 1996, This Plan should have been approved, conditioned upon receiving
approval for the Erosion and Sedimentation Plan and/or tabled to give Dash an
opportunity to provide the comments to the Board, The denial of the Plan on this basis
was not in good faith by the Board and is contrary to the statutory and common law of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, When an outside permit is required it is proper to
condition the Plan on the permit beina issued,
PIrqrIpb 7 oI'the Decision indicates that the Plan does not show the mstirla asement
fOr the nistm, sanitary sewer line shown on the P\an Dull was never aware of any
intormation which indi<<ted that a previous land owner had ever panted a sewer
easement An exist1ll1 utai)' _line is shown on the plan T1is aIIqed technical
violation of the Land Devdopment and Subdi\;sion 0nSinanee had nevet been brought
4
to the attention of Dash, If there was an existing easement and the Township wanted this
placed on the Plan, it should have indicated to Dash that there was such an easement and
give Dash an opportunity to correct this technical violation.
6. In the previous reviews by the Township officials and Township staff there was no
mention ofltems I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 which are listed in the Decision of September 20, 1996. A copy of
the staff'review ofIuIy 10, 1996, by the Township is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit B," A copy
of the response by Dash's engineer to this review is dated July 25, 19%, and attached hereto and marked
"Exbibit Co" A copy of the faxed Township stalfreview dated July 31, 1996, is attached hereto and
mariced "Exhibit Do" A copy of the letter from the Township Engineer to the East Pennsboro Planning
Commission dated August I, 1996, is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit E," A copy of Dash's
engineer's response to the letter of the Township Engineer dated August I, 1996 and the review of July
31, 1996, is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit Fo" All prior comments and requirements of the
Township's staffrrview have been met by Dash, The denial of the Plan by the Board was not in good
faith. The Board raised technical matters that were alleged to be in violation of the Land Development
Ordnance and never gave Dash an opportunity to respond to these alleged deficiencieso FUJ1hermore,
the Plan is in compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance,
7, During the Board meeting on September 17, 1996, when the Plan was on the agenda
before the Board. the President of the Board called an executive session without indicating the purpose
of the executive session
I In that el\tIO~ session, whicb lasted approximately 10 mino~, the Board delibented,
rMewed and/or prepared I motion to deny the Plan The Solicitor admitted, when the public meetina
reconvened. that the purpose of the executive session was the dtIiberation 011 the Plan and the
preparation of the motion to deny
s
1M _IT A
September 20, 1996
JOSEPH H, BONARRlGO
Twp, EngJPW, Or.
RICHARD L ERNEST
1~~t~OIficel'. .~-.
. " I, I' .;1"" ii' :. ,II ", .
.. ..." ,.,: l,-:t ~l w1,'1
..r.~ ';,~ l~Jh i~ i
j, . '_'J0!J
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
--~...-...~
Mr. Umakant Dash
2890 Sunset Drive
Camp Hill PA 17011
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z 3S7 71S 822
RE:
Prelimill8l)'lFinal Land Development Plan for
Umakant Dash Property - East PeMsboro Township
cumberlarn! County, Pennsylvania
Dear Mr. Dash:
The Board of Commissioners of East Pennsboro Township ("BOC") at its September 17,
1996 meeting considered the above reference PreliminarylFinal Land Development PIIn which
was prepared by Dawood Engineering, Inc., of)907 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 700, Camp Hill, PA.
The said Plan bears the most recent revision date of July 25, 1996 and East Pennsboro Township
received the said Plan on July I, 1996,
The DOC, after receiving public comment concerning the Plan and considering comments
from the Township Planning Commission and Township staff concerning the PIIn voted
unanimously \0 disapprove the Plan. The Planning Commission previously considered the Plan
at its meeting on September 5, 1996 and recommended denial of the PIIn. The BOC, in its
motion denying approval of the plan, submilted the following reasons for its action:
I. Plan does not comply with Article Ill, Section J02(I)(e)(2) of the East Pcnnsboro
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Specifically, the DOC deems the PIIn
"to be topographically W\SIlitablc for residential occupancy... IS (it) may increase danaa of
health. life, or property..." Specirlcally the proposed four (4) unit strutt\U'C has I slope to its~..,
which has alrade of 1.5 foot to 1.0 foot which is 134 degrees from horizontal and the DOC has
grave concern for the stability ofthe slope. Fwthcr the proposed width of the "private Slmt"
does not provide adequatc ICtCSS for enoCjccncy vehicles especially when perki"l ofpriva\e
vehicles is allowed on both sides of the privatc street.. Additionally, the stabilized rock
embllnkmmt shown in the flood boundary and flood casemcnt arns aJona the southmI ~ of
tt-.e tributary cat of the proposed box culvert will ~uire a permit from DEP \0 allow
constNCtion in the flood arras,
98 5<Uh EnoIa ().w . Erdit, PA 17025 2700 . (7171 73207"
Letter - Dash
September 20, 1996
Paae 2
2, The Plan does not state the vertical datum to which elevations are referenced
which is violation of Chapter 22, Part I, Section 302.1 g.
3. The street is not shown to be constructed according to Township Standards and
Specilication which is in violation of Section 602 of the said Ordinance.
4. The Plan does not show the location or a water line and lire hydrant proximately
located to the site to provide lire protection which is in violation of Chapter 22, Part I, Section
303.2.c.
S. The Plan is in violation of Article V, Section SOl because the site contains an
open ravine in which you propose to construct a box culvert which construction is "hazardous to
life or property... and the hazards have not been eliminated by the provision reflected in the Plan.
The specifIC hazards are that the construction of the proposed box culvert will increase the flood
elevation on the live (S) neighboring properties at 848 - 8S6 Erford Road by approximately two
(2) feet.
6. further, you have not provided review comments from the cwnberland cOlUlty
Conversation District regarding an Erosion and Sedimentation Plan as required by Chapter 22,
Part 3, Section 2S01.c (Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance)
7. The Plan does not show the existing easement for the existing sanitary sewer line
shown on the Plan (Chapter 22, Part I, Article III, Section 302.I.b)
This written notice of the decision of the BOC is given to you in accordance with Section
J04(4XI) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Further this notice is forwarded
to you and to your lcpI counsel, Unus E. Fenide, Esquire, via f1l'St class mail, postage prepaid
and by Certified Mail, return receipt requested.
Sincerely.
t}4tR~~~
Richard Ernest
Code Enforcement Officer
East Pcnnsboro Township
Welt
ce: AU commiuionm
Robcn L Gill, Township MaNau
HaIry F. Coyne, Uql&in:, Solicitor
Unus E. Fcfticlc, Equi~. Certilied Mail No. P 278 213 319
..11111 Jf .
"ftDoU ~HCIHEERIHC INC,
1'1179758873
. . . .
...... ..
.........--.............
1l7/11l/1996 11l:37 .............
7177321811l
.............
.......~........-....
"'.ASr~rloP ...
-..-. -.. ...
-........_-
Pllr-F 8]
SrAFF Il5VrEW
--..---_40___
PrIOr ialnary/FtlWll Land llev.loJlll8nt Plan fo,.
u-.t.nt Oath Prop.rty
'lln Rft.IV8d1 711196
Plan RltvIIlMfdI 7110196
Enotneer/.rqyorl D_od E"i'IIUrl", Inc:.
Co_nh 1
1, lbl. plan ..... 1I,....I....lv 11...1.., Ill' the h.,.d of CO..I.'I.n.... .t
th.~,. "'U"'iI on ,Jllly 6. 1993 due to nonpaY'Wnt of th, rlClUlr~
f1hlllJ fft.
2.
leltntlfy prl..,.y ~.ntrol pe'nt on olan 1103.1.01.
C..-UficaUon of Al:cuuc;y oust 11. '_11.... lhe T_n.lllp of EaU
"-boto I. not r~t"I' for tM aecurae-y of IIOr' c/o_ by
p,.of....lnal. 1103.1._"
'Ian lCal,I" shall II' u- traphlulll' .nd I11181f'tcally.
Sa'. ~,., ('art II. TIDI. 1100-11 ZOning
a. "In. &.v' Ar.. · 3.100 sq. n./d..ili.. IInil with """Ue _r
and...t".
II. "In. L.t Wtdth . 100 ft. . ..tb~. lint
c. Vard ""'''_h tIIlall H as ..t forth In lonl"9 OrdlNI1l:.
en,ptar 17. ...,.t II. tertlon 21..
II. Ir.-n SPIC. ,...Ir., . /lOll ,f l.t .r'!a Io..,-t<< an, ".r' 11,
"t. 1161
3.
It.
:s.
6.
,.,....v..1I _. Plan shotte a - e IItlU ajlart..nt DllJQ', ind I - 4
1M" IIldt. I". d..a Ihott :I - . unit ~I'", \AlICh 10 corrlPCU
"''''w. III... IMuld ... ""M Ift6.
Apprnal .1...''''. IIIRk .....Id ,... .....d of c..laol.,.,."- .NI
I. .1..... .y \hot ."'..1....'. aNI ....u.t.,.,..
_"" .ft ,1.n ...., tile ,..IY," cI,lve-.l' 'I ...t f.,. ,-'c'".'''
.... .ft ,1'n .. _Ill .. '_41NI.I. f.r _&nt.lnl... 'hO ".....1.
*'~.
"P.
..
..
10.
,
II, ......aU _ aNI ..In,.I,, tile UIlII.,y ,_ .,''''1.'' aN ..",te.
I""".' ..... ..t. .., ,1_,
P.92
I)Q nlff C
j[/llWOO.b
Enginl'l'ring
.111I""
3907 Hartzdale Drive. Suite 700. Camp Hill. PA 17011
(717) 975-8872 Fax (717) 975-8873
July 25, 1996
Mr. Richard Ernst
Code & Zoning Officer
BAST PBNNSBORO TOWNSHIP
98 S. Enola Dr.
Enola, PA 17025
RE: Dr. Umakant Dash's Propeny
East Pennsboro Township
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Ernst,
We have addressed your review comments from a fax dated July la, 1996. The following
revisions have been made:
I. A plan submission fee and engineering escrow fee has been paid prior to the plan
review.
2. The primary control point has been shown on the plans at a drill hole at the edge of
the existing sidewalk on the southern side of the cul-de-sac.
3. The cenification of Accuracy has been changed to remove any reference to the East
Pennsboro Township.
4. Plan scales are noted on sheets I, 2 and 3 of 3 and graphic scales are shown on sheets
I and 2 of 3.
5. The site data on sheet 1 of 3 has been changed to correspond to the correct zonina
data.
6. The plans and site data have been COfm:ted to show twO - 2 unit and 0Cle . .. unit
townhouse structUres.
7. Silnature blocks have been dated 1996.
a. The approval silnatul'C block has been chan&ed from Plannina Commissioft to "Board
of Commissiontn" and C1Iairman to "President".
\lInlI OlIIee 11S LoucbtI $llftt SE. Leestu&. VA 1207'i
(70)144)-0370 Fa.I701\441-om
Mr. Richard Ernst
July 25, 1996
Page 2
9,10,
II. Notes 7" S on sheet I of 3 designate ownenhip and maintenance of the driveway,
sewer extension and service laterals by the owner.
12. The plans have been revised to show an existing S" waterline at the end of Erford
Road.
13. The curve data table on sheet 1 of 3 has been revised so that Curve C1 shows a length
equal to 90.44'.
14. Appropriate building setbacks have been added to the plans.
IS. The labels for the flood plain easement and flood plain boundary have been corncted
on the plans.
16. A permanent trash dumpster has been shown at the end of the privare driveway on the
plans.
17. The driveway profile on sheet 3 of 3 has been extended to show the entire length to
station 2 + 30.
18. Two c1eanouts have been added to the ICwer laterals. The c1eanouu have been located
not to allow for more than SO feet between cleanouts.
19. The plans have been submitted to the Borouah of WonnleysbufJ 00 July 12, 1996 and
are expected to be reviewed on July 23, 1996.
20. An application requestinl plannilll exemption from DEP has been made pmiously
submitted to East Pennsboro Township.
21. The erosion and mmrnwion contrOl plan has been submitted to the Cumberland
County COMCrvalion DiSlric:t for their review.
AttaChed, pIcuc find) :lets of the revised Ptcliminary/Final Land Develcpmetll Ptus for
consideration by the lIW'nship. If there are any other conams or quetliolls tbal you may have
rqardtlll this projrc1, pleue feci ftft to CORUltt us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Me. Richard Ernst
July 25, 1996
Page 3
kf~
Lee E. Engel
DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC,
-..
HlSTacounT
e.tIibit 0
No. 6303
".cUII.d: "l/WU; II: I DAM;
", ............. ... ...'w..w..
P.02
DnW00D EtlGltlEERltlG It'C. 17179758973
~/.~v ~ 12"IE"W
?r2~LI""" ~4.12',. /,::....1.<- l..4.lJ? "'-e~c...~",^1l;.-n- P~4..:l ~ u..M"'\~ 't:AS,i
J ~ r.....;J.: ., l">'t. ("1(..
',r:> I I'
..c..~ "-.-c.JI"'~', .,.~\ ,ll'"
;...~.....u.J:.!J-.t,..~...Ot'; ~,,"~...::>J. .E....'i.~...."''t. '~.
c:::::::::,:"."",,'''.'C!.'~~ ,.
.
.
.,....-.., r .. .
'''l'c.-v~ Pl_..;.....' ,-"",,.,,,,11_ .(~:..::;"" SZ.'1""'~~1 c..-nJ....J....
~ ",(t,c..t... :1"'~ '"I.~, Iq"" ~ !"lp.Of't>1,J 0(:' ,;,w h>~~"""
t:.,l'k ~ (.UJ'",,',~ ,,, ~ ~b"""'"1 d;~~"'" ..."",I.\rJ., ~\"Jo PnJf~
h..c.~ ~l.,) l.IJ"rr~4,,~~.. fIS'!,!'}-d.......p,,_ ,('oLe ~\4"~.U)~..,.-....*.:*' s';
? A~~_ ~_4-w.-..k c.~ -4~"-...4........ (II~",J 41"~
~..:..:~.\.~~: .
.4 p......, Me.,,-. -
~ ~ IJ,,,,, u.~ ~ ~ "'-I\; -J) k(W'l1f
2. S>C4-t J., '"Uc&..1I, .'" C-Q.....~.., .c,..(,.J..~4 "It....--
~".L,...,~.
4. J..w'u/'''f !P1I f. wi ~ ~ ~t"l..e. .
dtV-UII'!f W- ~r.I'1c/~'" 4. ~~/h1
at'tH" /,' c.1.: vi' _'
r
I 0 u...o,. \" .LY 'lYL -
/JI,QI'T 11;~r""" .
~l~
Cl ~~ thf~::J ,wru ~ 3
rJ~/"l.f tA.1,4, A..ew,,'''f ~ ~IH-til?
....t.t.(.#-~c:..t. ..... .1 J,d
~0 ~:"oA- ~r~:w~4.
~ ~kll<'l.......
c... ~~. ~ e:.t;,.~L~ '?L.........'... ~<t"
c.A"O "::>~ ." '-t.
f)
w~ Iao.c.."-"O"t\ ~..,,> ~___ '~ ..\...L. ~.....,t.. · t
'v,). l"""'~"'~ 0-..:..J...iA (.:Jr.o..... 0
~)
~f 4 .W^\~ 'o~' I~",,\ I~ ~"l~..&..J .l...o~l......t>v..~~ ~<V.
'." P-. ~~r...'" u.~ p..Lo('''''\\1. ~L ~ A-fPl~ ·
~ 0 ~\M.w\a.....J. ~ l,M,\.~ r..AJJ ,.AM,) ~'" /K.A.' ~,
w...u.. \" 'u. ... 'Ii,.l "...... ~ "-t.. cL
SI<\-.-J1/
&)
'7')
, c&~~~ c,......J), c-~4-" ~""~ ..~ ~ -,..v.. .g .~.c:.. 0
.j~J) 1:>Ci:? I.U,....~ j".......A- ,. P c.C:C.'b A.Ppro~.t
.~ '= 4- ~.<. "t""",,o
HlSTacounr
ExI'lIbII E
No. 6303
)
WILLIAM T. SPRAGUE II. P.E., P.L.S.
CGnouIIng EngIrw<<
243 Heather DrIve
Harrisburg. PeMsylvania 17112
0flIce Telephone
(717) 657-1756
01-AUG-96
Planning and Zoning commission
East Pennsboro Township
98 South Enola Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania
Subject: Umakant Dash Preliminary/Final
Land Development Plan
Dear sirs:
I have reviewed the computations presented for the above
captioned project and offer the following comments for your
consideration:
DRAFT COMMENTS - STORM WATER
1. The configuration of the proposed downstream channel should
be shown in the computations.
2. The limited increase in flow should be demonstrated using
the same model as that used to compute the culvert flows.
While we agree that the increase will be limited, it could
be demonstrated that there is no increase in the peak flow
due to this site development.
3. The waiver request relative to the requirements for pre and
post development runoff is recommended for approval subject
to the requirements of 12 above.
4. Slope stabilization may be a problem in the vicinity of the
four apartment/townhouse unit. The designer should provide
details of just how the slope will be stabilized.
The design of the plan has been changed sufficiently to
demonstrate that it is now essentially in accordance with the
require.ents of the East Pennsboro Storm Water Ordinance.
Will
subaitted,
IV~~'
'Sprag~I, PE, PLS
Hl5Tacoum
.No.8303
EaNIIII F
ilInwo.o.b
Engin"ring
'.IIV.
3907 Hartzdale Drive. Suite 700, Camp Hill. PA 17011
(717) 975-8872 Fax (717) 975-8873
August 28, 1996
Mr, william T, Sprague II,
EAST PEHRSBORO TONJlSHIP
98 S, Enola Dr.
Enola, PA 17025
RE:
PE, PLS
Mr, Umakant Dash's Property
East Pennsboro Township
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Sprague,
In behalf of Mr. Umakant Dash, we have addressed your review
comments from a letter dated August 1, 1996. The following
revisions have been made:
1, Cross-sections 2 and 3, located in the Flood Study section
of the Hydrologicl Hydraulics Report For Land Development,
show the downstream channel configuration at points 25 feet
and 85 feet downstream of the proposed structure,
2, The flow from the entire pre-development watershed was
calculated at 480,2 c,f.s, using the SCS Technical Release
55 Methodology, The peak discharge hydrograph was developed
using Storm Water Hanager software by Hydrosoft, The post-
development weighted CN value and Time of Travel were
calculated to be the same as the pre-development values;
therefore, there was no change to the peak discharge. The
project site's peak pre-development discharge rate was also
compared to the peak post-development discharge rate. This
comparison was done using SCS Technical Release 55
Methodology and the Penn State Urban Hydrology Model (PSUKK)
computer program, The results of this comparison are
summarized below:
PRE- FLOW RATE (0) POST- FLOW RATE (0)
DEVELOPMENT c,f,s, DEVELOPMENT C.f.8a
2 YEAR 2,90 2 YEAR 3,50
5 YEAR 4,50 5 YEAR 5,20
10 YEAR 6.20 10 YEAR 7,00
25 YEAR 6,90 25 YEAR 7,80
100 YEAR 9.70 100 YEAR 10,60
8r.rch Olk, .11~ lClUlbll SImI. Sl.lft\CU1. VA .1 207~
17011441.0110 rat 1701) 44Hl)7t
Hr, William T. Sprague II
August 28, 1996
Page 2
3. The above information should allow for an approval to be
made for the waiver request for pre and post-development
runoff.
4. The plans have been revised to show seed-incorporated
blankets to be used to stabilize the slope in the vicinity
of the four apartments. Refer to the enclosed copies for
additional information.
We have also addressed the staff
1996 in regard to this project.
follows:
review comments dated July 31,
The following responses are as
1, The 4-unit building that lies partially in Wormleysburg
Borough has been changed to be apartment units and not
townhouses. Architectural plans have been submitted for
review to Wormleysburg Borough and East pennsboro Township.
2. A waiver for a general permit for stream crossing has been
approved and a copy is enclosed in the
Hydrologic/Hydraulics Report for Land Development.
3.
The Borough of Wormleysburg has tabled the plan until
verification of the type of unit is made for the 4 unit
building. They also determined that they would approve the
plan when East Pennsboro Township approved it,
4, See response to number one above.
5, Our professional land surveyor's seal and certification has
been added to the drawings; and the floodplain inforaation
is provided in the Hydrologic/ Hydraulics Report. Thi.
addresses Cuaberland County's review comments as requested.
6. The Invironaental Advisory Council's eo.aents have been
covered by these response. and in the revisions ..de to the
Hydrologic/Hydraulic. Report,
7, The D.I.P, waiver grant ha. been approved and ve vill
acquire I , S approval froa the Cuaberland County
Con.ervation District pending acceptance of the.e
revisions.
-...
/",<,
STAFF REVIEW
Preliminary/Final land Development Plan for Umakant Dash Property
Plan Received: August 28. 199b
Plan Reviewedl September 3. 199b
Engineer/Surveyor: Dawood Engineering. Inc,
Couentsl
1, Township has not received notification that application was .ade
for GP-7,
2, Ero.ion and Sedimentation Control plan approval not yet approved,
r'\
A
1.
c
,,-"
""-,
-
1"'""\
EAST PENNS80RO TOWNSHIP
PLANNI~llj AND 7.0NINlj COMMISSION
Re;ular Meetln;-------------------------------------September 5. 1996
!
i
j
i
"'
J
I
j
I
I
i
!
The re;ular monthly meet In; of the East Pennsboro Township
Plannln; and Zonln; Commission was held on ThurSday, September 5, 1996
in the Township Community and Municipal Center, 98 S. Enola Drive,
Enola, Pennsylvania.
Those present were: Joseph Stine, Chairman; Brian BuChholz; Mar;e
Beaner; Meade Aunqst; Steve McBride; and Jim RiChardson. members of the
Commission; Richard Ernest, Code & Zonln; Officer; John Pi.tropaoli,
Ass't, Code & Zoning Officer; Henry F, Coyne, Esq" TownShip
Solicitor; Charles Yohe, Commissioner; and a list of others lattached).
The meet In; was called to order at 7:30 p,m. by Mr. Stine,
MINUTES: Mrs, Beaner made the motion to approve the minutes of
the Auqust t, 1996, with the followin; correction: p;,2 _ the
second sentence In Karen Vecolitis' comments, the word
'therefore' should be 'thorofare', Mr. Buchholz seconded the
eotior, and it carried with a majority aye vote, with Mr, Stine
abstainin; because he was absent from the meet in;,
IMr. RiChardson joined the meetin; at this time.)
The first order of business was the Final Subdivision Plan of
laurel Hills North, Lots 3 and 4,
Mr. Ernest explained that the plan was submitted for name changes
of certain streets; no lot confi;uratlons or ri;hts-of-way .ere being
changed. The Recorder of Deeds had advised him that recordln; a new
plan with the new street names was the proper procedure.
MOT tON; Mr. Buchholz ..de the eotion that the Final Subdivision
Plan for laurel Hills North, lots 3 and 4, received in the
Township office Au;ust 20, t996, be for..rded to the Board of
CO--Issioners with a recommendation Of apprcval. Mr. McBride
.econced the met ian, and it carried unanimously.
The seco~ order of business .as the Prellmina'y/Final Subdivision
Plan far David T. Witlara,
M" Wllt.,o e'otal~~ his twe-lot Sued:v:Slon plan to ,e,efine lot
lines for t-o ..istlnQ 10ls. C~~nts from Cumberland Countl PlannIng
Co~i"ion had rot yet been reCWlvea.
~T:CN: ~. ~9rl~e ~a~e t~. mo~:on t~al t~e P'eli~lna'Y!~lnal
Subdi'ISion ~lan for DaVid T, Willard, received ~ust et, I...,
-
be forwarded to the Board of CommiSSioners with a recommendation
of approval, pending Cumberland County Planning Commission
comments, Mrs. Beaner seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
The third order of business was the Preliminary/Flna! Land
Development Plan for Umakant Dash Property.
Mr, Dash, Attf' Linus Fenicle, and Lee Engle of Oa~ood Engineering
were present, The plan had been resubmitted to the Township and all
comments were addressed, including staff review comments, according to
Mr, Engle, Cross sections were added, pre and post development
stormwater discharge rate comparison was added, and a plan showing
slope stabilization was provided,
Mr. Ernest confirmed that Mr. Sprague had reviewed the stormwater
report and tha~ his comments, dated 8/1/9b, had been addressed on the
revision.
A petition was submitted, signed by 48 residents of Erford and
Glenn Roads, and was read by Mr. Stine (copy attached to minutes), The
residents were concerned with traffic on the narrow street, emergency
vehicle access, snow removal and erosion, and the residents asked that
the devetoper be reQuired to hire an independent contractor far any
sail tests, Neighbors cited the neglected care of the property,
including lack of grass ~wing and snow removal in the past lb fears,
and e.pressed concern that a housing comple. would be similarly
neglec ted.
The following residents were present and commented on the plan:
Terry Case, 85b Erford Road, asked if there were any ordinances
governing the location and width of the private two-lane access road to
the co-ole., He was concerned that the road could be constructed with
no setback from his property line. Mr, E~nest said there wa~ no
setback reauire.ent f~r . road or driveway In the ordlna~ce. but that
r"'C :uttl"'Q 0" f~~1 :~IJ:C: ..4tpnd t..,C"d t"'. procp..tv Ii"'.,
~r. t....~~l.t:~, CH.l"!t"l FO.d, .>>..d 11 ~""e Q\.l..~';l~'" .::ut tn.
gr;c:s.a t~:. cf dwelling ha~ e..~ .n._e'~c si~c. last ~ont~'s
mee~lrQ. Mr. E'~s~ said he hac recel/ec cooles of t~e :ulldlnQ5 from
Mr. Da'h, I~dl:atlng t~a~ .c.rtme~ts with a centrat ertr{ ard o~e
~o~~ ~.ll..~. ~ct t~.~~c~~.~, .-. ~r~~cs.d. T~. l.~e e.#.l~o..~t
~ll~ ~~c..c Q.-.;.' .l~~ t~~ --~~1~ t~llel~. .~~ At~~. ~.~l:l. ,.iC
t-e', .eul~ ~. ~:.c~~ ...~l.t:. ,~- :".~~Q .~c t~. ;.-.;.~ *O~l~ b.
::-l~.~ ~~e~-~.I~~ t~~ ~rtt~a
~r. e~:~r~:: ~~: ,.~.~~ t: . r.~l:.~~ ~r: .id .~!.-:.~ ~,~
MC.,:.~,~_r; =l~prl-, C;~~t~~::~ ~.ti-~. ~~~ ~.; ~=.:,*: t~.~
"""':~':....::..."-; :'#;Cl."So r.~ ..!'\c..'" l\~tl. l.,t..r.~~ l"" ...... t",",'"
c..:..-:t. 1.......:~~_t~.:..., ...'~ t,~ ...f".Jld ~:::l:~. Fi\": P~"'r"'-,::r:, " ~".:1 1"
.k~"":O<~"'':; C" ~.;'"-:t~,..'f t!"'~ :1.....
One staff comment was that the Township had not yet received
notification of applIcation for the GP-7 stream crossing. Mr. Engle
said a letter was included in the hydrology study submitted to the
Township. Mr. Ernest located and read the letter, and reported that it
related to a "8" culvert, and that it was dated March t7, 1988, Robert
Gill, Township Manager, questioned the date, and said that the Township
would require a current letter from the Department of Environmental
Protection. He expressed doubt that the developer would be permitted
to build a structure across the stream without first obtaining a permit
from DEP.
Atty. Fenicle noted that the plan was previously rev:ewed ~y the
Planning Commission and that the stream crossing permit was not an
issue at that time. However, he said the developer would obtain an
updated letter, if the Township required one,
Mr, Engle had not yet submitted the erosion and sedimentation
control plan to Cumberland County, because he was waiting for the
outcome of the Township meeting.
Mrs, Beaner e<pressed her opinion on the decision to be made by
the Planning Commission for or against the plan, beth from a legal
standpoint and a moral one.
Mr. Buchholz listed his concerns with the plan, for the record.
He was concerned that parking for the two units closest to the
cul-de-sac ..as not in an area ..here it woutd likely be used by the
residents; rather, they would be Inclined to park in the cut-de-sac.
He felt the terrain ..as not suitable for development, since the steep
bank ..ould need to be cut away to accommodate the four-unit building,
Since no engineering studies had been done, there ..as no ..ay to kno..
the geology of the area, or to demonstrate that the proiect would be
economically feasible. He cited the subdiviSion and land development
ordinance, Article 302.I,E.2, which relates to topographically
unsuitable land, TraffiC on Erford Road would be a prOblem, due to the
narro.. roadway ..ith parking on both sides, Construction vehicle and
moving van accesl would be difficult. Also, the nearest fire hydrant
is at David Drive and Erford Road. If the plan would be approved, Mr.
8uchhol: felt one condition shcul~ be installation of .n .ddition.l
fire h.dra"t,
Mcrl:~: Mr. Plc"aroscn made tne mO~lon th.t tne ~re'lm:..rY/~I".l
L.~~ C.~.lc~~~t P11" for L~.~.~t O.sh P-:C.rt,. r.t.t~.e Au;~~t
28, I~~b, be f~r..roed to t"e 8o.r~ of CC~llslcner, .,tn a
recommenC':I:" t3 de". 'cp'o..I. Mr, ~ucnholz 'ecc~eo t'.
eQtl~". ~'. ~~~,~ .'k.C t~.~ t~. c~~.~t, b~ ~~. !~t~~o1:,
:....'ld:u..:' r.,:o"~.~ l~ t,.,..~. "'l""\,.til~t tt' l"'cl;..l~..d ,~ t... ,.otl~""'.
T~e .ctl:~ :.~rl.~ .~t~ . ~~;~~lt~ ~~ .f~ ~~~.'t _~~~ _r. ~C!'lj.
..-:":l-~ j.... ~... ....c;.t~l~...
r...... ':-'.... t... c.":'"
'.01--.'. .., .:.;" .,.
j~ t..\.t~..,t ....' ~"'F
~""'i" 1 ..~~ !:.
: , ..:
s...~ : ~ . ~ , ,. c=.:.-",....
~
1'""'\
f1~ni'j l- ~J~
Stpt, ~ 11~(,
1'16,." &!..-
, C
. ..
J;m ler,
U,D..~~
-
I"'/Jt~' 1~11C~
k'u.r~ J~f" ~.s.
--Aut'.> } Vu.-P, ~ So
~rotz Srrl'~.yr
-..)1..., ~J.c..~I/.JJ-::.
&-0~ ~
-:~/t ~
(-{~~. ~
;z:b ~ ~
U~;J~, k),Ibrt1
_ a4.d.rt.s:s / h~,..,
I
flc:r C'IJE COl'1su/hnd:s
?-f!~(~ ~.J.J.f-Q.,.,
}:5J/ h'4fJ'It"T S"7 {"~ 1'7#'11'
-:2.;:Lf CkHer G(ci. ell
~~tj 6:k",., O?d... C{j-
2...3 7 (1/ e.,... h.J c I-J
rL.r c:./?r-::.-.< <<.{ c-~./.t;~
J'.st ~&J q ~~~.
&s-b ,])' - -.. ((' .< ,., ("
p~ ~(I?~ C};~'?./:d'
50-~, EP7j B~
]/,fwODD EJI,"/~/A.JG. i I A.IC.
'3147 Hwr~Dr. ~ 7DZ> ~II"
ZO ROIIJ.11 br. Cn~lo,~ Qv?;5
'.
(22-302(1-d), cont'd)
~-302(1-d), cont'd) ~
and telephone poles, and street lights; if any of
available at site indicate direction and distance
and furnish state~ent of availability.
the above are not
to the nearest ones
e, Other ExistinR Conditions: watercourses, marshes, rock
outcrop, wooded areas, houses, barns and other significant features.
tf the applicant's tract is located where flood hazard exists the
following regulations shall apply:
(1) The applicant shall prepare a topographic map of
the proposed area with such contour intervals as the Planning
Commission shall determine to be necessary and shall prepare
drainage plans or flood control devices satisfactory to the
Planning Commission whenever the Planning Commission shall
consider that such are necessary. No plat shall be approved
for which the Planning Commission finds that drainage or
flood control protection is necessary until the Planning Com-
mission shall approve the plans for drainage and flood control.
~ ~:z. I. e:2.. "'> @ Land Subject to Flooding - Land subject to flooding
and/or deemed to be tOPoRraphicallv unsuitable shall not be
platted fur residential occupancy, nor for such other uses as
may increase danger of health, life, or property, or aggravate
erosion or flood hazard, Such land within the plat shall be
set aside on the plat for such uses as shall not be endangered
by periodic or occasional inundation or shall not produce
unsatisfactory living conditions,
(3) Adequate Building Site - To insure that residents
vill have sufficient flood-free land upon which to build a
structure, the Planning Commission ..y require elevations and
flood profiles. Each lot shall contain a building site which
shall be completely free of the danger of flood waters on the
basis of available info~tion,
(4) Street Elevation - The Planning Co~ssion Ihall
not recom=end approval of streets subject to inundation or
flooding, All Itreets must be adequately located above the
line of flood elevation to prevent isolation of areas by flood.
f. Proposed Publie Improvements: streetl or other ~jor
improvements planned by public authorities for future construction on
or near the tract.
I, Cround Elevations: on tract based on datam plan approved
by Municipal Engineer; for land that slopes less than two percent (2%)
show elevatlons at all breaks in Irade and alonl drainace channels or
svales not more t~an lOa f.et aparti for land that stopes ~re than
two percent (2:) show contours with an interval of not ~cr. than
five (61 teet and le.s 1n case. where necessary to s~~ ~::elu:ar
land tor plann~n, purp~.es.
-::0-
I TRAI-E . ;SI()-l VERIFICATICltl PEPCRT I
,....
TIME B9/12/1996 15:~5
NAME EASTPEI'f<6BO<OTWP
FAX 717732781B
TEL 717732B711
['ATE. TIME
FAX t().INA/oE
IlLRATI()-l
PAGElS)
RESU.. T
MJDE
0':1.'12 15:ol~
7610863
1l~:a1:e~
e2
0-
ST.:\NMPD
EOl
<' -....
-
A.~ C. 0 Io/l VV\.eUT~ :
f)
LOC..A:'T'IO,.,) o~
-'::;;"~~("',/'IIJ~
;~f-T'U2- (..'Uf-
I",~':>d T>.I;.
~~\~<.l. hP...l.. viA4eS;..~w.. "r.;>
F=", t' -'- ~ -'1. ~......d. .
7.)
,\
-)
-;t..i.}o.k.. 4..suJ- - l.,........ssi'c",l;~ ~I :C:M~""-U-:lO-t
~(' 1\ c...e..S e.g!.U.(l~,
-r;..)... ~6~,;~ \<::~ S.._b~k.v~;..., ~_ ;I~.u~~
c"T"~ P,~c>-_.(.r. '" 1< <:M'"..J..!t-;. ~~~ ~ s~,~~ S N;r-,-
<>~ ~~~~ _&,o..c;cr-, ,o>f +L. r-"br~Ul:.!) ~'>l.
G...J.~ ~'._ __Wl\\ ~~ ~r...ra t:.-, (..u"'tto.,'d- ~ o€ ~
....- r :;.urlfA! ' , -'. /' /J ?
IV c.,v1!(J...~'/0a::...c...1f,f w...e... .L&vc-l<">,,s ;~~.J'" ft.+". .
3.')
'"
5)
<;~ia(/{J.
" ~
...-1..)... '-f
I.
f /7..
:) ...
I
I.............t~
I '
-0, S iafU- /r,)I'''~
. \ I '
:r............, ,.u _e;.
/ :;..I
;..0, ' <J.. /~__~
- - --==
-
..
..' .
I
~,..:.~; ~V\ ~ s...J.........).......J..~ k~ Gr,., h-of
/'- r?'"ll'"'D / IJ
-r-rJ",:,! ~._ _. 1$ '2~~<.:!-.<J.
(J.~ ~pror/(J./
\
15)
~;~a,G-r"av~ f /~~.
.
. '
I) ~Mi".4"'1t ...._Lv..iJ 1~/LCd-:-f H-~ ~~4'1Jt'4J ~ ~~..j.;'"
~ ~ I.. .., ~'1 6!e A .'" a r ..ea.. ~"'/I"" ~.. d- to (i S !r...,l...d t~ '
Q ., ~ ~
Z) .s.....L 't ~r-l:t~ ~~. ~'2-.\.e..'2- - t..v-d ~.....o~
~ ;!,=:-'~.: ~......,-J/Jr ~'~.-:.....p -?c....,. ~r:.':::.,...J~~:':~i'~
./-.. ~_. 'r"..~ ~ ~ ,~;, -,/;;-:- U- r.;' ~.....~ .r-::-/ ,. J."'., '-...4'_'i-'~A.<-f'
~n~,~(1HVAS
/
.,~
o ;..<.......~; '''-.. ~ .
~. i-_'"::' ;,...~:,.....~ r~"''''~l~'''.. ~ ~ ~~ .Sf",A-t.':.'...4
, I'
": __~'-'''' _ '-~..J lI) j ~~... ......' ,. :".1 ~.r...,.:.:. J_~,....
~:.." ",..:...r....., \....~;, I $ .(~4..f.:" _,',;-...J }f~ :j,k.iJ.S ' .J.,.J.........
.. ) : " . ".
.' l,J.. ~r .:.1, -; .-"':.:,...., ~ r-.,-~' ;.' :....~~~ ~.i_~ I ~'f:- s..-z..; ___t. ........
'!" ~.. ~ . .',:-... rJ:-: ;"~' <I I~ 1:..,...... ..1 "". ; It I ~.I" ",'" ~...... L:.. 'l;; ..4 .I;~.a":'..<..
;'1 j.;-...:#....k ;Ii'.".:.' ":,,.: It-;-...,.J! V,( ,j:J.A.~j "';0:,4-
i I .. ~ ,......' .. - . .. ,
~....; rV-.:.'-V_.
,~
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page 2
IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A..'ID APPROVAL:
MOTION authorizing payment of invoices pending review and signatures of
Commissioners was made by ~tr. Yohe, seconded by Mr, Sgrignoli, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approving pa)ment of Requisition No. 269 to Gro\'e Miller Engineering,
Inc. from the 1991 General Construction Fund Account for engineering services relative to the
traffic signalization of US II/IS and Valley Road in the amount ofS209.30 was made by Mr.
Y ohe, seconded by Mrs. McAlister, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approving pa)ment of Requisition No. 27010 Benatec Associates from the
1991 General Construction Fund Account for engineering senices relative to the Center Street
Relocation Project in the amount ofSII,057.45, per invoice no. 18 and representing 94% of
project completion ....-as made by ~tr. Sgrignoli, seconded by ~lr. Hertzler, and ....-as carried by I
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approvinl pl)'\\lent of Requisition No. 273 to Pennsy Supply, Inc., from
the 1991 General ConstrUction Fund Account for materials used in the installation of the \\"Iter
line at the Herman O. Sgrisnoli, Public Works Facility in the amountofSI,J09.09 was made by
Mrs. McAlister, seconded by ~tr. Hertzler. and was tarried by a unanimous a~'e \"Ote.
MOTION approving p4)ment of Requisition No. 271 to Larry SlOne from the 1991
General Construction Fund Account for services relative to the installation of the water line at
the Herman O. Sgrignoli, Public Works Facility in the amount ofSI.2oo.oo was made by ~lr.
Hertzler. seconded by ~lr. Sgrignoli, and was carried by a unanimous a)"e vote.
MOTION appro\'ing pa~ment of Requisition No. 272 10 R.F. Fager Company from
the 1991 General ConstrUction Fund Account for materials used in the installation of the water
line at the Herman O. Sgrignoli, Public Works Facility in the amount of51.883.54 ..lias made by
~lr. Y ohe, seconded by ~tr. Sgrianoli. and was carried by a tm:o"imous aye vote.
MOTION appro\ing p4)ment of Requisition :-;0, I ~ to H.IIIO\'er Pole Buildiq.lnr:..
from the 1996 General Const:\ll:tion Fund Account for the second pa~1Mllt on the cello' salt bin It
the Herman O. SgriiMli. Pu~lic Works Facili~' in the amount of S 19,'-SOoo \\1.1 ~e ~ ~lr.
H.:r..z!er. seconded by Mr, 'toile. and \\1.1 carri~ by a unanimous a~e vote,
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page 3
MOTION approving pa)ment of Requisition No. 15 to Davis Landscape Inc., from
the 1996 General Construction Fund Account for the hydro seeding relative to the installation of
the new water line at Adams Ricci Park in the amount ofS650.00 was made by Mr. Yohe,
seconded by rm. Sgrignoli, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approvil:g pa)ment of Requisition No.8 to Jeff A. Barlup and Scott A.
Barlup Co-Executors from the 1996 Sewer Construction Fund Account for six (6) Maple trees
that will be damaged during the Oyster Mill Sanitary Sewer Coa.struction in the amount of
SI,OOO.OO was made by Mrs. McAlister, seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli, and \llas carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION authowg the proper municipal officials to execute the final right-of.way
plan for Center Street Relocation Project ",..as made by Mr. Henzler, seconded by "lr. Sgrignoli.
and was carried bv a unanimous a\'e vote.
. .
MOTION authoriing the execution of the 1996 application for County Aid in the
amount ofSI5.318.oo was maCe by Mrs. McAlister, seconded by ~lr. Yohe, and VIlas carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION disappro\ing the ~uest by Landvest Associates regarding a "'Iaiver for
the installation of sidewalk at 110 Grand\iew A venue. per the township staff's recommendations
was made by Mr. Sgrignoli, seconded by ~lr. Henzler. and was carried by a WWlimous aye vote.
~lr. HertZler asked the record 10 reflect that the staff has met \1oith the property owners and
modifications and relief from the ordinance have been made to accommodate the land owner
MOTION appro\ing Resolution 1996-22 incorporating Junior Volunteer Fire
PersoMel and Fire Police be covered under our workers compensation. based on the Bureau of
Labor of Standards and the Department of Labor and Industry was made by "lr. Hertzler,
seconded by Mr. Yohe. and ....as carried by a unanimous a)-e vote.
At this time President Dc~!J,..t)n recognized the students in attendance at ws e\-enina'.
meeting from the &o\nMlent class at East Pennsboro. They 'IIere Jen Sn)-der. 1,; 1 Glenn Road.
Camp Hill and "like Wta..tr. ~v7 Ertord Road, Camp Hill.
"I:, Gill informed t.':e !kuJ t."lat communi.:ations ha..e been recehed f:-.:::: the attomC)'S
th..lt :he S:.unbauah's ~ wi:'':~;:t\\n t.':eir ~a.1 at the En.. ironrnenw Hea."'inj B.:a:d wit.'!
re-.:uJs :.' phase I of the H:d.:~. R;~~~ De\e!crment a.-:d Etii1lion rCiarJir.il tl:e :~""nsh.ip'.
S~\\C~ r:",.:.!\:I~,
Board ofComrnissioners
Seplernber 17,1996
Page 4
MOTION accepting the petition from the residents of the 800 block of Erford Road,
East Pennsboro Township, objecting to any construction on the wooded lot o....,oed by Mr. Umesh
Dash on Erford Road was made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by Mr. Yohe, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote. (Copy of petition is attached to minutes) The residents are concerned about
the additional traffic on the narrow and busy street and the ability of ernergency vehicles to
service the area. Also, snow removal would be a concern. The residents have a concern about
the erosion factor. They would request that the soil be tested by a independent contractor and not
by someone affiliated with Mr. Dash. This property has been ill-kept for the last 16 years, such
as routine maintenance, la....ll mowing and snow removal and the residents feel that the proposed
complex will be maintained in the same manner.
MOTION directing the township staff to review the Manheim Township's Fire
Alarm Ordinance and prepare and advertise the ordinance to license the individuals who install,
inspect and repair fire alarms \'ias made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by Mr. Yohe, and was carried
by a unanimous aye vote.
President DeMartyn reported that after the last meeting the Recreational Board was asked
to review the various letters submitted 10 the tOW'llShip regarding the hitting of golf balls at
Adams Ricci Park. Mr. Gill stated that the members of the Recreational Board are S)'D1pathic 10
the golfers but Adams Ricci Park 'lias never designed for t.lte hitting of golf balls and it has
become a safety issue. Therefore, the Recreational Board has recommended to the Board of
Commissioners to ban the hitting of golf balls at Adams Ricci Park. Mr. Gill stated that it would
possible to try 10 direct the ,olfers to go 10 the area by the old public works facility. President
DeMartin stated that this is a possibility and maybe the to....nship could fi.'( up the area for the
golfers.
MOTION based on the recommendation of the Recreational Board 10 ban the hittina
of golfbalIs at the Adams Ricci Park was made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli and
was carried b)' & unanimous aye vote,
~lonON approvina the preliminary/final subdh'ision plan for Da\id T. Willard. in
Sherwood Park was made by- Mr. Yolle, seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli, and 'lias carried~' a
unanimous &)e vote.
MonON appro\in. l.'lt tin3l subdh'ision plan for laurel Hills Nor~\ lot 3 and 4,
ch.1nging the name oew stl'ttlS "3.5 m3Je by ~tn. McA1is:er. secon~ed by ~tr S~tr.oli. and
\\:15 c3.tTiN by a Ul'..31'umcus a~e lote.
ITBI~
TABLED
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page S
ITEM 3
TABLED
ITEMS
TABLED. Letter of extension attached
Board recessed for an executive session at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Ernest reviewed 'With the Board the preliminary/finalland development plan for the
UmaIcant Dash property on Erford Road. He also shared with the Board a memo prepared by
Joyce A. Stom, Recording Secretary of the P1anning and Zoning Commission regarding their
recommendation that the Board of Commissioners deny approval of this plan. (Copy of Memo
attached)
President DeMartyn asked if there was an)'one in the audience that had comments
regarding this preliminary/land development plan.
Mr. Peter Sanden, 233 Gletm Road, Camp Hill questioned the sewer right-of-way that
runs through the property. Mr. Ernest stated that it is not noted on the plan. Mr. Dash's engineer
showed that the IS-inch sewer line was noted on the propcny. Mr. Sanden stated that there is a
sewer line that goes down Glen Road do'Wu over the hill behind his property down to the bottom
of ravine and goes do'Wu the stre3IIl to the sewer plant Mr. Dash stated that it was the same one
shoy,u on the plan. The adequacy of the sewer to sef\'e the units was questioned. Sewer Module
approval has been recei\'ed from DEP.
T erT)' Case, 856 Erford Road, Camp Hill questioned the frontage ofhis property and the
adjacent property at 862 Erfor:! Road. He also questioned putting a road in right next to his
property without any right-of.....-ay.
Susan Kurtz, 864 Erfor:! Road.. Camp Hill had a more personal comment that she felt the
project "''Quid have a more d~1WIlic clwlac to the area and would possible have an effect on the
saleability of the homes in the IrQ in the future.
Sue Zimmerman. 213 Glenn Road. Camp Hi\1 has a concern about the t:'3ftic and
speedinll that already exists in the area and the area cannot twlJle the additiOl'.3l tr.1ffic that this
de\elopment "'ould brini tc t!:c ~'"ta. There is a nm for more police patrOl i:: t.'le area.
K.um \' ecolitis, 2:9 Gle:-., R~ Camp Hi\1 ~ \\oit.'! :\trs. Zimme::n3.~ reprdina the
tnt1k .u:d !Pffd tlut a1reJJy e'\:slS in t.'lc aru. Her other concern "u the erosion cClItrOl sinc:e
her propert: is lle'\t to ~I: D.ll~'s prc~rt: She questi,'nej ",!I.ll ~k Da.s!l's pl.ms ",htl't for
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page 6
Erosion control once he takes out all the trees and groWld cover because that is what is
holding up the hill.
Linda leiser, 854 Erford Road, Camp Hill questioned what steps would be taken to
protect or repair the area if Mr. Dash would stan to develop the area and then find out that it
cannot be developed. Will he be responsible to repair any damage he might have done to the hill
already?
Tammy Davis, 249 Glenn Road, Camp Hill also concerned about the traffic and speed in
the area. She has place numerous call to the police about the issues. Her major concern is that
her property and home is a major investment to her and she is concerned about the value of the
property in the future.
James Massey, 221 Glenn Road, Camp Hill property faces !'.1r. Dash's propert)o. had a
concern about building a road up the Sleep embankment to ~1r. Dash's property. There is enough
traffic problems in the area.
T my Case, 856 Erford Road, Camp Hill questioned whether there \\'25 a towllShip
ordinance regulating the number of units per build able acreage if the zoning was approve. Mr.
Ernest stated that II V. uni13 per acre in R2 Zone District. He questioned why Wormleysburg
Borough will not give approval for another access road leading into Wonnleysburg, which would
ease the traffic in the area and also provide another access for th traffic.
James MacA11ister, 825 Erford Road, Camp Hill had a concern regarding the parking in
the area. There will be t\1iO (2) parking spaces allotted per unit but any additional parking would
be forced out onto Erford Road.
Linda leiser questioned what provisions ha\'e been made to accommodate the fire safety
in the area.
~1r. Co~-ne swed for the record that the Board is lookina at the prelimin~'ifinalland
de\elopment plan for UmakJnt Dash last re."ised on July 25, 1996. received in the township on
July 26. 1996. For the record. Mr. CO)1lC stated that he would like to para.p/lnse ar.4 request that
the comments sustained in the actions of the to....nship.s Planning Commission mrttinl of
September S. 1996, ....melt he anm.1ed be pan of the minutts. ~1r. CO)lle rnd ,l:e cano to the
Bvard of Commissioners Crcm JO)(e A. Stom, Recordina SC1:reW) for the PIIr.r.i.'\1 and Zoni.na
Cvrr.mission, (Cop~ Alt.Khtd '" ~Iinlltes)
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page 7
Mr. Linus E. Fenicle stated that the one comment from the Planning Commission deals
with the flood hazard area and it does not have any bearing on this particular section and is not
relevant to this plan. All the other issues are in general and specific to the ordinances. The
developer had the plan reviewed by township's staff and all the provisions of the ordinances have
been met and they are here seeking approval.
MOTION disapproving the preliminary/fU1alland development plan for Umakant
Dasb property for the reasons to be stated by the township solicitor was made by Mr. Yohe,
seconded by Mr. Hertzler, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote.
Mr. Coyne stated the following reasons for the disapproval of plan:
The plan in the Board's opinion does not support ~ith Section302.J.E.2 of the
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance that states land subject to flooding and/or deemed
to be topographically unsuitable sha1I not be planed for residential occupancy, nor for such other
uses as may increase danger ofbealth, life, or property, or aggravate erosion or flood hazard.
Such land within the plat shall be set aside on the plat for such uses as shall not be endangered by
periodic or occasional inundation or sha1I not produce unsatisfactory living conditions.
Section SOl. Suitability orLand Land subject to hazards to life or property, such as
quart)' land, open ditches, etc. shall not be subdivided for residential purposes until such bazards
have been eliminated or unless adequate safeguards against such hazards are pro\idrd by the
subdivision or land development plan. This paragraph has not been addressed on the set of plans
that were submitted before them.
Comments from the Cumberland County Conservation with regards to the soil erosion
have not been received.
The four ('-) unit strUCI1lre has a slope to the rear ~'l to I foot which comes into play with
Section 302 and the Board has a pal concern with the stability of the bank and accordini to
rouih calculations the slope \l,0Illd be in excess of 50 dqrecs. Also the plan dcts not show the
vertical data and it has not betrt supplied. The southern side shows rock \l,ithout stabilization
and no pennit filed at this timc.
The Board has a concern \l,ith the access and deil'ff1 of emergency \ehiclcs. \l,Nc!l
would h.!\ e an effect on the pub.; he~l." and wet)' of this area.
.. ... ... --(1 o-zt.d2'1 C1n1.Y>fJ'~^J;"'6(.J___ -
. _~;.....k /1- 10;(,
'J
.---.--.- .~~le~
(J.); Jj () ','
.,
I t'7fix...r /)Atte;L
. -------- ~
- - . -_----;j!;; Zq 7'1-
/ tS~jo '/5;~I'~m @Q)/fL~
r"q,~~
-
/.f tJIJ lit 'fit r J!: ~" M,M (l/~ J.IZ~ /.p p I<C
~c rh ~f- c.L.. (p..,A
/) V. 't.r.c/c. t'
s-:
3).. /. I
'2..gcz Ll ~T" 1)11' . G: l-J .
.
) "] f It. ~~ j;- (J tr
(,{ 0
. -r:~ f0c:. C
t:2~e.L ~.s- ~3&7 6{& ~/'~TA. Dr.
'f-..JL:...).II/1~ 8o<G f2:Jcc.lA (/Iq.<, a~-, ..__
I Aflr?,<J.~A rnn.,."'&~ gC6 6$LL~ Uis?'9. D.,R
. /~ cv- ~ %,,;It. . ~ 1) Y'.
j I~ I er; h f- 6"C?
_.____C 4&...~~~_1'1 (c,.ItI/('1 /~ ~ A~7-~ S "f_.2V/"f. '-U(..J...~..t.-c-
. . __.L' fA. ~\~e: jJ.....~_ ~ 'r~Lg"dd_Ji._~~_&:"r/f
.J r.~' l~."'~ ~~~ ~7 G/e<!.~,~~ ~_9t- (_4..__.
. _. Q. _~.Q~~______ .._8'5~LG-nrd Rd Grnf\f.:Mt. (;
(i . - "Vi 051. '-t. ,.", r ,.J ~
-.....:..L...-...t- CL,,-,--_ ..... .. __c: -(.rrr..~ I'-..{ (;4.:,"F ~
:.::::L.:, !... C-.t.-.J- f.;) ~ '-- '..iI-1-...... It-J Cd.. ....~ '-f.t:t--.:..
/. I -, ..
....~ -;~=- .(~..L.I..-- c":' 5' C,..l / _ ~./_ ~~ c; y ~.;.
_ ~ ,/.1/ _:'
~ 1 '7 en. " t' co C ,-
,)t" - l'
',J- -~- ..........;r.'. ..~..:..
I
",' i) 't'Je
'-
q/~/C!&
:5<Jl,I;(~(.s.+~ "
,," I.
I . I......'
... ;"'1<1' v Ii I . / . . .\.. .
oJ"_ I. .~. /
As residents of the 800 Block of
.j
,-
oaL G!enn Pd ~
Erford, East Pe?nsboro Twp,
~ennsylvania, we object to any construction on the wooded lot
I
.pwned by Mr. Umesh Dash.~~ Erford Road.
J We are concerned about the additional traffic this project
,ill bring to an already narrow and busy street. We don't believe
tmergency vehicles would be able to adequately service the area.
,5~ow removal for the proposed structures is also a major concern.
,
I
I Once the bunker is disturbed, we have a concern about the
ierosion factor. If the soil is to be tested, we request that the
,
itesting be done by an independent contractor and not one which is
in any way affiliated with Mr. Dash.
The property has been ill-kept in the last 16 years that it
has been owned by Mr. Dash. Routine maintenance, such as lawn
~owing and snow removal have been neglected in addition to not
:having downed trees removed. We fear that the proposed complex
Nill be maintained in a similar manner.
j
j~~ME AOORESS
~ ~ S~rr /I. iE'5EI1...
o.r-~ 0ce.-~l~~\
h~~'ZJ~~ ~
~~~.
I. 1'7~. c....LQ:L
, '..i- z:. c
~ f\ J~
C~7' ;r~
I .\~........ --=-.,.- ~~'"'
1 .-" -J.i /
l r.. 'CJ'
I~~~ ;~-~. .5h~1~
.' -
<:\ -.--... /. . ......... ...,',' ':-~"': .
. d ~ /.c
t:$f U#..<.tJ .Rd.
d..~<] G( c<.lI\V\ ~~. ~,,~ '\.\\\\ I1cl\
,/..t? Jf~ ~o C~;tl.4.~ /7e'//
:>-"I'G. ~~~. ~~ ~u,' /' '7cJr/
.. ..,
l3"5 cQ~/l1\ RJ.
237 CJe..... r<J
:;. Aq (::,\..............-.. -2..c\,
2.4<\ G..e'Nt-!'~
15' J G ll'!.l\ f\ 'Rd
c~ Hi:~. l~i\
~)JJ..t fP. 17.:11'
~ ,
l\
.-
C~,..P \-\,......, ~A. \1C 1\
_.-' ,-~w",_"
~'l'f tt,t\ IrA
. .:......
, ..
.....
,"',....
'-\..0--1
-2-
NAME
ADDRESS
Q~ ~1:..
iCL~v~~
i /Yltzu.t(ft~
I
i ~ 'fyt/lW'N.U.A..
I '~, '.~
I (, ~ ~'
! /j'z (/,,' (/
;// '~(...o- ~~
;'O'f~' ;2u-e.L
:;'Af)j~ ~f.
;J ~o G&.tvxJ ~
J/3 GL61thJ I?d
y'/' ,-
f i ..... fa i-A" "0 #,',
_ '-" -- r.. .'..!:..a,
,.. .
. '.. ,,'., ~
. .
. '..' I
I . .'
.f '/ .:" '.' ( ,
. F .' _ - ... ). ../..,
',f'~ ~4v!Jef<., ~a1 EJRkd.-'1I_
. (]J.~~ i5~ ~ e<
: j/--, ~S~ G-f,rtl ~O
~ ' Cv~ 0s-6 f .9>-1 (I)
'J- (, 7 g5& ~~cl. Rd,
~I ':f} I JJ.I Gjff/r.ll
O^_\~~f t~:1 ~I ~ ~""' .
~I.J.,I~ ~~. ,2;2, G'L t'L
-5~j/ Wv--- JiJ (jr,.-t/W
'3,.f, ~-'t JJ
(7 - 7'. ~/' GI~. f'{l
.5::---u..'-YJI:::ii.~{r~ ...;1.3:2. 6'tl1Y, ICe4</.
~':.'.-~~.~~~ 2.3')... C-let10 t1r_~{
,_ . /, ," ... jJ
, . . ~ ~"'1 ...,~ I )J:'
....~ ~_.('''..L ~ _~' J ' . -.J..0 "-'w~ C A.~. cr
'\ ........ /'! A . -"/' I
. k.-....-_.- -:'-'4-~n- ~ .r- ~J -f<." :..:.:1/-:[
~
U-f /P.e /10//
. 11.33
~ /J..J..R)
/' ~~/.rV.--t'f.V'>(:
\.. ,.v )
..1~.
~ J!"I m- r70tt
C*rrtP ft:J:<..<. ~k /lal/
( I ;: ~..t' l-..'
"'.... .71" . ,."" ".. :'-.
I
I ,
.-
(k;J4/1 j) n_/.
(!.M,+~,lfl /70/
&:; 1/://, IA. /70 I I
C~.-y H;II fC\ /7011
, 7
/l I Iii IJA
L'ar? ItGU.J rl7 (fOil
(. ' lIf. '-r,"
t- '," r r. ,J u I .
COI1'J( :HIli fft /10 II
(;,,/#,; I~. /7t)!'"
I/"" ~,..' f~:' /~ I';
'- '7' ~ ./ ' /'7-.
c~ #1/,1 J.?C) II
CA-l'11f it/II (3, /7C(/
c...""p H,t!/ fA- 11011
of I '''1 R 17.:;(
;:. I J:) \
, ,/ ,
'(,f...
jn~ f'lf ~f-J-4 Ii",. /t-L< fo.
($11>1i4 ~_~ t'lf' f.e. &.p ftj
.~ ~ f-JL H ~,~
~ W ~.g ~ ;JdQc?4
G~'i:t..c ~~t'" 82.& Galb-ol fid. ~ t/.;II 1/4
~~ 'ez.t, ~ ~ C'A ,. '\J.J-I Pc...
% ~ '/ II 0,,";.1 pc. c".... r l-\; II, P A
.. g~6 ~ ~ fA.
8l{O ti o..J i{p c~phr'/I fJ:I
~--i.~ d...LJS~~ ~~'rW-Q ~
~ "'" _ ~J... 4~:U~Q,,,,,,,,, ~ ~~ \.li.9Q)' ;;0,
1<Jro r'J D Cl ndaj)0Ik
1Y~~G. .f)~~ol-
~'^'-u..-. ~.u{.rd~,
~r iN:;
- . -
'~!1Mlbct ~t-~,r...c
" -0 ~:''7'
-(!~.'~
,~l ~ '.h. ~
g~2 Er ~ rei. Rei.. Ca nf~11. A. ,
g52E~ R.d. ~lJ.;.u., f.fr.
t17C~ fI- Cb~Q If.tI~~
B ~6 EI?.F.J/Z-l i&{ c.A-~f.. }J/(/ flJ
B5'"" 0 f...nJr-J fU. ~ f)).J/ tiLL
~y~ ~!IJ ~ ~dPq_
8~~ ~~~'- Ot'f .kW./)fj).(
833 .Gt.vJ. RJ... Q~ M I~ l?
0-33 c;..CA ~\, c.~ fl.'/', (('f)
a..\ 1. ttt~Oft.l) (2.1) (~P l~t.\ \ A
\\ I\, \\ \1
I ,
I'
ffilf Er-ford Rd. Cbmp ~~U I ell .
<ls*~ffi)4j~ijtlL~Q .
f? :rr.fl ~ ~ ~k,Jj, PP,
(~I ~~ ~t( ~;$/4
'i?'tl c~-ro~ /?; C~ 7 h'11/~ fJ'l-
,---.
!"".
I'""
.....,
\",.,
2:
v
- 2-
7. Motion to approve or disapprove the preliminary/final subdivision plan for
David T, Willard,
B, Motion to approve pa}ment of Requisition No. 269 to Grove Miller
Enginef-ring. [nc, from the 1991 General Construction Fund Account for
engineering services relative to the traffic signalization of US 1111 5 and
Val1ey Road in the amount of 5209,30.
9, Motion to approve pa}ment of Requisition No. 270 to Benatec Associates
from the 1991 General Construction Fund Account for engineering
services relative to the Centf-r Street Relocation Project in the amount of
5[ [.057,45. per invoice no. [B. (94% of project complete)
10, Motion to approve payment of Requisition No. 27 [ to Lany S,one from
the [991 Gf-nera[ Construction Fund Account for services relative to the
inslallation of the watef line at the Hennan 0, Sgrignoli. Public Works
Facility in the amount of51.2oo,OO,
11. Motion to approv'e pa}ment of Requisition No. 272 to R,F, Fager
Company from the 199 [ General Construction Fund Account for materials
used in the inslallation of the waler line at the Herman 0, Sgrignoli. Public
Works Facility in the amount ofS1.883.54
12. Motion to approv'e payment of Requisition No, 273 to Pcnnsy Supply, Inc.
from the 1991 Genera[ Construction Fund Account for materials used in
the inslal[ation of the ""-alef line at the Hmnan 0, Sgrignoli. Public Works
Facility in the amount of51.309,09.
13, Motion to approve payment of Requisition No. 14 to Hanover Pole
Building. Inc. from the 1996 General Construction Fund Account for the
second P&}-mcnt on the new salt bin at the Herman 0, SgriplOli. Public
Works Facility in the amount ofS19.480,OO,
14, ~Iotion to llpprov'e pa}ment of Requisition No. 15 to Davis Landscape lnc,
from the 1996 General ConstNCtion Fund Account for the h}-dro Sftdina
relative to the inslallation of the Il'tw water line at Adams Ricci Park in the
amount ors65000.
I'. Motion to approve pa}mCtlt of Reql.lisition No, Ito Jeff A. Barlup and
~ott A. B.arlup Co-becutors from the 1996 ~Cf Construction Fund
A,;count (~\r si:\ \Iaple Tl'tts t.h.1t ""ill be ~ durin, the O}~t<< \liII
5.lnitary ~er C onstruclion in the amount of S 1,000.00.
v.
NEW BlS[~[S$
Board of Commissioners
September 17,1996
Page 2
IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A.'lD APPROVAL:
MOTION authorizing payment of invoices pending review and signatures of
Commissioners was made by Me, Yohe, seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approving payment of Requisition No. 269 to Grove ~filler Engineering,
Inc. from the 1991 General Construction Fund Account for engineering services relative to the
traffic signalization orus 11/15 and Valley Road in the amount ofS209.30 was made by Mr.
Y ohe, seconded by Mrs. McAlister, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote,
MOTION approving payment of Requisition No. 270 to Benatec Associates from the
1991 General Construction Fund Account for engineering services relative to the Center Street
Relocation Project in the amount of$II,057.45, per invoice no. 18 and representing 94% of
project completion was made by Mr, Sgrignoli, seconded by Mr. Hertzler, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approving payment of Requisition No. 271 to Larry Stone from the 1991
General Construction Fund Account for services relative to the insta1lation of the water line at
the Herman O. Sgrignoli. Public Works Facility in the amount ofSl,2oo.oo was made by Mr.
Hertzler. seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote,
MOTION approving payment of Requisition No. 2n to R.F. Fager Company from
the 1991 General Construction Fund Account for materials used in the installation of the water
line at the Herman O. Sgrignoli, Public Works Facility in the amount ors 1 ,883.54 was made by
Mr, Yolle, seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli, and was carried by a unanimous aye vole,
MOTION approvina payment of Requisition No. 273 to Pennsy Supply, Inc., from
the 1991 General Construction Fund Account for materials used in the installation of the water
line It the Herman O. Sgrignoli, Public Works Facility in the amount of $1,309,09 was made by
Mrs. McAlister, seconded by Mr, Hertzler, and ~-as carried by a unanimous aye "'Ole.
MOTION approvina payment of Requisition ~o, 14 to Hano",tf Pole Buildin&.Inc.,
from the 1996 0enera1 ConstructiM Fund Account fot the secood payment on the new salt bin at
the Hmnan O. Scrignoli. Public ~'orks Facility in the amount 0($19,....0.00 was made by Mr,
Hmz1t1'. S<<Onded bv Mr. Yolle, and was carried bv a unanimous a\c ..--otc.
<#. . ...
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page J
MOTION approving payment of Requisition No. IS to Davis Landscape !nc" from
the 1996 General Construction Fund Account for the hydro seeding relative to the installation of
the new water line at Adams Ricci Park in the amount ofS6S0.00 was made by Mr. Y ohe,
seconded by nn. Sgrignoli, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote.
MOTION approving payment of Requisition No.8 to Jeff A. Barlup and Scon A.
Barlup Co-Executors from the 1996 Sewer Construction Fund Account for six (6) Maple trees
that will be damaged during the Oyster Mill Sanitary Sewer Construction in the amount of
$1,000.00 was made by Mrs. McAlister, seconded by Mr, Sgrignoli, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION authorizing the proper municipal officials to execute the final right-of-way
plan for Center Street Relocation Project was made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by ~Ir, Sgrignoli.
and was carried by a unanimous aye vote,
MOTION authorizing the execution of the 1996 application for County Aid in the
amount ofSlS,318,OO was made by Mrs. McAlister, seconded by Mr. Yohe, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote.
MOTION disapproving the request by Landvest Associates regarding a waiver for
the installation ofsidewa11t at 220 Grandvif-w Avenue, per the township stafrs recommendalions
was made by Mr. Sgrignoli, seconded by Mr, Hertzler, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote,
~Ir. Hertzler aslted the record to reflect that the staffbas met with the property O""l1er5 and
modifications and relief from the ordinance have been made to accommodate the land owner
MOTION approvina Resolution 1996-22 incorporatiq Junior V ohmteer Fire
Personnel and Fire Police be covered under our workers compensation. based on the Bureau of
labor of Standards and the Department of labor and Industry was made by Mr, Hertzler,
seconded by Mt, Yolle. and was carried by a unanimous a)'C \"Ote.
At this time President De~Iart)-n rec~ the students in attendance at this r.-enina's
m<<ting from the &0\ munent class al Easl Pennsboro, They were .1m Snyder. 241 Glenn Road.
Camp Hill and Mike Wea\er, S07 Erf'otd Road. Camp Hill,
Mr. Gill infonntd the Bottd that communications M\'C been received from the attorneyS
thaI the SwnballJh's had with.lnw"Q their appeal at the En\'ironmcntaI Hnrina BoW with
rtiards tll phase 1 of the Hickc~ Ridce De\clopmml and liliption rqudina the to\lonship's
K\\Cr In\..>dlollt.
........
Board of Commissioners
September 17. 1996
Page 4
MOTION acc(pting the petition from the residents of the 800 block of Erford Road,
East Pennsboro Township, objecting to any construction on the wooded lot owned by Mr. Umesh
Dash on Erford Road was made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by Mr, Yohe, and was carried by a
unanimous aye vote. (Copy of petition is attached to minutes) The residents are concerned about
the aJditional traffic on the narrow and busy street and the ability of emergency vehicles to
service the area. Also, snow removal would be a concern, The residents have a concern about
the erosion factor, They would request that the soil be tested by a independent contractor and not
by someone affiliated with Mr, Dash. This propeny has been ill.kept for the last 16 years, such
as routine maintenance, lawn mowing and snow removal and the residents feel that the proposed
complex will be maintained in the same manner.
MOTION directing the township staft'to review the Manheim Township's Fire
Alann Ordinance and prepare and advertise the ordinance to license the individuals who install,
inspect and repair fire a1anns was made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by Mr. Yohe, and was carried
by a unanimous aye vote.
President DeMartyn reported that after the last meeting the Recreational Board was asked
to review the various letters submitted to the township regarding the hitting of golf balls at
Adams Ricci Park. Mr. Gill stated that the members of the Recreational Board are sympathic to
the golfers but Adams Ricci Park was never designed for the hitting of golf balls and it bas
become a safety issue, Therefore. the Recreational Board has recommended to the Board of
Commissioners to ban the hitting of golf balls at Adams Ricci Park. Mr. Gill stated that it would
possible to try to direct the golfers to go to the area by the old public ,,,..orks facility. President
DeMartyn Slated that this is a possibility and maybe the to"'nship could fL' up the area for the
golfers.
MOTION based on the recommendation of the Recreational Board to ban the hitting
of golf balls at the Adams Ricci Park was made by Mr. Hertzler, seconded by Mr. Sgrignoli and
was carried by a unanimous lye vote,
MOTION approvina the preliminary/fmal subdivision plan for David T, Willard, in
Sherwood Park was made by Mr, Yohe, seconded by Mt, Sgrianoli. and was carried by a
unanimous I)'C vote,
MOTION approvina the finaJ subdiv'ision plan for uUl'tI Hills ~onb. lot 3 and 4,
chanaini the name of the streets ",'as ma.k by Mrs. McAlisttl'. sev.-onded by ~tr SlriiOOli. and
was carried by a unanimous aye "ate,
ITDt:!
TABLED
Board of Commissioners
September 17, 1996
Page 5
ITEM 3
TABLED
ITEM 5
TABLED - Lener of extension attached
Board recessed for an executive session at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Ernest reviewed wilh Ihe Board Ihe preliminary/finalland development plan for the
Umakant Dash property on Erford Road. He also shared with the Board a memo prepared by
Joyce A. Stom, Recording Secretary of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding their
recommendation that the Board of Commissioners deny approval of this plan. (Copy of Memo
attached)
President DeMartyn asked if there was anyone in the audience that had comments
regarding this preliminarylland development plan.
Mr, Peter Sanden, 233 Glenn Road, Camp Hill questioned the sewer right-of-way that
runs through the property, Mr. Ernest stated that it is not noted on the plan. Mr. Dash's engineer
showed that the I S-inch sewer line was noted on the property. Mr. Sanden stated that there is a
sewer line that goes do~ Glen Road do~ ovef the hill behind his property do~ to the bottom
of ravine and goes do\\u Ihe stream to the sewer plant Mr. Dash stated that it was the same one
shown on the plan. The adequacy of the sewer to serve the units was questioned. Sewer Module
approval has been received from DEP,
Teny Case,IS6 Erford Road, Camp Hill questioned the frontage ofhis property and the
adjacent property at 162 Erford Road. He also questioned putting a road in right next to his
property without any right-of-way.
Susan Kurtz, 164 Erford Road, Camp Hill bad a more personal comment that she felt the
project would have a more d}namic change to the ami and would possible have an effect on the
saleability of the homes in the area in the li.It1ft.
Sue Zimmennan. 213 Glenn Road, Camp Hill has a concern about the traffic and
speeding that altndy exists in the area and the ami cannot handle the additional traffic that this
dc~elopmalt would bring to Ihe area. There is a need for more police patrol in the area.
Kmn Vecolitis. 229 Glenn Road, Camp Hill aarttd "ith Mrs_ Zimmerman regardina the
tn.fflC and speed that already niSlS in the area. Her odwr conam was the erosion control since
her p~ is !\Ie,t to Mr [)ash's propert), She qunticned Wh.ll ~Ir. Dash's plans whm for
Board of Commissioners
September 17,1996
Page 6
Erosion control once he takes out all the trees and ground cover because that is what is
holding up the hill.
Linda Leiser, 854 Erford Road, Camp Hill questioned what steps would be taken to
protect or repair the area ifMr, Dash would start to develop the area and then fmd out that it
cannot be developed. Will he be responsible to repair any damage he might have done to the hill
already?
Tammy Davis. 249 GleM Road, Camp Hill also concemcd about the traffic and speed in
the area. She has place numerous call to the police about the issues, Her major concern is that
her property and home is a major investment to her and she is conc:emed about the value of the
property in the future.
James Massey, 221 Gleim Road, Camp Hill property faces Mr. Dash's property had a
concern about building a road up the steep embankment to Mr. Dash's property, There is enough
traffic problems in the area.
Terry Case. 856 Erford Road, Camp Hill questioned whether there was a township
ordinanc:e regulating the number of units per build able ac:rcage if the zoning was IpptOvc. Mr.
Ernest suted that II ~ units per acre in R2 Zone District. He questioned why Wonnlcysburg
Borough will not give approval for another access road leading into Wonnleysburg. which would
ease the traffic in the area and also provide another access for the traffic.
James MacAllister, 825 Erford Road, Camp Hill bad a conc:em reprdina the parkina in
the area. There will be two (2) parking spaces allotted per unit but any additional parkina wou1d
be forced out onto Elford Road.
Unda Leiser questioned what provisions have been made to accommodate the fire safety
in the IrCL
Mr. CO)1lC suted for the record that the Board is lookina II the prcliminaryifiMlland
dcvclopmau plan for Umabnt Dash last revised on July 25. 1996. m:eh-cd in the township on
July 26. 1996. For the record. Mr. Coyne stated that be would IiU to paraphrase and requat that
the comments SIlStai.ncd in the actions or the to""nship's PIannina Commission mcetiDa or
~ember S. 1996. which be IUcnIkd be part of the minutn. Mr CO)1lC read the memo to the
Board ofConunissionm &om Joyce A. Stom. Rccordina Scmwy for the PIannin. and ZoniJIa
Commission. (Copl' A1UCbcd to ~linutcs)
Board of Commissioners
September 17,1996
Page 7
Mr, Linus E, Fenicle Slated that the one comment from the Planning Commission deals
with the flood hazard area and it does not have any bearing on this particular section and is not
relevant to this plan. All the other issues are in general and specific to the ordinances, The
developer had the plan reviewed by to-.mship' s staff and all the provisions of the ordinances have
been met and they are here seeking approval,
MOTION disapproving the preliminary/fmaIland development plan for Umakant
Dash property for the reasons to be stated by the to-.mship solicitor was made by Mr. Y obc,
seconded by Mr, Hertzler, and was carried by a unanimous aye vote.
Mr, Coyne stated the following reasons for the disapproval of plan:
The plan in the Board's opinion does not support \ltith SectionJ02,I.E.2 of the
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance that slates land subject to flooding and/or deemed
to be topographically unsuitable shall not be platted for residential occupancy, nor for such other
uses as may increase danger ofhea1th, life, or property, or aggravate erosion or flood hazard.
Such land within the plat shall be set aside on the plat for such uses as shall not be endangered by
periodic or occasional inundation or shall not produce unsatisfactory living conditions.
Section 501 . Suilability orland Land subject to hazards to life or property, such as
quany land, open ditches, etc, shall not be subdivided for residential purposes until such hazards
have been eliminated or unless adequate safeguards against such hazards are provided by the
subdivision or land development plan. This paragraph has not been addressed on the set of plans
that were submitted before them.
The Board has I concern ",jth the access and dcCSets of ~y \chides. \lthicll
"'ould ha\e an eff(Ct on the pubic health and safety. of this acta.
Comments from the Cumberland County Conservation with regards to the soil erosion
have not been received.
The four (4) unit SllUCture has a slope to the rear h to I foot'" hich com.es into play ",ith
5<<tion 302 and the Board has I great concern ",ith the stability of the bank and according to
rough calculations the slope \ltould be in ,,-cess of 50 degrees. Also the plan does not show the
\-ertical data and it has not been supplied. The southern side shoWl rock ",ithout stabilization
and no permit filed at this time.
Board of Commissioners
September 17. 1996
Page 8
Section 602 has not been reflected on the plan to show the road would be in confonnity to
township specifications especially in the cul-de-sac area, which does not meet township
specifications as far as width length,
Also, as addressed by a resident in the audience, the closed fire hydrant is located at the
intersection of David Drive and Erford Road and the plan does not show any extension of any
fire hydrants into the proposed area.
Mr. Linus E. Fenicle addressed the Board stating that none of the above listed items were
brought to the attention ofMr, Dash's developer before this evening's meeting. He expressed
that he felt that East Pennsboro Township bas an obligation to act in good faith with giving
anyone who submits a plan to give them comments to deal with the technical aspects which were
stated as not being met. Mr. Fenicle stated that he did not feel that it was in good faith to have
Mr, Dash come before the Board tonight without being made aware of the above items. Mr,
Fenicle questioned the Board as to what was the purpose of the executive session that was held
this evening.
Mr. Coyne staled that the purpose was to discuss what action would be taken concerning
the motion on Mr. Dash's plan.
Mr. Fenicle stated that he felt that this action was in violation of the Slate Sunshine Law.
Mr. Coyne stated that was Mr, Fenicle's opinion.
President DcMartyn stated that if the Board foresees litigation that they have a right to
take an executive session under the SlI.lShine Act, per the opinion of their Solicitor. Further,
President DeMartyn stated that the plan is I pmiminary/finaJ plan and that has to be taken into
consideration in their decision.
MO nON Idjouming the m<<ting at 10: I S P.M. was made by Mrs. McAlister,
seconded by Mr. Henzler, and was carried by a wwUmous aye vote.
RESPECTFUllY SUBMmED.
Robert L. Gill
Township Mallliff
DA TED . ~ptem~r :6. I ~
Deborah A. Thornton
Aetins Recordmg Secretary
... ---a crzu..n _1_~Y>fJ',,^,;"'lv- -.
___~J1.~ (1:_/0;~..
- -.. -- ----". .-_.._~--- -
-- . .---
---_.---.-.~b~
__ _w __w___O'.J:Jl~ --------
-.-----..- " -----1 . -- -'-'-' ..,...--.-----r--- -
t'1fix...r I ;)A)lt!1L !tS-;so,/ai. - ..JiJ""",,~).IjLc?
____w_..__ .__ ____~ -.---.-- _w__. ___.____. _w
---J;;- Z~7'1--~~!it:7:::1t~~"
~ d> Pf'u, ( or l..L..vJ.. / . {.,C'1 fh1b ~f- S,..Jo.. (p..,A
KaJ z. ~ ~~ fJ IJ. 't.r.o/c. Dr
~ CI Efrt.'SIr=:.. t!!o{(cMA~/5c'r1/t6H~r. 5uM~RPA/..E PA -
I ' ,
tc:..k S), I' 3).. ~
U.. et~ '2..8""lLl ~t>v ,G:l-J ..
LII-i-t <: ~(d c )"] f J ttM~ j;- (J tr
~'M~ ,3i ,..~~, / c;,HP-o-
t:2~u. ~.s- ~3&7 b{G, ~ '~TA. Dr.
. ___. -t-:.JL:....1.!//fcJIz . ~ f2:Jc.c.~ t/~i?.<.....J),I'.
I Aflr,/J.,fA rnn"''''f~ €?06 6$t.L-N tjis?~. D,/<
~, /~ :c ~~.l-{ 8elti (h~l). 1)7-'--
J 1;Y I e.c: fe f- 01'C?
C:l .
.._ /~/C...<~c.c._/!1..5-'4..&.,,~- ,___/g, '-_ _.4(t7~JL-5r ._5~~_~_.1..Lt....(,..__ -.
__ L' f'" /1!1+/C'r.t.Q1N...e_-.u _.'3 r~l aildurS/'1-,: ;;: ,11:/1
} r~' 0 ~~~_ ..-- -~ _G/~'~'I .~~ C91- (>-4
..... _ 'Qt~ u ~~ftrd'~~ ~;'H,!C fe,
Gu....-..A- t7~... - .fS~ 'tt{+r..~ ~ e.. ~l- ..:.k<<.
~-t. L70---,-: f ~ (, ~ ~~ I:;.i '. &;"Y' IJw.:..
~ -....!O- (~.L.I..-- C1 ~ 5" c.-.../- ,,.(. /..;"t, (:... ... ~
_ J 7'.1' r
I,t"U:/,J (.'A.(o..'u:U> 5-1" Crrt.'--{ t" eft
l 1 ., ?)t: -
, f. . -....- .
",' I) 'Qe
'-
q/s/(~~
5<Jl,I;(~(.s.'H .,
,j
, -. #
1.1." /. I ~\1
800 Block of
o<d Ge1n Pd ~
Erford, East Pennsboro
Twp,
..
I~Ocrvr;
As residents of the
Pennsylvania, we object to any construction on the wooded lot
owned by Mr. Umesh Dash.on Erford Road.
, .
We are concerned about the additional traffic this project
bring to an already narrow and busy street. We don't believe
emergency vehicles would be able to adequately service the area.
removal for the proposed structures is also a major concern.
Once the bunker is disturbed, we have a concern about the
erosion factor, If the soil is to be tested, we request that the
testing be done by an independent contractor and not one which is
in any way affiliated with Mr. Dash.
The property has been ill-kept in the last 16 years that it
has been owned by Mr. Dash. Routine maintenance, such as lawn
mowing and snow removal have been neglected in addition to not
having downed trees removed, We fear that the proposed complex
be maintained in a similar manner,
!tAME ADDRESS
r~ ,f/-c'S4.,.,.,f. LtFt5Ef2... ~5f 8R~O Rd.
I. CLi"~ J€....~G,~\ d...~5 G(<alA,^ ~~,C1u.,\~~\\ 110\~
(iA.'t.r~J4.<~ ./.!'l.f7~,I!?o C7,.)lI..tV /'hi/
~ C;~c =,,'Jlt. ~~A' ~,,~~~./~cJ"'/
, ~ ~~ 23-:> .~..^ ~J C""f ~\}a l;tll
_../\~~ '1')~ L 37 C J Co".. R J ~,}.ktt f,. I 7~' I '
,c~_~ D..:~ ~<, c::>"-- ~<-\.' "
~ ,,'.. '" d~ 24<1 GI..~~'~ C~...() ~\\..\.."YA, \lC\\
It\c~'i't...~ .5:tz4Jr- JS~ Gle./\f\"Rd C~f tt. tt IrA )lLi
. ~ , ,... _ : 't:- ,.j
f'....-..~.... "".'h."".J " ..._4'..::'. -
NAME
Q~~~
; ~~v~~
:~(a.~
, ~~ Ctt/lJlllNUA.
. .//tt:-/~,I' -:ti -.L
. .,/ _ ./c...- ~?./
I.
,/ I ;: "'-'-
I. .
. il. ./,
-2-
ADDRESS
~OCf~ ~
::;.~ JJ.~ t:f9L.",
;J ~o GfIu,./X.J t:ci
Jl3 ~U'MJ i?d.
r:: //' .--
y, ,- . t'
I I ~ b I ,A. 0 .-,
-..; - '.' . .!..a.
I . ~ ,: ~
. '.! I
i f~ ~4JJ!Je/0
! (ju~ f!uu
. Jj
1\ ( Cv~
J .r! 1
.~Qi ;::'k~~ ~~~t,t:
,:J{lj ~/~ , I
G,^\OW1J C '/ J.~.~~
-;J~~4 ~~,
_"> 1.1/ Wvt.. }i:J &/e,.o1 III
/--
.~..t ~1.
I/') . ._,., ;ll(; Gleu.. Ifd
:::'...x.L'-Y;t5t.x. t~i' .,;1..3;). 6((1(1" Rc4<l,
. _ ~~ '~l..~~z;:.. 2..3}.. Cferlf) ~A.d
~Lt[r~~~~ f'3~i 6J:ruli?cf
\:;-,......__ '. ~~:~~'_ ~ .f ~r If.- ,..-~.F:.Ji?:;r
~31 B~~
j5t, ~ et
f~fI brf.,.d I!. 0
'8 s-6 f v S;fJ (II
g5{p ~~cL Rd.
JJ.. I UtJ.,+vr kJ
0..11 ~Ti~ Rt.
) :1" ()'{......, t'L
-.,
Ce-f fI:te. /? 0 /;:
. //33
~ .;-;,.1-.....1...;)
/ 'f(,;'t..J..#~/V-tvuv,
\... . )~..,
r~,
~ JJ." / m- /lOt!
C I4:rr<fJ ttz::<..c.. 6? It 170 1/
/ ';: ...,...,/' ,
...... .7.... .-"'" ..., :'-.
1
, I .
(JwJ.J)// M/7",
{!M~tku,lll / 7( I;
f&Jr;:; 1/.1/.111. /101 I
(0.-1/ H.II rq 17M I
,Ii . I
L'arAjlIld!.J fA Ifall
(i-', . . P A .' I 0 i'
CIJI>J; I1dl ffl /10 II
G-..... O.#{I; /to //D,./
/ /
/""" ."'. ...,
.'" ~..." !1....';' j'
'-- . ,. " ~ --..
. I'
,I I ~
(~ II,/!' ~ /j'C) II
C,.J."'f #.II{ f3 17CII
C~""f 1-/,11; fA- 170"
~ of / .A .":""'
~ 1<. /7,)/
, !
.'- ,. ' "
- ~ ~?I_ '. 'Ii"
.-'
~. ~
1Qrofl D()~M'
1Y~~1]. D~o.l-
~''\u.., :4-~~d'"
Bcr f/r! ~
" .
\' \
"J" , .:-:-)
'- -'. J ,7",/ J"
- , -
....J:h.. 'R ~6"rt.:1ib~
, C/7'
-r.~,' .
~1~~
,~. ,
3A'ti~I?~~- ~
&/..-La .
.~
,
----
,-,
gr2. ErRorcA. Rd.. C~mp~1. (\.
g52E~ R.d. ~Lku" P'A- .
t17C~tJ. ~f b0/~~
B G'"6 EIZ.F/J/l-I R.~J '-,4-""1 J.J.)(/ ft;
85"0 ~.nfJ~ 1U. ~ 1Jj.;J/ 'ilL
7i'YL ~f() ~~dpq_
S~~ S~~.. G.1,kjd/lf[).(
833 ~ ReA, (J~;I;iS l?
0-33 c~^ fJA, c.~ f-I.:JI, R'n
a41. [/t~Oftf) (2.1) [Av-\P l~t.~ t''A
\'
t,
't
, , , I
II.
ffilf EL--ford Rei, Comp J-tu I e'1 .
<l5t~ffi..l~i~Yl~t~Q .
'i 'II ~ /LA Cd.--p/-J.J..I ) Pit
itll ~(t(~/$~
'ii''tl CY'-ro~ 1</ Lpt '7 iI,1/, I"et.-
......
~
JOSEAi H. BONARRIGO
Twp. EnQ.IPN, Oir.
RICHARD L ERNEST
Code nl Zri"Ig Officer
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
September 20, 1996
Mr. Umakant Dash
2890 SlIJISet Drive
Camp Hill PA 17011
... ,,-
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z 3S7 'IS 822
RE: PreliminalylFinal Land Development Plan for
Umakant Dash Property - East PeMSboro Township
Cwnberlanc! County, Pennsylvania
Dear Mr. Dash:
The Board of Commissioners of East Pennsboro Township ("DOC; at its September 17,
1996 meetin& considered the above reference Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan wbich
was prepared by Cawood Engineering, Inc., of 3907 Hartzda1e Drive, Suite 700, Camp Hill, P A.
The said Plan bears the most recent revision date of 1uly 25, 1996 and East Pennsboro Township
received the said Plan on 1uly I, 1996.
The DOC, after receiving public comment concemin& the Plan and considcrina comments
from the Township Planning Commission and Township staffconcemina the Plan voted
unanimously to disapprove the PIm. The Planninll Commission previously considered the Plan
at its meetinll on September S. 1996 and recommended denial of the Plan. The aoc,ln its
motion denying approval of the plan. submitted the follo\ving reasons for its action:
I. Plan docs not comply with Article m. Section 302(I)(e)(2) of the East Pcnnsboro
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Specifically, the aoc deems the Plm
'"to be topovapbiea1ly unsuitable for midential OCC\IPIIlCy... IS [it) may increase danger of
health. life, or property..... Specirlcally the proposed four (4) unit stnlct\ft has I slope to its rear
which has I &fade of '.S foot to 1.0 foot which is : J4 depes from horizontal and the DOC has
&rave conecm for the stabili~ of the slope. Further the proposed width of the '"private street"
does not pro...ide adequate access for emergency ...chicles especially when pukina of prhate
nhicles is allowed on both sida of the printe strUt. Additionally, the stabilim! rock
embankment sbo"'l\ in the flood boundary and flOOlS easement areas along the lOuthern shore of
U-~ tributary east offh( propoSf.l1 00\ cuhcn ",ill lCquire a pctmit from DEP:c allow
construe' ion in the flOOlS arc;u,
98 Slu." Encla cr.e . Erola PA 11025.2796 · ('1'\ 732.0'11
~
..-..
,
Letter. Dash
September 20, 1996
Page 2
2, The Plan does not state the vertical datum to which elevations are referenced
which is violation of Chapter 22, Part I, Section J02,l g.
J, The street is not shown to be constructed according to Township Standards and
Specification which is in violation of Section 602 of the said Ordinance,
4. The Plan does not show the location of a water line and fire hydrant proximately
located to the site to provide fire protection which is in violation of Chapter 22, Part I, Section
JOJ,2.C.
5. The Plan is in violation of Anicle V, Section 501 because the site contains an
open ravine in which you propose to construct a box culvert which construction is Khazardous to
life or property... and the hazards have not been eliminated by the provision reflected in the Plan.
The specific hazards are that the constnJction of the proposed box culvert will increase the flood
elevation on the five (5) neighboring properties at 848 . 856 Erford Road by approximately two
(2) feet.
6, Further, you have not provided review comments from the Cumberland County
Conversation District regarding an Erosion and Sedimentation Plan as required by Chapter 22,
Pan J, Section 2501.C (Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance)
7. The Plan does not show the existing casement for the existing sanitary sewer line
shown on the Plan (Chapter 22, Pan I, Anicle m, Section J02.1.b)
This written notice of the decision of the BOC is given to you in accordance with Section
J04(4Xa) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Further this notice is forwarded
to you and to your legal counsel, Linus E. Fenic\c, Esq~, via fIrSt class mail, postage prepaid
and by Certified Mail, return receipt requested.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Richard Ernest
Code Enforcement Officer
East Pcnnsboro Township
REIdt
cc: All Commissioners
Robftt t, Oill, To....lI5hip ~tanaaer
Hall} F, Coyne, Esquitt. 5.>licitor
Unus E. Ftniclc. Equirc. Certified ~1.1i1 ~o. P 278 283 31 Q
..........
r"-
r
1'"".
.........
.
tV)
:/
I
I
,
'.
.,
~
e
Cumberllnd County Con..rvlUon DI.trlct
43 Broo~wood Aven"e, SUite 4. Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. Phone (71i) 24H632
ocwt 4W.19(?S6 <o,'c'.> " ..'
J) :!'., " ~. ii... ~ .
. .&. .'. ..
~ ~.i~' .i; :':" .r I:
t' ,'-'-' , .
l.:'" .
.1
:.' OCT (; Il 1996 .j
Bony Oawood
Cawood E~wi~aari~g.
Suite '700
3907 Hart:~ala Cri.a
Camp Hil~. P~ 17011
I:'ic.
rA<C:- '"""~"''':~O'''O
1;.1"\"" I ....0.:.. ....~.,
TOWNS HI?
RE. Ercs;~n and Si~f;fntation C~r.ti:1 P1an. WMAK~Nr O~SH ?RCF~~~(
East Pennsboro Twp., C~mbarland COunty. Pennsylvania
Ciar Mr Oafliovd;
iha ~=NAL p1an ;-;as :i~n i'"!\i~efta.j arlY ;5 NOT ~CEQUATE to .ii~ tl';e
i:quiiameii:S ~f ?:. ':":::i ::. C:"ia~t=i lOZ. E:-~S;un C.:;ntioL
7n. :i~.iisad p~a;,; ::11...5: 1:& iiSj..;cm~t~i': "';~h c:Jri'"ic":icns as ~r'::C.Jtii::
in th. a~~!~~c~ ri~C~~_
T:,a C~itscr"at~cr. ~"3t~;ct Mas :-<iV~i-.a': th~s p1an S~1iY ~: :a:aillline
..hoitZ"h!i ~ t ~s ~~f~ija:i t: sat i Sf, ..~ha i~Ci..iiifm<!iitS \JT 25 ~:.. _C~~i 3s:02.1 at
S.,~,. ':.~e !~'~Si":'ii ':':i"::~~. ri~u~at'ct'is oj':" ":.-:e ::::c;ar':]lant O~ :;'i":;'"~,-~iiita1 '..
O:ss-- ._...~C' :-,. --";3.' .;_... --... ..]1.- -.o;';."".:!l- ...-... 4~S-_. -. --- .-.. ...-. --. lLS-!I2'"'l~S
"l: ...'4' .liI'_. _I .'lr'j,~W ,"" .... ~._:I .... ....,...: ....0:.... .... ..... '\.11 ...,,: ---"~J" .:..."'..
anj j:s:=~s:~'';~j .::- ~~i ';m:~a~a~~!~~~n :~ ~~~ ~~!~ ~i the ::-::i: c~nstruc-
!;~,:n ,r.o: :l:oi:-a:i!jt\ .:~ <:::i fle~~~ti"$ ,::~ta.;;..~ ~;"\ ti"ia p1a~, 7:"'11 :is~vn.
st:."J~t:.;r~ f,iti,~"i":i. 11":': ii"is':!;':at~cn of -:~a c~n":i.j~ maaSi.4riS !:-! t,a
,-"5:0n$ ~e ~ ~ t"-j ~~ ~:-:f ~a;:.:c_n.r !j,c.',:r- a"i"'~~m~'.,'ol!i, Se~.:..t an', ::::s::-;Jction
,:r ur'::"1i1l0'J~nq aC~'..~~'i5 c....in -::'la a~J:-;C:I"'!~a !~~ nacfSsary ~;c.!~. state,
ar.~ f.~';"'i ~ ;4r:;its;"s: ei saC:..ir-!~ ~r-CiD t:':c a-;enci h-!ving S:i':;~~~ p.rlllft-
t~;;o aU'::"i~iit'i'
i=iusa rU\iCillt en. COPi of a~i tl1a :'I.cassar, pians and s..:ecrtlng
MN'ativI and s;:.:;~j;at'cns within 30 ca'/s to continue proclSsi~,~ your
;)14n ,..n1us O~l1f1"..lSf .li:.nc.d by t~. CiSt:-~c-:
..
t'~l.6
\;:t'l~1~~ ........
h,avf an.l~II':~';r.S ~wr.-:t"j';n9 o:l'\is ;;r.Jj.c,,: . p~'lSf
effi,:. 1': :~I .1~C~. 1:,::-t51 It.: ~f<tf::-:.:t. i"\.wmco!r.
;.;-.:*>"'....! .
~".~~~ :.:1-
...9-......: -.s.-..-~""~.
\oot ~.' '_.. ' ..'......,.. ~.
;':-.1": !",";..i': ;II~ :t_~t'!s:..:~: -..~
~~r~1 ll..r~..tJrj, 'Oo)n.:....,lllJrl llorol1ll!l
::"':_~'..W '_:'" :& .f:. : "".,!,," H.~ ~c..!.""'llot<<'t'"
"
/..,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, hereby certify that true copies of the Certification of Land
Use Record have been served upon the bclow-refemlced individuals by sending the same by fust
class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Linus E. Fenic1e, Esquire
Reager & Adler, P.C,
2331 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4642
Dated: .) 3 b Ee 'I b
/"\ .. /, "
.' / ); , ')
,1_ ILl..1,", Cu
MARIE COYNE, uirc
For Appell((
3901 Market Slreet
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737.0464
PI. S. Ct. No, 53788
"
,("
,., "
I
.: ~
I
C/) i
t- u..
Z e!
w III
:i :)
t- :i
a: M
ct N
n. 0
~
ct I
Z E
w
Q 8
a: ...
ct '2
C) en
t- o
.
l- .
..-
~
RICHARD DAYTON
Code end Z"""'ll Officer
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
UMAKANT DASH
2890 SUNSET DR
CAMP HILL PA 17011
August lb. 1993 \ 1 t1.(.L~"l~
..~~ r:.J.l~
/RE: Prel iminary/Final Land l..... IQ
( Development Plan for /
'" Umak~nt Dash Property ~
-'-and Letter of 7/15/93
De.r Mr, Da5h:
This letter is in response to your letter of July 15, 1993
concerning the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Uma~ant
Dash.
Enclosed you "ill find a letter dated May c5, 1993 from your
engineering firm, Da"ood Engineering, Inc. Along with this letter 9
sets of revised plans "ere submitted with a reference to changes that
were made to the plans. The last paragraph of the letter indicates
that you ""ill be forwarding a letter to the Township prior to the
Planning Coemission Meeting with project cost summary and
proiections". I never received a letter from you that gave the
proiect cost and proiections. Although the letter from Daw~od
Engineering doesn't mention. specific Planning Commission Meeting,
the fact that the TownShip only has 90 days from the tiae a plan is
submittpd to us to take formal action, J had to place your item on
the agenda for the July meetings,
As J stated to you in .y letter of July 13, 1993, when I spoke to
Mr. Dawood on or about May 26, 1993, he was requesting th.t thp plans
not be plaCed on the June Planning Commission Agend. bec.use of the
'1,000 escrow. and said he wculd like to have the pl.ns placed on the
agenda for ne~t MOnth's -.eting.
The original plans that were submitted wP'e rl!Cei.ed at the
TownShip Office on April 16, IQ9J. COMplYing with the 90 day ti~
limit MOuld I"~uire the Tcwnship to take form.1 action on the plan~
by July lb. 1~3, unless a letter gr.ntin9 an e.tenslon of I"e.ie"
tl-. was prOvided ta the TownShip. Therefore, the East Pennsbor~
Township 80ard of CO~~ls'la~ers had no chclce but t~ reieet ye~r
olars as submitted.
In addItion, t~e East eer~stcrc TQ.rS~lp Pl~~~I~ to~lsslo~ had
a publIC hearing on ~~u.t ~. IQQ] to (QnSldp- t~p adoctlc~ o' a
-Cen~.rv.tl~~ Dl~tr'ttd .1t~~~ t~~ Towr.,hlO. Thl~ Co~~prv.t1~~
Ol\.tru:\ l~ ..!':tlO"'l.d: 1n '''if tQS9 Ca1"cr."""''''Sl',P Plat'" fOr' E.,~
P.~~~b~ro lo~~~~:~, .~d l~<l~~~~ .r.., Of t~p 1~_~~~10 t~.t ~.v~
98 5out.h E!"de ()ro.,.@ . E!'lOIa. Po\ 17025.2796 . (717)1320711
-
,-.,
Steep Slopes. No decisions were made during this hearing. but at
least one additional hearing will bp. held by the Planning Co..ission.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me
at 732-0711,
Very truly yoU~
If} ~ .L/~IJ~
C~ard Dayton
Code and Zoning Officer
Rol Ju
eCI Township eo..issioners
Robert L. 6ill, Township Manager
Heraan Sgrignoli, Ass't. Township Manager
Henry F. Coyne, Esq" Township Solicitor
Ernest Walker, P.E., Township Engineer
DA5HSU2.DEN/SUBDlV
~
J.Dawoo~
Enginrrring
~nr. /
May 25, 1993
Mr. Richard Dayton
East pennsboro Township
98 S. Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
RE: UMAKANT DASH PROPERTY
ERFORD ROAD, EAST
PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Dear Mr. Dayton,
Enclosed are 9 sets of revised plans for Dr, Umakant
Dash's Property. These plans have been revised in accordance
with comments received from our previous meeting. The
following are revisions made to the plans:
The two (2) parking spaces located in the front setback
have been relocated. One space has been moved closer to
the apartment building and behind the front setback. The
second has been added to the six (6) spaces near the
second two unit apartment building.
A maneuvering area has been added to the end of the
private driveway.
The sanitary sewer line has been relocated on the plans.
The profile on sheet 3 of 3 has also been revised.
A stabilized rock embankment (shown on sheet 2 of 3) has
been added to the area between the proposed private
driveway and the stream, below the proposed box culvert.
Stormwater drainage from the proposed areas will flow
over this stabilized embankment before reaching the
stream. A note has been added to sheet 2 of 3 regarding
the stone size for the embankment. A Stabilized Rock
Embankment Detail has been added to sheet 3 of 3.
In addition, Dr. Dash will be forwarding a letter to the
Township prior to the Planning Commission Meeting with his
project cost summary and projections.
If you have any questions or require any additional
information, please call.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sincerely,
~ 0, ~f-~
Ca~t(y 0 _ K..ney
DANOOD IK01"IRllIO,
lKe, - "
.~, ...
cc: Dr. Umakant Dash
. t j
...;.J
....."
..'
. .-
3907HJrt.:\1,jlt'Dr",'~.5\."t' ;Ci).C.1ro'P~";: p,~ 17011.,717i9~S.S872'F.1' 717 97S.8873
- ------ ~ r'\~
!J/ttWQQ~
Eng;nrrring
~nr.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
COMPANY:
DATE: "-Z'-'l~
JOB NO.: 'Z.~o7'_
ATTN: ~D ~N'51:, ("oj)~i 20N/t-lG> oFF/CEe.
, ,
JOB NAME: ~ DAsH PRo"Gtrt
.
NO. OF' NO. OF' SHEET
PRINTS COPIES NO.5
O'SEn
1
'3
DESCRIPTION
J 'to 3of'''3
OjJ)6- YD AuJ..ICS N l)
COI/~ ~ 1r::.
CH-~$ fo~ S1.(8I111~/I/tI F€€ lING/AIDER I c:;..
~ C/.f1lt8. CO tJ~ t:.61f1 . /,/./Uf",1.. 51J1IR~
6~~O.
~/I IC:Hr3 1'\(1.... ',:h("d..,~ ..h..b.......rt~^ .~~(J,....;
-.. - ~ " J:.." L __
-",,~. ,\tf.,f t ,jUr,!", - ()~J ,,' I'tp.UGrn....~
COMMENT:
E.", (cPt..
,
COpy TO:
SIGNED pXl ~ 7d
3907 Hattzdale Drive. Suite 700. Camp Hal, PA 17011
Phone: (717)975-8872, Fax: (711)975-8873
'4.!\fO"''''i~
,.._ ..'1 ......
S~..l...~ 11.1 :CO
l
"is
-.-
-
.,)X .: ,xc :-),;.:
,_c..... 1.~:...:.::L__:~__-
.":.x ~oc
--
\ '
, ~_. l_~ ;T---- __
.......,.~~- ---:;;....
k.'C "u:
~')."'C (:t.
.. --
,~o-.. 't:.f
'';''-.--- -'I;!
:C-'''':...~ :"...~~..~.. ::
~..c~ :t:c~.: .n...:..... :.:....'*:,.; iJ;')
!"",$ ...;1 ~~YJtt...n ft-.. ,....~'''.. ...\02 .\C:\,.tu,:" $'!'..,';Al:5
FOR ~! IV \,; 5 \iIO~OC:C"'... S",A...'I'f
Cl"~(~. CClC':.CC t...J:S :11 ~IS~C", \,~~,~.~\,.\ :::t~
-I. ~l:'1I :I~;_~ r:'C~_,.a."""~ '\U."1 l.'~ s"vac.,,-i! 4."1.,.10.1:..' ;..., aE.::'t..fi'"
.4."'0' ''l.
.
\..... -...,:...
~
HYDROLOGIC " HYDRAULIC RBPORT
PAGB 2
in 1990, We have met with Mr, Dennis Sturn and Mr. Orlando
Dizo to review the current requirements for his property.
They have informed us that we should use their current GC-7,
General Permit for this application. The GC-7 permit has
been submitted to DER and a confirmation of this permit will
be forwarded to the township upon receipt.
STORMHATBR MAHAGBMEHT
Due to the large upstream watershed that contributes to
the existing tributary, we have requested a waiver of
stormwater management requirements for this project. The
time of concentration for the upland watershed to this site
will be 36.40 minutes. The hydro graph for this area will
generate a peak flow of 480 cfs in the main channel.
The flow increase from the project area based on the
rational formula (due to the small area) will be increased
from a pre-developed rate of 1.92 cfs to 2.54 cfs. The time
of concentration for this subarea will range from 3.4 to
5 minutes.
Due to the limited increase in flow from this site, location
of the site in relation to the tributary, and time of
concentration difference of the project subarea with
relation to the overall drainage area, the project will
not have an impact to receiving channel. In addition,
detention facilities mar have a greater detrimental effect
on the receiving channe due to the delayed release of
runoff.
Attached at the end of this report is the pre and post
drainage calculations for the property. In addition, we have
attached a TR-55 time of concentration analysis for your
review.
InDROLOGl'
We have used the SCS Technical Release 55 (TR-55) to
determine the hydrology for the watershed that contribute.
to the existing tributary. The drainage ar.a contributing to
the tributary is 135 acr.s. Th. 100 y.ar flow rat. u.ed for
the post development flood plain study and box culvert de.ign
is 481 cfs. Th. attach.d r.port contains the nec....ry
information on the curv. nos. and time of concentration.
"
~
c
I"'.
UMAXANT DASH PROPERTY
PROJECT
The proposed project involves the construction of eight (6)
apartment/townshouse units at the end of Erford Road, One
building consisting of two residential units will be
constructed on the north side of the property and two
buildings consisting of two residential units and four
units will be constructed across the tributary on the
southern part of the property. A culvert crossing will be
constructed to provide parking and access to the units across
the stream from Erford Road.
The following information has been compiled for your review:
1, Hydrologic Analysis for Culvert Design and
100 year flood elevation analysis.
2. 100 year flood plain analrsis for the proposed
cressing and impact to up and property.
3. Culvert Design
4. Stormwater Management
EXISTI.C/PROPOSED USE
The proposed use of the area will be residential and
consistent with applicable zoning requirements.
PU-DBVBLl)PED DRAI.ACE COWITIOHS
The existing site consists of moderate to steep slopes
adjacent to a tributary of the Conodoguinet Creek. The slopes
in these areas are S to 4S ,. There is no existing defined
channel or swale from the proposed development area to the
tributary. The existing drainage consists of sheet flow into
the tributary from both sides which ultimately conveys the
stormwater to the Conodoquinet Creek. The existing tributary
traverses through the proposed development. It is trapezoidal
shaped in cross section, 12 feet wide at the base and
apprOXimately 2.5 feet deep.
DIlPAA'l'MIIlT or DVlJlOllMlJITAL USOUJtC&S
Hr. Dash had received a waiver of any wetland crossing permit
from the property in March of 1988. A copy is attached for
your review. The Department of Environmental Re.ource.
Guideline. concerning this type of cro.sing has been revised
~ --~
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
POlt OfficI BOil 2357
Hlrrlsburg, Penn.ylvlnlo 17120
March 17, 1988
Burlau 01 Dims and Wlterway Managlment
717-783-9726
Dr. Umakant Dash
2890 Sunset Drive
Camp HlIl, PA 17011
ROl DER File No. WL2188102
Dear Dr. Duh:
this Is In reference to your plan to construct and maintain a 48-Inch culvert In the
channel of a TrIbutary to the Conodoaulnet Creek at a poInt approximately 100 feet upstream of
Its mouth In East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County.
In accordance with the provisIons of SectIon" of the Darn Safety and Encroachments
Act, the Act of November 26, 1971, P,L, 137', No. 325 (as amended by Act 70), the proposed
structures and/or activity Is regulated by thIs Act.
However, based on the plans and data submitted, the requirements for a permit are
waived In accordance with Section 7(a) of the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and the provi-
sions of Section 105.12, paragraph (aX2) of Chapter 10' Rules and Regulations, Dam Safety and
Waterway Management.
It wl11 be required that you secure all other approvals that may be necessary under
other federal, state or local relulatlons and meet the construction, operation, m;llntenance or
other requirements of Chapter 10' to Include the following:
I.
This waiver of permIt does not give any property rlghU, either In real
estate or material, nor any exclusive privileges. nor shaU It be con-
strued to srant or confer any right, title, easement, or Interest, in,
to, or over any land belonslns to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
neither does It authorize any Injury to private property or invasIon of
private rlahtl, nor any InfrInsement of Pederal, State, or localla.s
01" reculatlonl nor does It obviate the necessIty of obtainlns Federal
assent when neceuary.
The Pennsylvania Fish CommIsslon's Southcentral ReSlonal OUiee.
R.D, II, Bola'l, Newville, PA 172'1, Telephone 717-"'-7017,
shall 1M contacted and advised as to when the work wUI b, done,
Proper erosion and sedlmentatlon control measures shall be instituted
durlna and after construction, and approval of the adequacy of t!'lese
measures shall be obtained from the Cumberland County Conser-
...tlon Dlttrict.1 t) &roolc'.ood ^venue. Suite _. Carlisle. P.\ 110U.
Telephone 717.2".&6)2.
2.
J.
('
(
~
r-.
Dr. Umakant Dash
.2.
March 17, 1988
4, Ac.t.l4...of the Pennsylvania Legislature requires that wrlUen notls:~
be given to the munlclpllIty(les) and county(les) In which the ac..t.1vl-
ties are proposed at least 30 clays prior to starting conili'Uctlon. The
written notice should be sent to each munlcJpallty and countY by
certified mall, return receipt requested, ^ copy of this notice Ilong
with the returned receipt should be kept on file along with thb letter.
Piles shall be properly maintained and available for inspection by
authorized employees of tl\!: PeMsylvanla Department of Environ-
mental Resources.
Sincerely,
CJ~?:. it=:.
Demls E. Sturn
Hydraulic Enalneer
Southcentral Area OffIce
Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management
ca Southcentral Regional Office, PIsh CommIssIon
COMeI'vation DIstrict
rOI JOI: 911079 - DAn ( , --
,
CALCULAtlD 01 01-02-1991 At 01:5\,.. II
IDElTlrlED lS: ",U:4"';~~1t'O'.
mElEm COVEl DESCIIPtlOI SOU ICE SOIL 'CW' UIA AlIA PlODuct or PlODUCt OP
~ulm ItYPE, tIEATIENT, , CORDITIONI TULE GROUP Ami m!Sl CN r ACRES CN r MILES'
001 URIAN, CO""EICIAL H. I 9~ UO 0.009 III ,600 o.lH
DOl URIAN. COIMEIC[AL H. C 91 U,6U Q.tlol Illi,UJ \,90 I
00] UIIAI. COMMEICIAL H. D 95 Il.6U 0.011 1102.000 1.J2l
m IESIDENtlAL. 1/& ACIE H. I a5 0,90 0.001 Ji,m O.UO
006 IESIDENTIAL. 1/1 ICIE H. C 90 1.50 0.00: m.m Ull
OJl IESIDEItIIL. 1/lICl! 2-2. D U l.i0 0,006 m.m 0,511
009 IESIDEltlAL. 1/4 ICIE 2-2. I 15 IUO 0,011 2295.000 I.Sh
010 1IIIDE.tIAL. 1/4 ICIE H. C 11 2l.l0 0.011 1915,400 I,m
HI IESIOEITIAL. 1/4 ACRE 2-2. D 11 1J,6U 0,021 111),200 1.1l9
115,00 0,211 11111,100 lI,110
mmE meRTED cum Iuml: Il
sron I IUIOrp Q
EVENT II /11 ums
25 '!AI 5,00 1.541
50 TEAl "'0 I,m
100 YEU 1.80 5.151
SCS TI-IS TelTt CALCULATOI
POI JOB: 911019 - DASB
CALCULATED 01 Ol-01'199l AT OI:DI:lO PK
IDENTIPIED AS: DASH PIOPEITY IE-CALCULATIOIS
,Mm 111: SHEET FWW
,EGKEIT SUIPACE DESCIIPTIOI: DEISE GlASS
SEGKENT FLOW LEIGTH. PT: II~.OO
l YEAI 11 HOUI IlIIPALL. IICHES: J.OO
SEGKEIT Ill: SHALLOI COICEITIATED PLOW
SEGKEIT sumCE DESCIlPTIOI: UlPAVED
SECKEIT PLOI LIICTB. PT: JOOO.OO
SECKElT sumCE SLOP!. PT/PT: 0.040
SEemT IJl: CBUm PWW
SECKEJT SUI PACE DESCIIPTIOI: IAIE tllTB
SECKEIT PLOW LEICTH. fT: 1100,00
lICIT SIDI SLOPl. _I/IV: 0,000
CIAIIEL 10TTOK IIDtI. PT: 11,00
TOTAL Te/Tt: J6.10 BIIUTES 01 O,iOl lOUIS
SCS Tt.Sj 'IAPBleIL PElI OISClll.E
pel JOI: 911019 - DASB
COKPUTED 01 OJ-0:-199J AT 01:01:01 PH
IDElTIPIED AS: OASI PIO'IITY Il.CALCULATIOIS
DISTIIIUTIOI TY'l: II
(
r"
Te/Tt: 11,JJJ KIIUTES 01 ~,119 HOUIS
K1IIIIG'S 10UGHIESS COEPPICIENT: 0.113
SECKEIT SUIF1CE SLOPE. PT/fT: O.OlO
Te/Tt: IS.19S KIIUTES 01 0,111 BOUIS
Te/Tt: l.l14 muTES 01 o,m HOUas
IAIIIIG'S 10UGBIBSS COEF'ICIElT: '.Oll
SEGKEIT sumCB SLOPE. PTJPt: 0.014
LEFT SIOl SLOPB. .I/IV: '.000
CI11IlL DEPT!. PT: 1.00
TOTlL ll!l: IJ!.OO lCI!S 01 0,111 liLES'
pemD 01 sum U!l: 1.00 lms 01 0,10] IiLW
TIBE OF COICIITI1TIOI. BIIUTts: OOJi,lO
IUlGPF CUIIB IUBIEI: 11
STOll mC!PlTlTlOI IUIOPP Q h hIP q. Pp PEU DlSCIllGl
Pl!OU!lCY 11111 crs CSK I II lCU PT CfS
11 Y&1I I,~O J.St) I.m o..,~ lJi,\4 0,110 l:Uli
S~ YUI 0,00 ~.S~~ I.m o.m m.H UH m.J~1
100 !tu ;.o~ I.ll! t.m O,QU 47l,H o.m nuu
(
(
r\
DASH PROPERTY
SECTION 2 CALCULATIONS
2.50
44.00
46.00
0.03
0.050 FT/FT
0.96
1.49/N *RH"2/3 * S"1/2
10.78
Q · DISCHARGE · V * A
DEPTH-
A-
WP -
N -
S -
RH - A/WP -
v - VELOCITY -
474.39
300 - -- -".. --- _"....... __,. __ ____..... _.. _ __
I · . t t I ------...----..-.;.
~ ---....--__...._ ... I, f t
I I I --- ----..----..----..----...____....
.. I.,..
I .. --r----,....----...----...----...----..----...-___~-..:
. . I I .
~-- -~----~----"'----"'----"----"'----"'---h'-~
...---_ · I . I f I
I t ----~----..----~----...----...-___...___ ~_~
"'-DIt 'I. t I
~...----..____....____....____...-___..-__ .. '.. I,
I . I .. ---- ----..--4
...____....____... I , $"0.. I . I . I
I I I '''77.' Jr":':f%J.. - ..-..-..
....----...____...___ ....__. , l: .',' /,..-1. '//.t . I
I I l,/S' I --I i "r ~7 --.
...----....---_...___ ...____...._ ;J ... I/J . I I
tit l I // ...----1-----...-..
lJ.'~".,n~ _r>fI ....---..--..-....---..___ .. 'I I I
~.u. ~y fl. . ... ---- --...----...----...--4
380.00 I ,,.,,, I I I
VI
'"
G!
0+00
0+40
0.+110
SECTION 2
(
DASH PROPERTY SECTION 3 CALCULATIONS
DEPTH- 2,50 FT
A - 32.50 SF
WP - 18.42 FT
N - 0.03
8 - 0.050 FT/FT
RH- A/WP - 1.76
V - VELOCITY - 1.49/N *RHA2/3 * 8A1/2
16,22
Q - DISCHARGE - V * A
527.02
,.-...
J90~:::[::::[::::[::::[::::[::::[::::[::::[::::~' ~
, . . , I I I . . ,
~ ---~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~--- ~
. , , , . I . I . I I
~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~~
, . I , I I I , I ..
~-- -~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~-- -~~
. I . I I , I , I I I
385~--- ~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~- --~~
. ., f I I It' t
~.--- ----~----~----~----~----~----~----~ ---~~
. . . . It' I'..,' · I
~----~- ----~----~---- ---- ----~~
, I I ,'7;17, I I I
~____~____~____~____~____~____ tf~ ~-;--~~
, , I I I I I' //", / ... S 'I
~____~____~____~____~____~____~ ~? r - ~----~~
DATtIII ELEV I I I I I I ", .. · "
380.00
0+00
0+40
SECTION 3
~
~..'
.
0+80
.
I ""' ( 3
,.-..
CURRENT DATE CURRENT TIME FILE NAME FILE DATE
03-03-1993 09:15:15 DASH2 3/3/93
U~lfURN fLOI\' RATING CURVE FOR DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL
FLOW W.S.E. FROUDE VEL, SHEAR
(CFS) (FT) NO, (FPS) (PSF)
0.00 1.20 0.000 0.00 0.00
48.10 2,33 1. 353 5.80 1.04
96.20 2.64 1. 427 7.31 1.47
144.30 2,88 1.471 8.34 1.79
192.40 3.09 1. 502 9.13 2.05
240.50 3,27 1. 521 9.61 2.22
288.60 3.43 1. 534 9.86 2,31
336.70 3.56 1.544 10,09 2.39
384.80 3,68 1. 554 10.30 2.46
396.00 3.70 1. 556 10.35 2.48
481. 00 3.89 1.571 10.69 2.61
SELECTED OVERTOPPING CREST
ROADWAY SURFACE:
EMBA~KHENT TOP WIDTH (FT):
CONST~~T ROADWAY ELEVATION PROFILE
PAVED
28.00
CREST LENGTH (FT)
OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION (FT)
35.00
392.00
~
09:15:15
("
DASH3
3/3/93
(
,
'"'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF CULVERT FLOWS (CFS) FILE: DASH3 DATE: 3/2193
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEV 1FT) TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 OVERTOP ITER
383.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
383.97 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
384.57 96 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
385.10 144 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
385.57 193 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
386.01 241 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
386.41 389 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
386.79 337 337 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
387.15 385 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
387.24 396 396 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
387.111 40.1 481 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s
o
(cfsl
o
48
96
IH
192
241
289
337
385
396
481
HWE
( ftl
383.00
383.97
38,1. 57
385.10
385,57
386.01
386.41
386.79
387.15
387.24
387.87
CURRENT TIME
09:r'15
TWE
( ftl
1.20
2.33
2.64
2.88
3.09
3.27
3,43
3,56
3.68
3.70
3.89
FILE DATE
J/CQ3 ~.
CU~VERT . 1 PERFORMANCE CURVE
FOR 1 BARREL(S)
OCH CCE
(ftl (ft)
-1.10 0.00
0.06 0.00
0.74 0.00
1. 32 0.00
1.83 0.00
2.30 0.00
2.73 0.00
3.15 0.00
3.55 0,00
3.64 0.00
4.29 0.00
ICH
(ft)
0,00
0.97
1.57
2.10
2,57
3.01
3.41
3.79
4.15
4.24
4.87
FCE
(f tl
383.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TCE
(ft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
VO
(fps)
0.0-
8.61
10.6'
11.6',
12.3',1
12.9(.
13.4ti
13.9h
14.31:.
14 .4t,
15.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E1. inlet face invert 383.00 ft E1. outlet invert 381,90 ft
E1. inlet throat invert 0.00 ft E1, inlet crest 0.00 ft
SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS
FILE: DASH2
DATE: 3/2/93
HEAD HEAD TOTAL FLOW \ FLOW
ELEV(FT) ERROR(FTI FLOW(CFS) ERROR(CFS) ERROR
383.00 0,00 0 0 0.00
383.97 0.00 48 0 0.00
384.57 0.00 96 0 0.00
385.10 0.00 14-1 0 0.00
385,57 0.00 192 0 0.00
386.01 0.00 241 0 0.00
386.41 0,00 289 0 0.00
386.79 0.00 337 0 0.00
387.15 0.00 385 0 0.00'
387.24 0,00 396 0 0.00
387.87 0.00 481 0 0.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------_.
(
r--.
(
........
S'rORMWA!BR MlUIAGBMBHT MALtSIS
RA!IORAL MBDOD
'rotal Area
Impervious Area
Pervious Area
. 1.19 Acres
. 0.19 Acres
. 1.00 Acres
PRE- DEVELOPED FLOW
C · 0.3
I · 5.4 Inches (10 Year 24-hour)
A . 1.19 Acres
Q . CIA
Q . 0.3 * 5.4 * 1.19
· 1.92 CFS
POST DEVELOPED FLOW
A - 1.00 Acre.
A - 0.19 Acre.
I - 5.4 Inches
C · 0.3
C · 0.19
(10 Year 24- hour)
Q · CIA
Q . 0.3 * 5.4 * 1.00 + 0.9 * 5.4 * 0.19
. 1.62 + 0.92
. 2.54 as
r--.
o
~)
".'
~
v
r--
EAST PENNSORO TOWNSHIP
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meetlng--....-..-----------------....----------------July II, 1996
The regular monthly meeting of the East Pennsboro Township
Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 11, 1996 In
the Township Community and Municipal Center, 98 S. Enola Drive, Enola,
Pennsylvania,
Those present were: Joseph Stine; Chairman; Brian Buchholz, Vice
Chairman; Marge Beaner; Meade Aungst; and Jim Richardson. ...oers of
the Commission; RIchard Ernest, Code & Zoning Officer; John
Pietropaoll, Ass't. Code & Zoning Officer; Lisa M. Coyne, Esq.,
Township Solicitor; and a list of others (attached).
The aeeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mr. Stine.
MINUTES: Mrs, Beaner made the .otion to approve the minutes of
the May 2, 1996 meeting. Mr. Richardson seconded the Illltlon, and
it carried with a maiorlty of aye votes, with Mr. Buchholz and Mr.
Aungst abstaining,
MINUTES: Mr. Buchholz made the .ution to approve the minutes of
the June 6, 1996 meeting. Mrs. Beaner seconded the .otion, And it
carried with A mAjority of aye votes, with Mr, RichArdson And Mr.
Stine AbstAining,
The first order of business was Conditional Use Permit Request
C-I09 for FAith A. Trinkl to provide cleriCAl services from her
home At 913 MAPlewood LAne, Enola. The property is zoned
ReSidentiAl Single FAmily (R-I),
MrS. Trinkl explAined her piAn to pick up And deliver the
customer's word processing, invoicing. mass ..lllng, etc., eliminating
customer trAffic to the home. No outside employees would be hired.
Off-street pArking 15 provided In the drive.AY And garage, The
APpliCAtion wAS corrected to shOw lot coverAge AS 21X building And 70X
green. No neighbors were present for or Against the propOSAl.
~TIONI Mr, R:chArdson .aee the .otian thAt Cancltlanal Use
Permit Request C-109 for Faith A. Trinkl to provide cleriCAl
servIces from her home be fQr~arded to the Board of COMMissioners
WIth a rece-.eOCatian of approval. Mr. Aungst seconced the
.otlon, a~ It carried unanl~usly,
,.
T~e SKone order O' busines, was tne FI~.l S~bjlvi'lO~ PlanAl.l~1
~.e' fer :~e ~.e.'t~~t o' ~~-l:~lt~...
~l~.e C~l.~~o~.t t.o~rt..~~ ~f ~.~.r~l S.'vi:.', .t=t.:~.: t~.
pl.~ t~ $...t)d~d:. t,... Q"~\.irc .f't: ...11 t:". "C~t;. Wlt-.. :.2'':'''',\..41
r.'i=.~C.. l~. W'I~~rl:lt .~~ ~,~~. CO~~l~~lO~ ~.~ 'ti;~l.t.e t~.t
I
~
the facade of the house be maintained. The ~roperty was formerly ~aned
residential, and Mr. Colegrove said the State would like the newly
farmed lot to be residential, with the remainder of the property
maintaining the Industrial Park Zoning. ~
......
v'"
There was discussion about the age of the house, about further
subdivision of the ground, and staff~ were discussed. Department
Secretary Kirk R. Wilson would sign for the Department of General
Services. Mr. Colegrove noted that the house would need to be
connected to the public sewer and water services on First Street.
Lisa Coyne, Esq. advised that a formal request from the property
owner would be needed far the rezoning, and that a public hearing would
be required, Rezoning would not be required prior to approval of the
subdivision. Mr. Ernest noted that the zoning and use of a property Is
shawn on most subdivision plans, and that the proposed use of this
property is clearly not permitted in the present zoning. Ms. Coyne
said the Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend rezoning to the
Board of Camalssloners, and the Commonwealth could approach the Board
later about It, or the Board could set the plan aside until the
re:aning issue is resolved.
~TION: Mr. Buchholz made the motion that the Final Subdivision
Plan of 2,2357 Acres far the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture, received in the Township office July I, 199b, be
forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with a recommendation of
approval, subject to iMplementing staff review comments, pending
receipt of Cumberland County Planning Commission comments, and
recommending that the Ba.rd of Commissioners consider re~aning the
property to residential use upon the request of the owner, Mrs,
Beaner seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
The third order of business was the PreliminaryfFinal Land
DevelopMent Plan far Umakant Dash Property.
Mr, Dash and ~. Bony Dawaad of Dawaad Engineering were present,
Mr. Cawood mentioned t~at a similar plan had been submittea several
years ago to t~e T~w~shlp. Three builal~g5. 2 duple. a~a one four.pl..
unit are p.opa..d. ... "aua t',e sqnl#lcant topagraaP'lic c~ang.s on the
eraoerty. A str..m cr05si~q permit had b.en obtainea fro~ the
Department of Environmental Resources !~cw OE?I In 1968 or 1989, then
again in 1994, Staff caements will be addressed an the plan prior to
Its submiSSIon to tP'le !aaro of CommiSSioners. Mr. CaWOOd noted
creviaus concerns .It~ the g'adln~ of the property hac be:ng addressed
~" ~r-. D.,~ ""'.., ". 1M! "lth . cCf'lt"'.cto'" .nd .,.. .,,:,..,..,tl:" c:~.nv to
d'5:~n oullol.9' to '~lt the Site,
...,... Stir. .,:'.'j 1~ ......., Ii!"';!;) ~~1.1 t.~":, ....... de"'.".. :!.... 1:2 t"'. 10
C~~i c~~co'.d. ~r. t.ACC~ ..cl.l~.a ~~.~ ~r. o.,~ 1$ . ~.~t.~~~lCI:
._~\~... ~, C~:t.,,~~~. ..C t-~t ~. w~_11 S~ t.~~ b:~~~~' C~~~~ to
c~~~t#~ct\:~; ~:-.~.r, ~. .~~t~~ to t~ c~~t~~~ t~.~ t~. ::.~ .~,
.:C~~~.d e.fc'. ~:i~~ t) t~~~ ..r.~'r.
A
,-.
Mr. Dawood indicated that parking for the unit closest to Erford
Road would need to be located to the other side of the stream because
of the required front setback. He said the plan had been submitted to
Wormleysburg Borough but that comments had not yet been received.
Mr. Buchholz made a general comment about the topography of the
proposed building site, He had observed a tree, two to three feet in
diameter, growning where the four unit building is proposed. In his
opinion, the proposed development is not well suited to the site, and
he felt a better use would be a Township park. because of the pristine
na~ure of the area. Mrs. Beaner agreed.
The following comments were received from neighbors:
Linda Leiser, B54 Erford Road, questioned Mr. Dash about the lack
of maintenance of the site whiCh he has owned for Ib years. She said
the adjacent neighbor, Mr, Case, had always mowed the grass, and that
the property had not otherwise been maintained. She also noted that B
proposed units could potentially result in Ib additional cars traveling
on the dead end street, and that there is no other way out of the area.
Jim McAlister, 625 Erford Road, asked if another exit should be
provided, perhaps through Wormleysburg.
p.ter Sanden, 233 GI.nn Road, said a dangerous condition already
.xists on Glenn Road with a curve that creates a traffic hazard for
cars, school busses and city busses. He felt that the traffic pattern
on Glenn Road and David Drive should be studied if Mr. Dash's plan was
to be approved.
Terry Case, 6Sb Erford Road, said that he bought his home in the
Erford Road cul-de-sac, knowing that there was no other e.it. The
oth.r dupl.. on the cul-d'''sac at that time was S5S and SbO Erford
Road. He f.lt that on. ~r. unit would comple~nt the neighborhood,
but that a comple. with .ight units or more would cr.ate too much
traffic.
Jim Mass.y, 221 GI,nn Road, was against the proposal, He
..press.d cooc,rn with additional traffic, and was conc.rned that
aOdltlonal units would be built la~er.
I .
I
In discussing d.nsity in the P-2 Z:ne. Mr. Ernest said that 11.5
units per acr. were p.rmltted. Mr. Oas~ owns 3.04 acr.s. which could
p.r~lt a total of 33 unIts.
Mr, Stln, q~.stlc~d wh.t~er fire true_, could serve the units
across th, brldg., anc ~, Ernest said they could drlv, i~ the 29'
r.Q~t.O.-..I. byt Sl;~t ~... to e.c~ c~t.
~ ~~.stl:~ _l' t.t\.~ .b~u~ t~. ~~::~ ~l~ln, .~~ ~r. [.~.S~
.{cl.~~.d t~.~ . ~C~tlC" Cf t~. ~~:c.rt~ t' In th. fi::~ C:il~t
.:~~;_~~ ~c e~ltjt~~' .c~ld t. ,!t~.~.~ ~~.~P.
~
.~
~
Mary McAlister, 825 Erford Rd., reported that 18-wheel trucks
sometimes take Erford Road by mistake, and are unable to turn around
until residents move their cars. Erford Road is narrow and parking is
permitted on both sides of the street.
StevRn Marsh, 827 Erford Road, e.pressed concern that the odor
from the Wastewater Treatment Plant, situated behind his property, may
have resulted from increased development in the area.
Mrs. Leiser said that erosion has taken some
during the 20 years she has lived on Erford Road,
that construction on the hill behind her property
erosion.
of her rear yard
She was concerned
Hould hasten the
At this time, Mr. Ernest and others approached the table to
clarify certain items on the plan to members of the Commission.
The plan Has tabled until the August meeting to alloH further
review by staff and commission members. A copy Has made available for
neighbors to vieH.
!~a !=~i~h i~2~ ~:~ ~isc~:s~::r was the Final Subdivision Plan for
Hickory Ridge, Phase II,
Mike D'Angelo, Mike Manning and Jim D'Angelo Here present, Mike
D'Angelo reviewed staff comments. The drainage easement Has shoHn on
the current plan after the Board of Commissioners questioned its
e.istence, Proof of the easement was found after the preliminary plan
had been submitted to the TOHnship for revieH, Concrete encased pipe
..ill be used. and Hill be shOHn on the plan,
There Has discussion about the e.isting culvert and pipe under
Acr! Meadow Road. Mike D'Angelo presented tHO options: increase the
slz. of pipe under the road if there is space, or calculate flows to
s.e if the inlet opening can b. reduced to create a detention facility
..nich would diSCharge at a rate the existing pipe could handle.
Mr. Aungst ask~ if both options could be i~l~entec, based on
his pe'sonal e'perlence ..ith retention ponds, Mr, O'An~elo couldn't
verify sufficient clearance to install t~e large' pipe. ~ agr..c to
address staff co~nt5 on tne plan before It is reviewRC by the Board
of CQmmiS5i~ner5,
MOTION: ~s, eeaner made tne motion to for.ard tne Final
!~bdlvISlon Plan #or Hickory Rld;e, Phas. II. to t'. eoa'd of
CO\fHftt,..u:""."" ..~t!'\ . r.COfth":..n~.tlen cf .rp'ci.1, .Io;td.~t t~
r.v~.lQ~' b.,.~ c~ ,t.'f co~.~t~. ln p~~tl:ut.~t t~. ,~:~~ -.t.r
Ora,naqR Ol~e. penc'ng C~.c.rland Ccynt, P:.nnlr~ C:~~"'l:n
::"'~."'t't l:."'~t"'q E(I"='~':)~ .....0 S.~t1'l"'ititlC~ Ce"'t,.o! t'L.", .;)C"!Jv.ll;
.~c =.-~:~q . ero .d~4~r f~:~ t~. ,.~~ acCylt '~e~~,,~~~. "f.
At,.J'":"Q't ".:O"'C"C t,!-lt' .(;~l':j"'-. .-C It c.."'r\*d ...~."'~'c\o,li.
1"
, "
;I
-
1,~nl)/?J f lom~ GfYJ,.."issi~:
7/11 f'; (,
I/.tfCY1ct~,)c.'(.-
n:;rn, .: ':{:-{"-u:. / j;;c... ,
~O>1 'Vl\. "'-'040 )'10 7 ~,:-t;J;J i).:jt 7c.. / DeI.
I ,\ \::1.4 (c '1".1': ~ 'I 0 \ u.,.M S- t ~ r-k,lPf If-
~r;fcl CJ/e1~~ )>(#S, ;/NUl! h~?, t;t-
:~~~s:~;~~--- .~~ &~:~~~~~;~I;'~";'
_~all'e.V\ Je.COll -\-1. 5 ~d-1 Qe",/#\ ~d Camp i{;l( v&/')'
/J/lI/.(.Q.. fJ'/hJ;.o/o \)'JlNl~c..~ 0~'fI.)~I ~
IMr +~\.\~ \M,J& ~ lOll.{ ~~}1hJ. ~~'<. {Jt, f/4
__ (tJr ~ ~r.s M..it~w 0 ~\~ ( IOI~ tic-", lod~ L.. ~ I
~A<;~\~ Z'3 ~t\ K'J,)C+t
V7t'"ilc-......;r; t;;J!Jiri.. 1/:1 01'''', ~~~ ;)~.... '--ty bJ~;' ~ y/:;
J ~ ;) )
h;,.~ 11, I~,.'I;-('- fl.J1 hJ"'~"f:i."J_';; 1...; G"J~'.J;;7>>
ctU1Ci.Q~~ _ &J4 &ford Rd..~ l-l;/I, Jpq
-rect.I t!.-tl5e -I &,vE '?~ c-LhL/) U, t!A,nf' U;t.c.-
.5.<:1/ l,-r( SGR- a54 ~({'td Rd ,C1My,./lll pt.
S1t(ah (ei'jef tb""'4 \.fF-Yd Q,d. (jf:"Y~ILi Q~
LJ 'J) ~ ~~o S't.o-w"~-:- 1h:, Ca""f4f.,,/I
-
luawoo.b
Enginrrring
.In/'.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
COMPANY: €Mr PrNJlS&RO lWP.
f11 5. ~tJoi-A D~.
~MoLA Pd- /7oz..s'"
DATE: ,}14't 'V??r,
JOB NO.: 9'z.-~P7[
A TIN: ----.J O'lC~
JOB NAME:
NO. OF' NO. OF' SHEET
PRINTS COPIES NO.S
$'r~ 1".. 3,f;
DESCRIPTION
\
JI'1. t
'- -'
~ ~.Hl-";- Ft; ..
~UmMt:.I' I: It
-If '1#w
CAL.L..
.,,-11'" -,... . ~. - - .. D ~, ~ CJ
In\". ~/v~'k'cJA;it't=I'IIHL... J-t "",a~1 ~,,;;yN L-.
.
,vt!l:O Aftd ft./RTlltrll. INF4R/f'IltTlUlJ, 6/Ve- 1>4, .4
COpy TO:
SIGNED ~~ e. 7;)
3907 Hortzdole Drive, Suite 700. Camp Hill, PA 17011
Phone: (717)975-8872, Fox: (717)975-881.'3
-
,.....
Mr, Richard Ernst
July 25, 1996
Page 2
}2,
13':
..J4.
..1-5,
~6:
.-
y."'-
18':
-19,
~6,
21.
The plans have been revised to show an existing S. waterline at the end of Erfore!
Road.
The curve data table on sheet I of 3 has been revised so that Curve C I shows a length
equal to 90,44',
Appropriate building setbacks have been added to the plans,
The labels for the flood plain easement and flood plain boundary have been corrected
on the plans,
A pennanent trash dumpster has been shown at the end of the private driveway on the
plans.
The driveway profile on sheet 3 of 3 has been extended to show the entire length to
station 2 + 30.
Two c1eanouts have been added to the sewer laterals. The cleanouts have been located
not to allow for more than SO feet between c1eanouts,
The plans have been submitted to the Borough of Wonnleysburg on July 12, 1996 and
are expected to be re\;ewed on July 23, 1996,
An application requesting planning exemption from DEP bas been made previously
submitted to East Pennsboro Township.
The erosion and sedimenwion control plan has been submitted to the Cumberland
County Conservation District for their review,
AttaChed, please find 3 sets of the revised PrelimiDll)'/Final Land Development Plans for
consideration by the township. If there are any other concerns or questions that you may have
repniin& this project, please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
SincerelY,;!
~.. r. t1
tee E. En
DA WOOD ENGINEERING, INC.
,uo~.....t.
'"'"
~
~
~
"::::t... ~ R E-J'E-.,(..l
'?!Ze:~It.J\I'.n..rz.'-{ l'FI~t.L.- ,-c,V'l":> -=-t:-JS'_of-"',~",,"\ P\.L....;) 'FOe.. U.M4\<A.l.>T ~s.f4
~ r..z.~d: -. !....(.I..~
g-e.JL..t..........J " ., t ~\ ; 'l'...
. .'....c.R.J , ~, ,..~'... ~(': ~L,....:.~Q~ o:E...,."q, ,,~.... ,.~ , V_.
I .
~:.;tP; ,~ ==I...r::'~ .
..'. - ......
-. r " L .
r,l.<:...-....' ~ pl~..;.....r ......,..,.,""1,#''''''" 1('1>' ::;.... 'S:''1V.~1..1 c...c--..~-i....1-
" . ~,l_ ,..- ,'.' ~ ,) J'" J
=,...r ~~.~ -~-, -z.~. '~-:., ~./ ''7~'''''..,.L.-' ""S """"t,g....T' ~.(..4'f,..-o:t.5...l...I:
c:...r-..I.- ,..aT- ~.....:\4...d \.. .:..~'-"<. oz..........., Q,\~;c...-+ ,..'.....\..;~ ..;.J...\~ Pr-"f~
\ " '\ i I ~ ~ ~t. ,. c ',' , JI Q'-
\~~ ~u JJO(''''''~''~j .....r...c;~.. ...4-e --0'........., .c...c-..,~ ~ J
"2 1.~~"-4,._ G...fCo-f"'.;.....,--.---K ~,._ ~..........,~.o""':.t... (4c.",J el-;;~
" '\' .
......................1fI\\.~~.
w~. t..c...~.0'7\ JoJ a...
. .
'N',.....~" ~
\ 0.......... ~...0<-4~ -
.Ll. ~.a.....T IKt!!1JT" -
bQrr.nt~r'
~,~
~'":ooA.
-l--ta..
r'M:o\J"\4
...1.,-<:<"-,,
....,.....~ . '"
~ O'""t&-<.. 1:-,t; c-J) ;.c:.v.,..f
. ... .::..0 ,.,..,..,....., :..<.,I' -II, 0 ~
.A. ~,\.L "i. \.4c..c...L
2,.-....' ,.._II..-
r' - t' -..... ~
~rILJ"'/{'
~ J.IJJ.l..I/'1'/9 "''1' f
dJt.LUI,~ &~
tit-I' OT" /-W..f'_ """'
w, ~ ~ "....e..c.H~~
/14"1 ''1c1''"''''f .... ~14V'S1'>-1
Cl ~~ U>Yt~'l(f ..w"~ ~ '3
d~f"r.f '-'<-01,4, ~d ~(~/ ec c.-c".,-r(7?
~.Jy--,,-~ ~ -iu/.
c....c:...;.\~~
c:.A"O ...$ I .., c.., ,
S t:..""''''''M.- ?a:._......I....
r . .
.., '.......r....11 - -...
"- - I .-, I
-Z.,...
. . ~.", . ,.
~............ '"'-1 -..... '~"":l ...., '-. .;.
...J.' (.., \ ~ u..... v_ 'JJ~""
,..,... V..4 _, ~ . ~
&-s' ~
a, .
) "T\7 ~ .\J..-I\\~ l::l"':dL"i .., c...e-,..c.,lW~ ..I..o...........k.e'L~..
c... c..oO'\.~~---..t v~ ~-"'\\~ tlv."o......i b..t. -;~II--C.d..
-l-L......
r
~.
1 I J" : I
.............~..~...........:;......... "':"~"i r-L-J\~ ~1\oI/)".....ft.\
WJ.J...~t 'u. ~_~......~~d,
'S ~ -..d II
I
:.::..".....~:-..i) ~..:..., ~.....uv~ ~ ~ ~A.c..
'.)....:..0..;;0 1) ~? :.VA.,...f~'
'. ~.,..
--.J_ _ 4. ~ c.. (... '~'...
...,..._01-
-
~- . .,/J
:::.C C'b
~f- r-o~
I"
.,...
~
No. 96-223
COUNTY SUBDIVISION/LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REPORT
Cumb..r-1And
~a~t: f)..n.,~bor~
Municipality
illat Title
UmAkant Oa~~ p~~o.~tv
Surveyor N/A
Final X-- Final (Hinor Subdivision)
Enqineer Dawood
Pre11mina:-y
R-2
Land Use Residential
Zoninq DUtrict
Requla~ions: Hunicipal X
County
Oate Received 7/]/96
Zor.inq X--- Acreaqe: subdivided
S&LO X Number of Lots 1
Sta~f Review 7/18/96 official
Total 3.04
Dwellinq Units -A-
County Review 7/18/96
Plat a~pears to comply with a~plicable requlations.
X Pla~ a~pears to qeneral:y comply with applicable requla~ions; revisions may be
required. as indicated.
Plat appears to need s~stantial revision, as indicated.
Reviewed by .JWS
Checked by _____
ileview com:Ile.-:ts witb cHad crdinance provi!lior:s are based on municipal requlation!l on file
w~eb ehe Couney Planning Ccmm1!1s10n,
J:' When applicable, streets, sewer, water, storm draina;e, and other infrastructure
elements to be verified as adequate by municipal staff/en;ineer.
;/
J/.'
/
,~
5:---'"
6.
-/
,/
9,
.,
" ,
1-1-
./
When applicable. zonin; compliance to be verified by Municipal Zo::i::; officer,
Appropriate sewaqe module component should be processed prior to final plat
approval.
Pinal plats must be recorded within 90 days of approval.
A ProfeSSional Land Surveyors Seal/Certification should be provided to verify
property boundary.
Is a copy of this plat beir.q s'ibmitted to wormleysbur; Borouqh officials for action
en those ~ts fallin; wit~:: ~eir jurisdiction?
~he proposed use note en the plat does not accurately describe what appears on the
plat. The note states that three 2-unit buildin;s are proposed, while the plat
shows two 2-unit buildi::qs L~d one 4-unit buildinq.
~he preposed f:n;r-..::it bulldi::; a~ears to be a tovnhouse (attached) desi;n. which
is permitted in this DUtrict by Cocdit1onal Use. ,~such been qrant8l!7. J ...
~ __ ~l . ..., ....0 ~ j:..A/w, -.,.,..., "-
It is pre~erable that the entire property be shown at the 1M . 20' development plL~
soale, wlthout corners/sectiens omitted.
~o~sh~p Board of Supervisors should be Board o~ CommiSSioners.
A:: f:o~p:aln ~a;~e::t r~~lrements should =e addressed aocor~lnq to related
o~:~~a~c. prov~s1ons. ~.~. 2 SilO Orrl1~A~e.
?~lmAry control po~n~ r.ot 14.ntltled. S.~!1~~ 'Cl.A. S&tn Ord.~a~e.
I 2~
.~--
-
o
t"",
,"')
~.,..
1:
o
t,
--
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting....----..-----------------------..--....----..August I, Iqqb
The regular monthly meeting of the East Pennsboro Township
Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, August I. Iqqb In
the Township Community and Municipal Center, qe 5. Enola Drive. Enola,
Pennsylvania,
Those present were: Brian BuChholz, Vice Chairman; Mar;e Beaner;
Meade Aungst; and Jim Richardson, members of the Ccmmission; Richard
Ernest, Code' Zoning Officer; John Pletropacli, Ass't, Code' Zoning
Officer; Henry F. Coyne, Esq., Township Solicitor; William Sprague,
P.E., stormwater consultant; and a list of others (attachedl,
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mr, Buchholz,
MINUTES: Mrs. Beaner made the action to approve the minutes of
the July II, 1~~CI ",to tOF fwll~"\oQ CuiiFctic~SI pg,l - the
second order of tuslness, should read .,.. Plan of 2.2357
Acres..,.; and pg. 2 - second paragraph, first s~nt~nce. the .ord
.comments. should be inserted after the word .staff., Mr. Aungst
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
The fliSt ord~r of busine,s was the Preliminary/Final Land
Development Plan for Umakant Dash Property,
Mr. Bony Cawood of Cawood Engineering ano Atty. Linus Fenicle of
Reager , Adler repr"ented Mr. Dash. Mr. Dawood reviewed staff and
County co..ents, and Indicated the plan was on the agenda for the
August .eeting in the Borough of WormleYSburg,
The plan stateO that apartment units were proposed; ho_ever, ~.
Ernest said the tyee of construction, as It is .ddressed In the
To_nShIP :onlrg Crdlrance, desi~nates the propos~ units as
t.:w'"'''OU'''I_ "'t". ~.....c,: r_It t.... 'J.nt~1 '.~1,fl.1 tn. d.~lnt~l~r" of ."
apartment. bel~ a d..lling unit _ithln " multIPle o_elllng, ~t
Including a converSlQl' apart.ent. He",.ve', ~e (lid I,.,dlcate t'""~ 'i".l
deslQn of the bUII~lngS was inco~lete. ,,~ that the units in t-o
~ulldlngs coula be 'l~ner side b, sl~e or o,er!u~er units. Mil units
~ul~ be rental units,
~,.. O."'CO~ ...c: ..,.. ~.~lcl. ..).~ ~~.i -oJ.~:: c:;",,:." t~. t:1I."t,
fr:'ft t.... E~.:"':-:9!"~.: ..\C'lt.:r. Ce--.-'l~ ., !"..::"~.~ea~l'''''. -e':
..:~l~.~.-t. :# t'. :.~t~.~(.4
,..!'". el"o.";:~."::: ~c~t': t....t; J . J~ t.... ~.:............,t ~...\tj~...l:f, _:\.i:: l~. ,."\
._....,... ..... ..'" $.......... ..... ...;. \~~. a' ..~. ~. ,... ..... ,.............1"'- t.,. ~.,.....\.:)e,.Q
.....' .....-. ':;I""..... of .... _. ..'.... . ..... .... > ~ - . ...1.0.01 .. ~... <
TC.,,",~t:. ""l~"~: :.:....c...,..", .~...;.."..,., ....~t:~. .i':....'_ ,:,"f,~,..:t>i \"'1
d...:~O~""'; p"'. .~,.t: ,:~t'. #H.... ""\ "'tl~'...I". ~'f'tzo". (.:...,~....~t~~-.. ..I"'!\:.l.
~':P~\. ....~,\:.... ....c ~.... cc",,\~"q;~~,. t....t tdlltt ...~ :(~y::: e. ...<"."....,
--
were all concerns expressed by neighbors at the July meeting. Mr.
Buchhol: said the Commission members were hesitant to approve the plan
without first seeing test boring results. In addition, he felt parking
which is proposed across the stream from the two units it will serve
met the Township ordinance requirements, but did not provide for
utili:ation as the ordinance intended.
The following residents were present to comment on the plan:
~aren Vecolltls, 229 Glenn Road, expressed concern with erosion,
since her property is directly adjacent to the proposed site, and asked
who would be responsible for any problems resulting from construction
on the site. She was concerned ~l!.t addi tional traffic on Glenn Road,
which was never meant to be a ~~V~g~, given the fact that additional
units could feasibly be built in the Wormleysburg portion of the site
with the only access being through East Pennsboro. She also asked who
would provide the emergency services for residents in the Wormleysburg
uni ts.
Linda Leiser, 854 Erford Road, asked if the Township would provide
an additlonal fire hydrant, since the closest one is at David Drive and
Erford Road. Two fires in the neighborhood in past years resulted In
traffic congestion with emergency vehicles and fire hoses on the narrow
street, making it Impossible for other residents to leave their homes.
Jim McAlister, 825 Erford Road, asked if there was any exit into
Wormleysburg from the development. He noted that Wormleysburg Police
and emergency vehicles would have to use Erford Read for access.
Mr. Buchhol: suggested the plan be tabled to allow time for
WormleYSburg Borough to view the plan, for Mr. Dawood to review Mr.
Sprague's comments, and for an interpretation to be made In the
apartment/townhouse use issue. In addition, approval of the erosion
and sedimentation control plan by Cumberland County was pending.
Mr. RIChardson stated, for the record, that he was not in favor of
the plan when it was first submitted, due to co~cerns with traffiC,
er~sion, a~d the unsuitability of the site. After nearing comments
f~:M ~.~;~CC~. .~C p.~~..i~Q E~C c~ai~~.~ ~r.c LI~~.r's ::,~.nt~t hi~
~C~~l:~ w., ~~C~.~Q.:.
~,. !eare- c:~c~"ed, .~ acded that there were m.~y issues yet
t: ::. iin"Net.-;1.
~r. e~~~~c:: .(:.....0 ~tS O~l"lOM t~.t t~e ."~1ranM.nt .~~ not
::~Y'l~. t~ . e.~':cc~.~t ~~(~ ., th. :~. c.~po,.~. Tr. .'.~ ... ~~.
:.~. . :.-'. ~t~~ ~.~.rt t...., I~d ~. f.l~ ~l'~~~~~~ t~. ~.t~'.l .~..
~: :....~l~ p....t,tl ':l"~~.~~' ..., ~t wt'..
~~t'1~ c.-_~::. "'e~\~.~ t~.. ;:::.,""r~"'<; CC-~J'It~"l':"" t....t ,.t"'. C.,~ ~.j
....:~....f~...1!t .._t.. ~.... =~.t~"'4"'i:.<<i., .-,: t....... t~-. :~I'" ~,~ ee :':"'10\':~!"'.~
~""~i ::^ t...t ~'\.', C.,,"'c.ot'l ;l.~ ... "'0':. ~... e~...leu"'.~'. ~''''~ tt-e
c.......'" "' !'l;....o;.. .I,.;'~ t* '='::""lc.:.t~.~.
--.
Atty. Coyne advised that the Planning Commission could recommend,
and the Board of Commissioners would approve or deny the plan.
Alternately, the plan could be tabled until the next meeting to allow
time for the developer to respond to review comments, keeping In mind
that .n Interpretation by the Zoning Hearing Board might be needed for
the apartment/townhouse issue.
Mr. Aungst agreed with the other members, and added his concern
that construction on the project could begin, problems could be
encountered With blasting, for e~ample, which would result in unforseen
costs and the project being abandoned, leaving a neighborhood problem
with which the Township would have to deal.
Mrs. Beaner added that the Planning Commission members understood
the legalities If the developer meets the requirements of the
ordinances; however, she felt that none of the comments about the plan
were frivolous, and that they deserved some consideration.
MOTION: Mr. RlchardY'ade the motion that the Preliminary/Final
Land Development Plan for Um.k.nt D.sh property be tabled until
the Septemb.r m.eting. Mrs. Beaner seconded the motion, and it
c.rrled unanleously.
The second order of business wa5 the Preliminary/Final Subdivision
Plan for John R. ~ Delores J. Schreiber.
John Walker of Hartman & Assocl.tes. Inc. explainwd the plan, .
simple two-lot s~bdlvlslon. The property would be serv.d by wells and
on-lot septic 51St..S. Cumberland County Planning Co-.Isslon co...nts
h.d not been received.
MOTION: Mr. Aungst aade the action th.t the Pr.llmln.ry/Final
Subdivision Pl.n for John R. & Delores J. SChreib.r, received in
the Township July IB, Iqqb, be forwarded to the 9o.rd of
Commissio~ers wit~ a r.comme~datlon of .pproval, p.Pding
C~mb.rla~d :cu~t~ PI.nnin~ Ccmmisslon comm.~ts. Wrs. ee.~r
seco~de~ the eetlon, and it carri.d un.nim~us:/.
The thl'~ ='~e' of busl~ess .as the Pr.II.:~"Y SUedlvision and
L.nd Ce..loc~nt PI.n for RI'.' tend.
Atty. ~.'4 ..~:~.~ O~ Wit, w.~.~ l W.l~~~, .e~..~~.~ t~. ,tiff
t3~.."t'. !..... :...1:.:.... .Qr..~ .:~!'" t~. f\",~ fl',~ cc.Yl.:'fIl....t. 1M! '';'''HC
to .... c".~~s t: t~. el.~. T~. ll,...lco.' was ":It ....,. v'at t". 30"
C~ ~o,~ l~ c:~~."! .~ .~, . ..~~~r ~~a.. ~t~,. ~.l~~.~ a~t't\p~t.d
. '.~~.,~ ,~:~ ~-. rC.r~~10 ':~ .~ ..t.~'l:~ =~ t,.. to ~t~\.w t~.
ot.~. .~c ~. t-~::.~.! t~. d.~.1:~.~ .cw)j AltJ ~~. t~.~ t,~. to
f~~t~.~ ~.Il.~ ..~ .~=..t, .~.'f :~~~.~~,.
He took e~ceptlon to Comment 110 - for the reduction of right-of-way
width from SO' to 40'. Waivers had been granted at the time that
Revised Sketch Plan 84 was considered in 19Q5. Some of the review
comments had already been addressed on the revised plan; he indicated
other comments of a technical nature will be addressed.
Mr. Buchhol: recapped activity on the plan, which was submitted in
April. Hp thanked the developer and engineering staff for their effort
in addressing Township concerns, and for showing a sincere desire to
comply with Township requirements.
Mr. Paul Ottens, bOq Mountain Street. Enola. had reviewed the
studies and said many of his reservations on the plan had been
addressed. He noted three Items for consideration in the development:
use of bicyCle-safe grates on stormwater inlets; delineation of
wetlands on the plan with a Measurement or boundary; and inclusion in
the traffic study of traffic anticipated when the Overview Bridge Is
opened. He agreed with Mr. Sprague on the stormwater management plan,
and requested that tne time of concentration be more fully developed.
He had concern that storm water pro~lems would result (if the proiect
was built per the existing plans) at Mountain Street and Valley
Street. He also commended Rettew Associates for their efforts on the
plan.
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
William Sprague's review comments were presented; they related to
computation for the time of concentration in the hydrogeologic study.
He considered them minor comments, and complimented Rettew Associates
on their thorough report.
Mr. Buchhol: reported that the wetlands and hydrogeologic studies
were submitted to experts for review, and that review comments should
be available in about two weeks.
Mr. Bucchol: thanked Mr. Ottens for the time and effort he put
Into reviewing the plan. and thanked Rettew for taking Mr. Otten's
co~nts into consideration.
Attv. Weid~- satd a 30 day e,tens,o~ would be g_,ntee fer
aCditlJnal "e'lew J' t~e plan, altnou;n they had h~pe~ ';- a
recc~.~.~i~~ fr=~ t~. Pl.n~i~Q Commi~~io~ .t thtS ...tt~Q.
Pcbe-t Ce!e.a~, )04 High Street, Sum..rdale, discussed st~r"ater
=rdbleml. as tnev e'lst and al the, wOuld be after d.velop~~t. If tney
are not ado'es,ed at thIS ti... The EAC subcoamlttee, 0' w^len ne -as
. $.~'.. ~.~ Q~.~\:~,tv .~.~i~ ,~c~~.t.~ ruroff~ ~ ~ct.a '~at t~.
3~~ .tcrmw~~.~ ;~:. .t .t~ , ~l;~ St~..t, .., r~~"tl~ flll*~ .lt~
.at.r a~~ de~-ls l't" a stJ'n. .~. la".est olpe, unce' I-!l and !elle
V~.t. Or~... I~t J~'l \.~. . r:.,..~""~:;) It,\.ie-., i"" tCJQ1 if'\Ciclt~ t"".t ~1"\v
t~C..j~~ l~ :.i.~::~.~t .~~v. !.:~. v~.~. O~l.. ~~lo ~.:."ltlt. ~~
l~"..'. 1- ~-. Ii:' ~# ,t~~."~~.~ 01:.' ~~~.r tot~ r~.~'. ~ rr:o,t#d
t"".~ t.... ,n:. '1:' ~.:"'''.''.i t, 1:' L~ t.... IC'Jti"l IJ' f-c...."~.~"'\ $~.....~.
T~.~. .~. ~.,;~~\~~~ .ee~~ t~. r.!.~~lcr C'\l~ t.t~~ ,,:.~ '0- .
~..~.... '~J"Wl. ....:.: ~... ...,.....; ?fP~"":~ -:" P",C""""S;~C; 0::.." \::tP' P"t;'t
~
~ ~
~"ND
EAST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP
ROtERT L. OILL
TClWfWljp MaNlger
DONALD L. TAPPAN
Assistanl T~ip ~g"
E1fVIJwou.a.ud. ADVISORY COUIICIL
JULY 25. 1996 MDTIJIG
To Whom It Hay Concern:
Re: UBakant Dash Site Plan/Erford Road
Opinions/Concern. of Environmental Advisory Council (lAC) after
On-Site View of Property and Regular Heeting held on July 25th a. follow.:
1. Concern about construction and vegetation, and removal of
tree. that are obviously very old and very large.
2. Very vague u to wat the developer'. intentions are with
vegetation in the area - one hand he ..y. pre.erve .. .uch
natural vec;etation u po..ible and then .tate. -cut and clear
any nece...ry veqetation and rllllOve st_p.. - There 1. not. . wole
lot of vegetation there except for the t.ree. vh1c:h helps
protect the c;rade of the land fro. erosion and additional
flooding.
3. The .teepness of the slope the effect of the vater runoff to
the tributory.
t. The developer is asking for a vaiver of certaln vater runoff
requiremenU.
S. Thi. 1. .ore than just c;ud1nc; and build1nc; on an ex1.t.in9
lot. They are really extendJ.nq the culvert in that area.
f;. PrOll an environaenul standpoint encroachinc; on the peace and
tranquil1ty of property owners in t.'1e area.
7. We don't have a DEP va.ver plan as fa: as conflr=atlon th.t
ever~_'1.ng has eeen properly s~.tted and approved.
a. Would l1<te to ha-I' WOr.llleys:::u:; '1' ~n.o~ on e."as jl::pose::!
d.Y.loPll.n~ .
9. Effect on the lntegrlty of st:eAS bed and lntentlons of any
&~terat1~ns t~ .~r.am.
l~. Can ~ r.qu~=. a h~r~lo91.: s~~~y~ 0.01091&: .:uey~
11. The EA~ would ll~' to rev.ew a.nutes and oplnlons fro. prevlous
.ubal.s~=n o! t~~1 ~~~:.~~ ~: ~~e ~;wnship,
::.~: ~~v.~. C~a~rsL~
I:"'.<.~~:::~.:I,.~~..l A..:v:.s~r.., C:.......~el~
.;e ;';,.t:"'- :: "'':;,) :r \"! . : ~C"l =:. . ~:~-: 2" 3'0. ...!..~ "'j2~". ~
,J
,u-t-.. "1:..-
{bVri&.
! ". ,
Plan'.'11j 01- co,,;~ C6rn".,ias;- I
6/'1"4
~~ , -;;:;;f:;;, KD 6lwMLL
=\a ('4\ ~I~l: ~<::> ~:J-1 G/~~/'/ Q~ (~Hl!-, /Jr"{1
V':-r':-11h 5~~,~,. . 1..37 &1rz....., ~J C;n J.);J)
t<1 I.>> ~ ,.t.1.f .JJ.A-/~ ~7.46/
(iJbt,Lt-T (a~{..t=MA"I ?>Ofll!4f/~-r. -~Mtvlf/~L/AJ"El ~
f,J ()L- /) oJ.-R:6.r;,'-( ~~J)lT€:'jA) ~ ~c)~YY1cunh\h \~ ~~~"
V). 'S)o.-IjG.1 ~?()7l~r-yJ.k 0: "*I~w G-rG-OI
L .(tl/et~ )3JI ,-.(4Qltff ~r t/l -k'dt6'(
~.fldQ)J, ima Elf ti{crd Pd:. ilirr;p i-lJl_
_ fC\ ~c15(o 1'( ?: f{ Co lie!) e fJ /1/ RiJ L- 1-10/ Jq
!:J C'1r 5c~.. z <b Co {/ ej ell; LL 't-P E ~()J,.
~~t fI'(""', Z~:V r:.J- ~~<~J.,(
./3,../l :t /!t'(1!f"'i!-jr: ~
~
1""'\
.
o
SUBDIVISION AND
,
.,
LARD DEVELOPKEIlT
"
OIlDIRARCE
.
TOllIIS1I1P or EAST PEIIIlSBOIO
eu.berland County
Ord1DaDce 82-60 as re"iaecI throuah January 4. 1983
.ttac....ot:
.
,
':.
Ord........e 548-95. February 7. 1995
__Ii.... Street Dea"" ill the Foreat Slope
.... lea1deatial Coaaenation Zoa..
..
.
(22-201, cont'd)
(22-201, eont'd)
~lin~, sin~le-family, attached (row): a building used by one (1)
f.1r:\l~.', I~,: 'l"~"; :';C (2) party walls in cummun wit'1 other bulldings.
Owellin~, two-family, detached: a building used by two (2) families,
with une dwelling unit arranged over the other, ~nd having t~o (2) side
yuds.
Dwelling, two-family, semi-detached: a builliing lIsed by two (2)
families, with one (I) dwelling unit ~rranged over the other, having one
(1) side yard, ~nd one (1) party wall in coramon with another bUilding.
Dwelling, multi-family: a huilding used by three (3) ur more families
living independently of each other ~nd doing their own cooking; including
apartment houses.
Dwelling Croup: a group of two or more single-family, two-family. or
multi-family dwellings occupying a lot in one ownership.
Easement: a right granted to use certain land area for a special
purpose consistent with the general property rights of the owner.
Engineer: a registered engineer retained by the municipality, authorized
tu practice engineering as defined by the Registration Act of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
Engineering specifications: the ensineerins specifications of the
municipality regulating the installation of any required laproveeenta or
for any faCility, installed by an owner. subject to public use.
Coverning body: The Board of Co~issioners of East Pennaboro Township.
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Health Official: Sanitarian of the State Depart.ent of Health, local
Health Officer. or other qualified personnel.
Interior walk: a riaht-of-way for pedestrian uae extend in, fr~ a
street into a block or acrosa a block to another atreet.
Land developaent:
(i) The taprov..ent of one or ~re conti,uous lots, tracts or
parcela of land for any purpose Involvlna (a) a IrouP of two or ~re
~uildln.a, or (b) the divIsIon or allocatIon of land between or ..on,
two ur ~re exlatln, ur prospectIve occupAnts by ~na of. or for the
purpose of streets. c~n are.a, le.seholds, bul1dlna Iroups or
other featurea;
(ii) A division of land lnto lots for the purpose of conYe,in,
such lots sinal, or in Croup. to ao, peraon. partnerahip or corporatton
for the purpose of the ere~tl~.1 of buildin.. b, such person, partnership
or corporatIon.
-264-
(22-201, cont'd)
(22-201, cont'd)
Landowner: the legal or beneficial owner or owners of land including
the holder of an option or contract to purchase (whether or not such option
or contract is subject to any condition), a lessee having a remaining term
of not less than 40 years, or other person having a proprietary interest
in land, shall be deemed to be a landowner for the purposes of this ordi-
nance.
Lot: a plot or parcel of land which is, or in the future may be,
offered:for sale, conveyance, transfer, or improvement.
Lot, double frontage: a lot, the opposite ends of which abut on
streets.
Lot, rever.e frontage: a lot between an arterial street and a minor
street with vehicular access only from the minor street.
Lot, width: width of a lot measured at the building setback.
Lot, area: area contained within the property lines, excluding
.tre.t area, but including the area of any ea.ement.
Municipality: The Township of East Pennsboro, Cumberland County,
Penn.ylvania.
Per.on: any indiVidual or group of individuals, partnership, co-
partnership, or corporation.
Plan, final: a coaplete and exact subdivision plan, prepared for
official recording a. required by .tatute, to define property rights and
propo.ed .treet. and other iaprovement..
than
a. a
Plan, preli.inary: a tentative .ubdivi.ion
a final plan. ahoving approxiast.ly propo.ed
baai. for con.ideration prior to preparation
plan, in l....r detail
.treet and lot layout
of a final plan.
Plan, sk.tch: an 1nfo~al plan, not nece..arily to .cale, indicat-
ing .alient exilting features of a tract and it. surroundinls and the
leneral layout of the propo.ed subdivi.ion.
Planninl A..ncy or Planninl Com.i.sion: The Ea.t P.nn.boro Township
Planning Co..is.ion.
Plat: the..p or plan of a subdivision or land developm.nt, wheth.r
prella1nirY or final.
ar..;
other
Public rrOund.: includ.. (i) park., plaYlround., and oth.r public
and (il .it.. for .chool., sevage treat..nt, refu.e di.po.al and
publicly owned or operated faci1iti..,
Public notice: notice giv.n not ~re than thirty (10) daYI and not
1... than fLurteen (14) day. in advanc. of any public hearlng r.quired by
lev. Such notlc. .hall be publi.hed once .ach week for two (2) succe..ive
weeks in a n~paper of leneral circulation in the Town.hip 0 ta.t Penn.boro,
-26S-
(22-201, cont'd)
(22-201, cont'd)
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Such noticu shall state the time and place (
of the hearing dnd the particular natur~ of the matter t~ be considered at
the he~rins.
Reserve ~trip: a strip of land adjacent to a street intended to
control access to .he street from an adjacent pr~perty.
Right-of-way. street: a strip of land between property lines for
use as , road, street, ~r alley.
Sanit~ry sewer: a pip~ for conveying sewage and excludes storm.
surface and ground wat~r.
Sight distance: the length of street, measured along the center
line, which is continuously visible frOM any point four and one-half
(4~) feet above the center line to an object four (4) inches above the
road surface.
Storm sewer: a pipe or open ditch, drainage channel for conveying
rain water. surface water, condensate, cooling water, and similar liquid
waste, exclusive of sewage or industrial waste to a natural watercourse or
other outlet as approved.
Street: includes street, avenue, boulevard, road, hiahway, freevay,
parkvay, lane, alley, viaduct, and any other waya uled or intended to be
uled by vehicular traffic or pedestrianl whether public or private and for
the purpole of this ordinance shall be classed al follovs:
a. Arterial: traverse through the municipality and are
used primarily for through, faIt, or heavy traffic.
b. Collector: carry traffic from minor .treet. to the
major system of arterial .treetl, includina principal entrance
Itreetl of a residential, commercial or indu.trial development and
Itreetl 'tor major circulation vithin luch development..
c. Kinor atreeta: are u.ed primarily tor acce.. to the
abutting propertie.,
d.
parallel to
to abuttinl
Harlinal acces. .treets: are alnor Itreetl which are
and adjacent to priaary .treet. and which provide acce..
properties and protection froe throulh traftic,
e. Alle,a: are minor vay. which are u.ed prt.arily for
vehicular .ervice acceal to the back or the .ide of properties other-
vi.e abutting on a .tre.t.
Str..t, halt or partial: a .tr.et, I.nerally parallel and adjacent
to a property line, havina a l....r rilht-of-way width than noraally
r.quired for sati.factory laprov...nt and use of the atr.et.
-Z~6-
(22-300)
(22-300)
Article III - Submission and ProcessinR of Plats; Specifications
S300. Adherence to Procedures Required. Each applicant shall follow
the procedures for the submission and processing of plats and the specifica-
tions for such plats, as set forth in this Article Ill. (Ordinance 82-60,
October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18, 1971,
Article Ill, S300)
S301. Pre-application Data. Previous to the filing for preliminary
approval of an application for development, the applicant shall submit to
the Planning Commission the following data:
I. General information shall describe or outline existing covenants,
land characteristics, community facilities and utilities; and information
describing the proposed subdivision or land development such as the number
of residential, commercial, or industrial lots, typical lot width and depth,
price range, business areas, playgrounds, park areas, other public areas,
proposed protective covenants and proposed utilities and street improvements.
2. Location map shall show the relationship of the proposed sub-
division or land development to existing community facilities which serve
or influence it and shall include the subdivision or land development name,
location and any existing facilities; traffic arteries; public or other
schools, parks, playgrounds; utilities; churches; shopping centers; airports;
hospitals; principal places of employment; title; scale; North arrow; and
date.
3. Sketch plan on a topographic survey shall show in a siaple
sketch form the proposed layout of streets, lots, and other features in
relation to existing conditions and may be free-hand on a print of the
topographic map. (Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by ~-
nance 235-71, October 18, 1971, Article Ill, S30l)
· 1302. Plat and Data for PrelI.inary Approval. Previous to the
filing of an application for development for final approval, the applicant
shall subait to the Planning Commission the following plat and data for
prel1ainary approval:
1. Topographic Oat.: As required for S301, plus the following:
a. Boundary Lines or property lines by be.rin.s and distances.
b. Existing [as..ents: location, width and purpose.
c. Existing Streets: on and adjacent to the tract by nama,
riaht-of-way, location; type, width and elevation of surfacing; walks,
curbs, IUtters, culverts, etc.
d.
si.e Sft4
and stae
Existing Uttlittes: on and adjacent to the tract; locatton,
invert e1evatton-or-;.nltary, stora and coabined severs, locatton
of water ..tns; location of gas lines, fire hydrants, electrtc
~6~
(22-l02(I-d), cont'd)
(22-l02(I-d). cont'd)
~nd t~lephon~ poles, dnd 9treet lIghts; if dny of
dvaLldhl~ ~t ~lt~ IndLcate dLr~ction and dIstance
an.1 fllrn1:lh stoitement .:If availabilLty.
the above are not
to the neard9t ones
~. Other ExLsting Conditions: watercourses, mar,hes, rock
outcrop. wooded areas, houses, barns and other sLgnlflcant features.
If the applLcant's tract Is located where flood hazard exLsts the
followLng regulatLons shall apply:
(I) the applLcant shall prepare a topographLc map of
the proposed drea wLth such contour Intervals as the PlannLng
Co~Ls'lon shall dete~Lne to be necessary and shall prepare
drainage pl,Ins or flood control devices satlsfactory to the
Planning Co~ls,lon whenever the Planning Co~lsslon shall
consLder that such are necessary. No plat shall be approved
for whLch the Planning CommissIon finds that drainage or
flood control protectLon Ls necessary untLl the Planning Co.-
mission shall approve the plans for draInage and flood control.
(2) Land Subject to Flooding - Land subject to flooding
and/or deemed to be topographically unsuitable shall not be
platted for resldentlal occupancy, nor for such other uses as
asy lncrease danger of health, lIfe, or property. or aggravate
erosion or flood hazard. Such land within the plat shall be
set asIde on the plat for such uses as shall not be endangered
by pertodlc or occaslonal lnundatlon or shall not produce
unsatisfactory living condlttons.
(l) Adequate Building Site - To Insure that residents
will have sufficient flood-free land upon which to build a
structure. the Plannina Coasisslon as1 require elevations and
flood profiles. tach lot shall contain a building site which
shall be coepletely free of the danaer of flood waters on the
basts of avaUable lnfonation:
(4) Street ElevatIon - The Planning C~ission shall
not recomnend approval of streets subject to Inundation or
fl'~dinl. All str.ets ~st be adequately located above the
line of flood elevation to prevent Isolation of areas by flood.
f. Propuaed Public t.prove..nts: atreets or other ..Jor
l.proveaenta planned by public authorltlea for future construction on
or near the tract.
a. Ground Ilevatlons: on tract baaed on datu. plan approved
by Kunlclpal Inglneer; for land that slopes less than two percent (It)
show elevations at .11 bre..s In .rade and along dralna.e channel, or
swal.. lh)t ""fe thaR 100 feet apart; for I.M that alopes 1IOfe than
two percent (It) show contoura with an Interval of ftOt 1IOre than
fl.,. (6) feet aad Ie.. In cases ""ere n.c....cy to all_ Irregular
land for plannlnl ~r~aes.
-210-
(22-302(1), cont'd)
(22-302(1), cont'd)
. h. Title and Certificates:
to records of office of Recorder of
be recorded; names and addresses of
datum, benchmarks, certification of
surveyor, date of survey.
present deed reference according
Deeds; title under which plat is to
owners; acreage, scale, North point,
registered civil engineer or
2. Preliminary Plat shall be at a scale of one hundred feet (100')
to one inch (I") or larger and shall show all eKisting conditions required
above in "Topographic Data" and shall show all proposals including and not
necessarily limited to the following:
a. Streets: names, right-of-way and cartway widths; approxi-
mate grades and typical cross-sections.
b. Easements: location, width and purpose.
c. Utilities: location, type and approximate size; this
information may be shown on a separate exhibit.
d. Lots: lot lines, numbers and block numbers.
e. Sites: if any, to be reserved for parks, playgrounds or
other public uses or other public grounds.
f. Sites: if any, for shopping centers, churches, industry,
multi-family dwellings or any other non-public use exclusive of
single-family dwellings.
g. Building Lines: give dimensions of mint.um building
setback Unes.
h. Site Data: including number of residential, commerci.l
or industrial lots, typical lot size, and acres in other public and
nonpublic land uses.
i. Title, Scale, North arrow and ~.
j. Surface W.ter Drainage: general plans for the collection
of surface vater.
k. Na..s of owners of abutting unplotted land and the na.es
of all abuttinc subdivisions.
I. Zone boundaries, if any, that traverse or are within
three hundred (100) feet of the proposed subdivision shall be shown.
.. Street e.tenslons as are necessary to provide connection
to adJoininc or contiluous developed or undeveloped areas.
1. rercolatlon Tests. The required percolation te.ts shall be ..de
in .ccordance with the rules and r.,ulatlons set forth in Act 517 as ...nded.
All costs incurred in conduct in, the tests or other requlr...nts of Act 511
sh.ll be the responslblllty of the applicant.
-271-
(22-302. cant' d)
(22-302, cont'd)
4. Oth~r Preliminary Plans. When required by the Planning Commis- !
sian, due t~ severe topography or other physical conditions. the prelim-
lll.try pllt ,hdll hI! dc,~,'",panll!.j I)y proflles showing existing ground surface
",I pr,'pl1i"j itCl!et gr.Jd~~; typical cr"ss-sectlons of the cartway alld
, 11"", ,lk1.
S.
t.) r,,'Ju lat"
i"'l"11t~~t the
I)rdft I1f ?CoJto!ctlvp. Covelldnts: wher~by the "ppllcallt proposes
hnd liS" -t,\ th~ s'Jbd ivislon or Idnd devel,'pmcnt and ,Jth..rwhe
,,\,\l'h!.
(Urdl"dnc~ 82-'>0. Uct'Jh"r 2~, 1960, as a:nl!nd~d hy Ordinance 215-71.
Octllber 18, 1971, \rtldo! nt, 1102)
1303. Plati .,nd llat3 f~r Final .\ppNval, Pril1r tll flnal .1pproval
by the PLlnnl'lS C'):Tuntssion and ln strict accordance with the regulatlons
and prl1c~dures of this ~rdinance all applications for development shall
be submitted for final approval as fottows:
1. Final plat shall be drawn in ink on tr~cing cloth, or other
mdterial as approved by the Governlng Body. ln she~ts not larger than 17"
by 22" long and shalt be at it ~cale of one hundred feet (100') to one
lnch (I") 'Jr larger. Where necessary. the plat IUY be on several sheets
3ccl1mpanled hy an index sheet showing the entlre subdlvision or land
Jev~lopment. The finoll plat shall show:
a. Primary control points, approved hy the Munlcipal
Engineer. or description and "ties" to such control points, to
which all dimensions, angles. bearings. and siml1ar data on the
plat shall be referred.
b. Tract boundary lines, rlght-of-way lines of streets,
easements and other rights-of-way, and property 11ne of residentlal
lots and other sites with accurate dlaen.ion., bearlnls or deflectlon
angles. and radii, area and central anile. of all curve..
c. Na.. and right-of-way vidth of each street or other
right-of-way.
d. Location and dimen.lona and purpose of ea.ements.
.. MWlber to ldentlfy each lot.
f. Purpose for whlch .it.. other than r..identlal loti. are
dedlcated or reserved.
I. ~lni~ buildinl setback 11ne on all lot. and other .lte..
'\. Locatlol\ ,nd ducrlptlon of aurvey .ono_nes.
1. ''''1 of record OVfters of adjolnlnl unplotted lan4.
J. lefer.ace to r.corded platl of a4Jolnlna platted land
by record n..., 4ate and number.
-212-
(22-303(1), cont'd)
(22-303(1), cont'd)
. k. Certification by surveyor or engineer certifying to
accuracy of survey and plat.
1. Certification of title showing that applicant is the
landowner.
m. Statement by owner dedicating streets, rights-of-way,
easements and any sites for public uses.
n. Title, scale, North arrow and date.
2. Cross-Sections and Profiles:
a.
grades at
feet (4')
Final plans and profiles of
a minimum scale of forty feet
vertical.
streets and alleys showing
(40') horizontal and four
b. Cross-sections of streets showing the type of construction,
the width of right-of-way, width of cartway, location and width of
sidewalks, and locations and size of utility mains.
c. Plans and profiles of proposed sanitary and/or stona
water severs, with grades and pipe sizes indicated, and a plan of any
proposed water distribution system showing pipe sizes and location
of valves and fire hydrants.
d. Location and method of street lighting facilities.
3. Protective Covenants, if any, in form for recording.
4. Other Data: such other certificates, affidavits, endorse-
ments, or dedications as may be required by the Planninl Coamission or
the Governinl Body of the municipality in the enforcement of these relula-
tions.
(Ordinance 82-60. October 24, L960, as ..ended by Ordinance 235-71.
October 18. L971, Article III, 1303)
1304. Filinl of an Application for Development for Approval of a
Preliminary or Final Plat.
1. When filing an application for developaent for preliminary
approval or final approval, the applicant shall submit six (6) copie. of
all plat. and other infora&tion or data, For final approval. in addition
to the 11& (6) printl. a .epia Ihall al.o be provided.
2. 'ee. - Ivery .pplicatlon for approval of a
be acc~niiHiiby a fee payable to the Townlhlp In the
Firat 5 late or leu Flat fe. . . .
.ut 50 Iou
Ifut 100 Lou -
Oftr 15' loti -
final plan lhall
lUll 0 fl
$25.00
$ 1.'0 ,.r lot
$ 2.00 per lot
$ 1.00 ,.r lot
-2n-
(1!-I04(1,. ~unt'J)
(!2-J04(2), cont'd)
I. The final pl.tn shall incclrpllratl.! III <!ll)dific.ttiuns "nJ
r~vl;('''ls spo!.:ifi~.t hy the Govo!rning Budy. Any plan subl~itted In
"('111 E..r'" .MY ~o! .:un3iJero!.t as ,j prl!limin.iry pl.llI >r .\ re'llst!J pre-
ll"!l" IrY plan, lE the Gov"rning Body r"qulred .1ny :nudlElcatlon or
11t~rltluns. [f th" Govo!rning Body shall cunsldt!r such flnal plan
as a pr"Umllf.rry plan lIr a r"vised plan, the above f.~t! whl~h has
h"o!" pl1d shall be ro!turner!.
(
). All appli~~tluns E~r developrno!nt shall he submlttt!d to the Town-
5hl;> 'Io1"d6o!r ,)r hb; o1uthoriz"d ro!prl!st!ntativl.! at lo!ast ten (10) J.1YS ;>rior
t., t:,,, rt!lluldr lIo!o!tlng oE the Planning Commissiun .n '..hl.:h lt ls do!sired to
so!o!k appruvll tho!reoE.
4. Approval uf Plats: Upon ,pplication for approval uf a plat,
wht!tho!r preliminary or final, lt shall be acted upon by the Govo!rning Body
whi.:h shall renJer its decision and communic~te it to the applicant not
later than nint!ty (90) days afto!r such application is filed.
a. The decision uf the Governing BoJy shall be in writing
,nd shall bo! communicated to the applicant personally or mailo!d to
him at his last known addro!ss not later than five (5) days following
the decision;
b. When the application is not approved in terMS as filed
the decisiun Sholl! specify the defects found in the appllcation and
dl.!scribe the rt!qulrements whlch have not been met and shall, in each
case, cite tho! provislons of the statute or ordinance rei led upon;
t
c. Failure of the Governing Body to render a decilion and
communicate lt to the applicant within the time and ln the manner
ro!quired herein Ihall be deemed an approval of the appllcation ln
terma al prelented unlels the appllcant has agreed ln writing to an
extension of tlae or change ln the prelcribed manner of presentation
of communicatlon of the decislon, in which case, failure to ..et tbe
extended tiae or change ln manner of presentation of coamunlcatlon
shall have like effects;
d. rrom the tlee an appllcation for approval of a plat,
whether ;>reliainary or ftnal, i. duly filed as provided in this ordi-
nance, and while such application is pendlng approval or di.approval,
nu chanle or amendment of the lonina, lubdivision or other lovernlnl
urdin.nce or plan shall affect the decislon on luch application
advers.ly to the applicant and the appllcant shall be entitled to a
Jeclsion in accordance vith the provislons of the lovernlnl ordlaances
ur plans a. they Itood at the tt.e the application va. duly filed.
tn additlon, when a preliain.ry applicatlon has been duly approved,
the .ppllcant shall be entitled to final approval in accordance vith
t~e te~ of the approved prelialnary appllcatlon al hereinafter pro-
vlded. Hovever, lf an .ppltel'lon ls properly .nd flnall, denled,
any ~bsequent .ppllcatlon shall be ~bJect to the lnteeveninl
~han.. ln 10.ernlftJ rel~14tlofts. When an appllcation for approv.l
Jf a plat, Whether pr.ll.lnary ~r fln.l, hat been 4pprov.4 or approYed
..2' ...
(22-401)
(22-401)
Article IV - Variances
1401. Procedure Governing Variances.
1. Where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of
the provisions' of this ordinance will result in unreasonable hardship,
the Governing Body may make such reasonable variances thereto which are
in accordance with modern and evolving principles of site planning and
land development which are not contrary to the public interest and so that
the spirit of this ordinance shall be 'observed and substantial justice done.
2. Applications for any variance shall be submitted in writing by
the applicant at the time the preliminary plat is filed with the Commission.
The application shall state fully the grounds and all the facts relied upon
by the applicant.
3. Whenever a variance is requested by the applicant or is deemed
necessary by the Commission, the Commission shall submit the preliminary
plat and a copy of its findings to the Governing Body, which reserves the
right of final approval on any such variance.
4. In granting any variance the Governing Body shall record its
action and the grounds for granting any variance in its minutes.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24. 1960. as amended by Ordinance 235-71.
October 18. 1971, Article IV, 1401)
-z,,-
(22-501)
(22-501)
Article V - Design Standards
iSOI. Suitability of Land. Land subject to hazards to life or property,
such as quarry land, open ditches, etc., shall not be subdivided for residential
purposes until such hazards have been eliminated or unless adequate safeguards
against such hazards are provided by the subdivision or land development plan.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18,
1971, Article V, i501)
iS02. Street System. The arrangement, character, extent, width,
grade, and location of all streets shall conform to the Official Map and
to the Community Master Plan, if one has been adopted, and shall be con-
Sidered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical
conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate
relation to the proposed uses of the land to be served by such streets.
Where not shown un the Official Hap or Community Master Plan, the arrange-
ment and other design standards of streets shall conform to the provisions
found herein.
1.
ment shall
adjoining
The arrangement of
make provisions for
areas.
streets in new subdivision or land develop-
the continuation of existing streets in
2. Where adjoining areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of
streets in new subdivision or land development shall make provision for the
proper projection of streets.
3. When a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land appropriate
for subdivision or land development, then the new street right-of-way shall
be carried to the boundaries of the tract proposed to be subdivided.
4. Proposed streets shall confonl to any local, County, and State
road or highway plans which have been prepared, adopted, and/or filed, as
required by law.
5. In c~rcial and indu.trial area. adequate off..treet loading
and unloading .pace shall be provided.
6.
traffic.
Kinor streets shall be laid out so as to discour'le throulh
1. When.ver the proposed subdivision or land developsent contain.
or Is ,dJacent to a hilhw.y desilnated as a "Ii.ited access hilhway" by
the appropriate hilhw.y authorities. provision shall be .ade for a ..rlinal
.ccess str..t at a di.tance acceptable. for the appropriate u.e of the land
b.tw.en the hilhway .nd such .treet. The Co.ais.lon ..y also require rear
.ervice ace.... rev.rse frontale lots or .uch other tre.t.ent which wIll pro-
vIde protection for abvttinl prop.rtl.s, reduction in the n~b.r of inter-
.ectlon. with "Jor .treet.. ,~ s.paration of local and throulh traffIc.
-21,-
(22-502, cont'd)
(22-502, cont'd)
8. In. ..Il'l'r'J'l1ng ndmes of streets, cognIzance shall be given to
"':(l.;tlll~ ,'r pLltt~d str~...t n,lmes wlth1n the postal dellvery dIstrIct
s"rved "y the P')H ()ff1~e. New streets shall hear the same name of any
c'"1t1nudt1oll llr alignment ;,11th an exist1ng or platte.1 street.
r
9. New h~lf or pdrtial streets will not be permItted, except
where eSlientlal to re Is"nabLe subdlvis10n of a tract 1n conformance with
the ,nher requ1r""'ents lnd standards of these regulations and where, in
add1t1on, sat1sflctory dssur~llce for ded1catlon of the rema1nlng pdrt of
the street can b... iecured.
10. WheNver 'I tr'ict to he subdIVided borders ..In edst1ng half or
partial street, the other part of the street shall be pl0tted w1thin such
tr..c t.
11. Dead-end streets shall be prohIbited, except as stubs to permit
future street extension Into adjoining tracts, or when designed as cul-de-sacs.
12. New reserve strips, IncludIng those controllIng dccess to
streets, shall be avoIded.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by OrdInance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, ArtIcLe V, 1502)
1503. Cul-de-Sac Streets.
1. ResIdentIal cul-de-sacs shall be provIded at the closed end
wIth a p.ved turnaround havIng '-I minimum radius to the outer pavement
edge or curb line of forty feet (40') and a property line radius of fifty
feet (50').
t
CommerciaL ,nd indu.trial cul-de-.ac. shall be adequate for
the type of u.e to be .erviced.
2. Stub street. - When future exten.lon I. de.irable, the right-
of -way shall be placed adjacent to a property line and a riaht-of-way of
the same Width a. the street .hall be carried to the property line 1n such
a way as to perait future extension of the street into the .djolning tract.
3. Temporary dead-end .treet., on approved plan., ..y be u.ed.
provided that the developsr. on hi. own land, con.truct. a .tabillled
all-weather turnaround of the .... radius a. would be required f"r .
permanent strset, the turnaround to be r..oved when the street i. con-
Unued.
4. hnunent Cll1...te-s.ac .treets shall not exceed .ill hundred feet
(&00') in len,th or .ervw ~re than t~nt,-four (24) d~lling unlt..
(Ordinance 12-'0, Oct~er 24. l~, a. *Send.. by Ordin.~. 2)5-11.
October II. 1911. Artlcle V. ISO))
.Uo.
(22-505, cont'd)
(22-505, cont'd)
Pr'Jvlslon f"r addltlonal street width (rlght-of-way) may be required by the (
Governlng S"dy tn speclflc cases for:
(I) publlc safety and convenience;
(2) in commerclal and industrlal areas or ln hlgh-density r~sidential
developl~o!nt;
(3) widenlng of existlng streets whlch do not meet the requirements
of 1505.
(Ordlndnce 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18,
1971, Article V, 1505. as amended by Ordinance 387-80)
1506. Extensions. Short extensions of existing streets with lesser
right-of-way and/or cartway Widths than above may be permitted; provided,
however, that no section of new right-of-way less than forty (40) feet in
width shall be permitted. (Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by
Ordinance 235-71, October 18, 1971, Article V, 1506)
1507. Street Grades. Streets shall be logically related to the
topography, so as to produce usable roads and reasonable grades. The grade
of streets shall be as follows:
I. Centerline Crades -
a. Centerline grade should be not less than one-half of
one percent vben curb or paved gutter is provided and one percent
when no curb or gutter is prOVided.
\
b. Centerline grades shall not exceed:
(1) Kinor street - ten (10) percent
(2) Collector and ..Jor traffic street - six (6) percent
c.,.,..S.rtlcal curves shall be used at chanael of Irad. dceedina
one (1) .~. and .hall be des1&ned in relation to the extent of the
Irade change and to provide the followinl ainL.u. silht distance.:
(1) Minor .tre.t
(2) Coll.ctor str..t
(l) Arterial .treet
one hundred (100) feet
two hundred (ZOO) feet
four hundred (400) feet
Z. LenUna Area - When the Irede of any street at the approach to
an int.rs.ction .xceeds s..en (7) percent, a le.ellna area .hall be p~OYlded
havlna not Ireat.r than fo~r (4) perc.nt Irade. for a distanc. of tweet,-fi.e
(25) f.et ..alUred frea the ne.re.t rllht-of-way line of the Intere.ctlna
5 treet.
-282-
(22-507, cont'd)
(22-507, cont'd)
3. Slope of Banks Along Streets - The slope of banks along streets
measured perpendicular to the street center llne shall be no steeper than
the following:
a. 3 to I for fl11s
b~. 2 to I for cuts
(Ordlnance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, Article V, 1507)
1508. Street Intersectlona.
I. Intersection Design -
a. Streets shall be laid out to lntersect as nearly as
possible at right angles. No street shall intersect another at an
angle of less than sixty (60) degrees.
b. Hultiple intersections involving the junction or crossing
of more than two streets are prohibited. Where this proves iapossible,
such intersections shall be designed with extre~ care for both
pedestrian and vehicular safety.
c. To the fullest extent possible, intersections with ..jar
traffic streets shall be located not less than eight hundred feet (800')
apart, measured frea center line to center line.
d. Streets entering opposite sides of another street shall
be laid out either directly opposite one another or with a minia~
offset of one hundred fifty feet (150') between their center line..
j
I
I
t
e. Clear-.ight triangles of one hundred fifty (ISO) feet
.ea.ured along .treet center lines froa their point of junction
shall be prOVided at all intersection. and no building or other
.ight obstruction over three (3) feet in height, shall be peraitted
within such Sight triangles.
2. Curb Radii - Kin~ curb radii at street intersections ahall
be not le.s than:
Intersection
Collector with Collector Street
Collector with Kinor Street
Itinor with Minor Street
Itin~ Siaple Curve hdU
of Curb or Idle of Pav...nt
thirty-five (35) feet
tventy-five (25) feet
flfteen (15) feet
or .uch greater radlus a. 1. suitable to the specific intersectlon.
Property-line corner. ahall be rounded with a si.ilar r"ius a. pro-
vided for the curb.
(Or.lullCe IZ-60, October :4, 1960, .. _aded by Orilnanc:e U5-lI,
October '1, 19'1, Article V, 1501)
-213-
(22-509)
(22-509)
4509, 'Hocks.
l, The length, width and shape of blocks shall be determined with
due cegdcd to:
a. Pcovision of adequate sites for buIldings of the type
pcoposed.
b. Topography.
c. Requlrements for safe and convenIent vehIcular and pedestrian
cIrculations.
2. Blocks should have a maximum length of sIxteen hundred (l600) feet
and, so fac as practicable, a minimum length of five hundred (500) feet. In
the deslgn of blocks longer than eleven hundred (1100) feet, special con-
sideratlon shall be given to the provision of satisfactory fire protection.
3. Residential blocks shall be of sufficient depth to accommodate
two (2) tiers of lots, except where reverse frontage lots border a major
trafflc street are used.
4. Pedestrian walkways may be required where necessary to assist
clrculation or provide access to community facilities. Such walkways shall
have a right-of-way width of not less than twenty (20) feet and a paved walk
of not less than four (4) feet.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, ~rticle V, 1509)
1510. Building Lines. The minimum buildinl line shall be controlled
by the Zoning Ordinance as amended [Chapter 27). Corner lots .hall
have extra width to perait the appropriate building letback frea both
street.. (Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, a. amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, Article V, 1510)
15l1. Lots. The arranaement and other desiln standards of lots shall
confors to the followina requirements:
1. Every lot shall abut a street or private road.
2. Lot .ize shall be controlled by the provisions of the Zonina
Ordinance as ..ended [Chapter 27) and Act 537 a. ..ended.
3. Double front..e lots shall be avoided, except th.t where de.ired
alona lImited accest hiahvays, lots ..y fsce on .n lnterlor .treet, and
back on such thoroulhfares. tnterior lot. havina fronta.. on two streets
shall be avoided except where unusual condition. ...se It necetaery.
(Ordln.nce 82-60, October 2~, 1960, as ...nded by Ordift8oce 235-71,
October 18, 1971, Article V, 1511)
1512. P\lbllc Crooands and O"n Spaee.. Where a proposed 1'8rk, play-
Around, .choot, ea.e..nt or other public UIe shown 10 the eeneral C~lty
Pl,o or 1n the ~1n1on of the 'tannlna C~l..lon Is necessary, the 'lannlna
-284-
(
(22-512, cont'd)
(22-512, cont'd)
Commission ..y require the dedication or reservation of such area within
the subdivision or land development in a reasonable manner. (Ordinance 82-60.
October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18, 1971, Article V,
1512)
1513. Storm DrainaRe. (Superceded by Ordinance 421-82, Part 3,
hereof)
(1514 continues on next page)
'8.is" 1/4/1"J
-ZI)-
(22-514)
(22-514)
151~.
1.
be provided
Easements.
~inimum Widths - The following minimum widths of easements shall
unless otherwise specified:
~. Underground public utility facilities - fifteen feet (15')
b. Overhead public utility facilities - twenty feet (20')
c. Drainage facilities - twenty-five feet (25')
d. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage
way. channel, or stream, there shall be provided a drainage ease-
ment conforming substantially with the line of such watercourse. drain-
age way. channel or stream and of such width as will be adequate to
preserve the unimpeded flow of natural drainage or for the purpose
of widening, deepening, relocating, improving or protecting such drain-
age facilities or for the purpose of installing a storm water sewer.
2. Location - Easements for public utilities shall, wherever possible,
be centered on side or rear lot lines. Drainage ways, channels, or stream
easements may be located as necessary to adequately meet the engineering
requirements for the facility.
3. Transmission Lines - Where natural gas, petroleum, or high-
tension lines are located within or adjacent to the subdivision or land
development, the applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with a
statement from the utility company involved setting forth any special
conditions which they may require.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, Article V, 1514)
1515. Alleys.
1. Alleys are prohibited in developments of sinlle-f..ily detached
residences, except where employed to avoid direct driveway access to major
traffic streets. Alleys may be perwltted in other types of reSidential
developlHnt.
2. Where perwltted, alleys in residential developlHnts shall have
a minimum Width of twenty (20) feet and a minimum paved surface of twenty
(Z~) teet. Where alleys serve dwellinls only on one side, the Comm1ssion
~y ~er2it a paved alley surface of not less than t~elve (12) feet.
1. Alleys shall be required in com..rcial and industrial districts,
~~ce~t where other adequate provision is sade for off-street loadine and
parkin& consistent with the u.e proposed. ~ere required. alleys in coa-
~rclal or industrial districts shall have a minimum paved Width of twenty-
two (22) tnt,
4, Dead-end alley. shall ~e aVOided, but where t~is prov.s lapos.ible
s~..lt lie ter2inat..d With a jlave<i circular turnaround or a paved "'f" turnaround
"f adequate diMnsi-:lns.
-:i~-
(22-515, cont'd)
(22-515, cont'd)
5. . Alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be
avoided but, where necessary, corners shall be rounded or cut baek sufficiently
to permit safe vehicular circulation.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, Article V, 1515)
..
~~
(22-601)
(22-601)
Article VI - Improvements and Construction Requirements
1601. Monuments and Markers.
1. Placement; Marking - Monuments and markers must so be placed
that the scored or marked point coincides exactly with the point of inter-
section of th;"lines being monumented. They must be set so that the top
of the monument or marker is level with the surface of the surrounding
ground. Concrete monuments shall be marked on top with a copper or brass
dowel. Cut stone monuments shall have a point marking.
2. Location of Monuments - Monuments must be set at:
a. the intersections of all street and right-of-way lines;
b. the intersections of lines forming angles in the boundaries
of the subdivision;
c. such intermediate points as may be required by the Commission.
3. Location of Lot Markers - Lot markers must be set at all corners
except those monumented and by the time the lot is offered for sale.
4.
replaced
removing
Removal - Any monuments or markers that are removed must be
by a resistered ensineer or surveyor at the expense of the person
them.
5.
Monuments and markers shall be as follows:
a. Monuments shall be six (6) inches square or four (4) inches
in diameter and shall be thirty (30) inches Ions. Monuments shall be
made of concrete, stone or by set tins a four (4) inch cast lron or steel
pipe filled wlth concrete.
b. Harkers shall be three-quarters (3/4) of an inch square or
three-quarters (3/4) of an inch in dia..ter and fifteen (15) lnches
Ions. Harkers shall be ..de of lron pipes or lron or ste.l bars.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as ..ended by Ordlnance 235-71,
October 18, 1971, Article VI. 1601)
1602. Streets.
I. Pavina -
a. Streets shall be sraded. surfaced. and laproved in accord-
ance with the plans, profiles, and cross-sectlons preps red by the
eppllcant in accordance wlth .uniclpal specifications. and approved
by the Coverninl lady.
b. Sub-surface drainase and .11 utillties shall be lnstalled
prior to placina the stre-t surface.
~8~
(22-602(1), cont'J)
(2l-602(1),cont'd)
~. 1rlveway entrances or dprons withln the street rlght-of-way (
~h,1l1 he ~ud!~eJ to thelr full width, the type of surface to be the
s"m" .!~ ~peclHeJ hy tho! engineering speciflcations for streets.
Whtlrtl sldewllks .He installed, the required driveway surfacing shall end at
the street slde of the sidewalk.
,-
(Ordinance 82-60, Ocuber 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18,
l'J7I, Article VI, 1602)
1603. Sewer !IlJ Wattlr Systems.
I. Sewers
a. Where a public sanitary sewer system is within one thousand
feet (1,000') of, or where plans approved by the Governing Body
provide for the installation of such public sanitary sewer facilities
to within one thousand feet (1,000') of, a proposed subdivision or land
development, the developer shall provide the subdivision or land develop-
ment with a complete sanitary sewer system to be connected to the existing
or proposed sanitary sewer system. The system shall be designed by a
registered engineer and approved by the Municipal Engineer.
b. Where installation of a sanitary sewer system is not
required, the developer or owner of the lot shall provide for each lot,
at the time improvements are erected thereon, a private sewerage
disposal system consisting of a septic tank and tile absorption field
or other approved sewerage disposal systelll. All such individual
sewerage disposal systems shall be constructed in accordance with
Act 537 as amended and applicable to IIlUnicipal regulations and approved
by the Municip.l Engineer.
c. Capped Sewers - When trunk sewers are not available or not
available within the required distance but viii becollle available
within a reasonable tillle, the collection systelll and the required
laterals extending frOlll the main to tbe curb shall be installed and
capped by the developer. The developer may also install on-site
disposal provided that the system is designed to permit connection
to the public sever when it becollles operable.
2. Water
a. Where a vater main supply systeM is within one thousand
teet (1,000') of, or vhere plans approved by the Governing Body pro-
vide for the inltal1ation of such public vater facilities to within
one thou land (1,000) feet of a propoled lubdivilion or land develop-
~nt, the developer sh.ll provide the subdivision or land developa.nt
with a complete water main supply Iyltem to be connected to the
existina or propoled vater main supply sYlt...
b. Where inltall.tion of . public water ..in lupply syst..
is not required, the developer or owner of the lot shall provide for
-2'JO-
!
I
,
!
,
j
I
1
I
,
i
~
1
i
,
I
(22-603(2-b), cont'd)
(22-603 (2-b), cont'd)
each lot at the time improvements are erected thereon, an individual
water supply approved by the Board of Health or Health Official.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24, 1960. as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18. 1971, Article VI, 1603)
1604. S~rm Drainage. (Superceded by Ordinance 421-82, see Part 3
hereof)
1605. Curbs and Cutters. Wherever a proposed subdivision shall
average three or more lots per gross acre included in the subdivision, or
where any subdivision is immediately adjacent to, or within one thousand
(1.000) ~eet of, any existing or recorded subdivision having curbs and
gutters, curbs and gutters shall be installed on each side of the street
surface in accordance with the municipality's specifications, The Coverning
Body may require installation of curbs and/or gutters in any subdivision
where the evidence indicates that such improvements are necessary for proper
drainage.
1. Curbs. gutters. combination curbs and gutters shall be con-
structed according to the municipality's specifications.
2. Where vertical curbs are prOVided they shall be not less than
six (6) inches wide at the top and seven (7) inches wide at the bottom.
The overall depth of the curb shall be not les. than twenty (20) inches.
The curbs shall rest on a six (6) inch cru.hed stone ba.e which i. adequately
drained.
J. The cross-sectiona of gutters and combination curbs and lutter.
shall be constructed in accordance with the details shown on approved
drawings.
4. Curbs and gutter. shall be set and fini.hed to the line. and
grades given on the approved drawings.
(Ordinance '82-60. October 24, 1960, as -.ended by Ordinance 235-71.
OCtober 18. 1911, Article VI, 1605)
1606. Sidewalks. Wherever a proposed subdivision shall averale
three or more lots per Iros. acre included in the subdivision. or where
any subdivision is immediately adjacent to. or within one thousand (1.000)
feet of any existing or recorded subdivision having sidewalks. Sidewalks
shall be installed on each side of the street in accordance with the
municipality's specifications.
I. Sidewalks shall be within the richt-of-way of the street and
shall extend in width from the rilht-of-vay line toward the curb line.
aevisad 1/4/1983
-291-
(22-606, cont'd)
(22-606, cont' d)
2. Sidewalks =ust be at least four (4) feet wide. In the vicinity
of shopping centers. schools. recreation areas and other facilities, side-
walks =ust be at least five (5) feet wide and located within the street
right-of-way.
3. Sidewalks shall be constructed according to the municipality's
specifications.
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24. 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971. Article VI. 1606)
1607. Street Name SiRns. The subdivision or land development
shall be provided with street name signs at all intersections. Such
signs must be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be installed
by the developer in a manner specified by the Township Engineer. (Ordi-
nance 82-60. October 24. 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, Octo~18.
1971. Article VI, 1607)
1608. Electric and Telephone Lines. All electric and telephone
service, including street lighting, shall be placed underground. (Ordi-
nance 82-60. October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71. Oeto~18,
1971. Article VI. 1608)
1609. Trees. The developer shall seed the planting strip between
the curb and sidewalk, if either or both are required. Street trees of
a caliper not less than l~" shall be provided and planted 40' to 60' apart.
The type and spacing of the trees shall be approved by the Planning Com-
mission and the Coverning Body. The required trees shall be planted betveen
the sidewalk and the building line and shall be a minimum of five (5) feet
from the sidewalk. Follovinl is a list of acceptable trees:
Acer saccharU1ll
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanc.olata
Cinko biloba
Cleditsia triacanthos inerm1s
Liquidaabar styraciflua
Quercus alba
Quercus boreaUs
Quercus coccinea
Quercus palustris
TilUa cordata
Tillia tomentosa
(Ordinance 82-60, October 24. 1960. as ...nded
0ctober 18. 1971. Article VI. 1609)
Su~ar Maple
\/hiuAsh
Creen Ash
Maidenhair Tree
Thornless Honey Locust
Sweet CUll
\/hite Oak
\led Oak
Scarlet Oak
Pin Oak
Little Leaf European
Silver Linden (Linden)
by Ordinance 235-71.
'610. Chanaes. In cases where any of the forecoina requirements
are not deemed appropriate by the Cov.rninc Body to serve in the public
interest, the Coveminl lody reserv.s the rilht to incr..se. ch.nce.
alter, or substitute Nlt.rials. ~nner. and specification for any utility
~r str.et u.prov...nt. (Ordinance 42-60. October 2~, 1960. .s ...nded
b~ 0rJinance 235-71, October 18, 1971, Article VI. '6101
-~92-
(22-700)
(22-700)
Article VII - Conditions of Acceptance
S700. Subdivision Control. No subdivision or land development of any
lot, tract or parcel of land shall be made, no street, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, water main or other improvements in connection therewith shall be
laid out, constructed, opened or dedicated for public use or travel, or
for the common use of occupants of buildings, abutting thereon, except in
strict accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. (Ordinance 82-60,
October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18, 1971, Article VII,
S700)
S701. Recording. Within ninety (90) days after the date of approval
of the final plat and protective covenants. and the entry into agreements
as to financial and other responsibilities in regard to the necessary grading,
paving and other street improvements of the subdivision or land development
plat, the applicant shall record an approved duplicate original copy of
all of the above plans and documents in the office of the Recorder of Deeds
of the County of Cumberland and furnish the Governing Body a Recorder's
Certificate that said plans and documents are properly recorded. The
Recorder of Deeds shall not accept said plans and documents unless they
bear official evidence of approval of the Governing Body.
1. After any approved subdivision or land development plat shall
have been officially recorded, the streets, public grounds, and other public
improvements shown thereon shall be so considered to be a part of the Official
Plan of the muniCipality.
2. Streets, public grounds, easements, and other public improve-
ments shown on a subdivision or land development plat to be recorded may
be offered for dedication to the municipality by forsal notation thereof
on the pl.n, or the owner may note on such plan that any such improvements
have not been offered for dedication to the municipality.
3, Ev.ry .treet, public grounds, and other improvement .hown on
. .ubdivision or land dev.lopm.nt pl.t that i. recorded .. provided herein
shall be de..-d to be a private .treet, park or improvement, until .uch
time as the.... shall have be.n offered for dedication to the ~niclpallty
and .ccepted by ordinance or resolution, or until it .hall have been con-
demned for use .. a public .treet, park or other improvement.
4. Th. recordinl of the pl.t shall not constitute Iround. for
asses.ment incr..... until such t1.e as lots are sold or improvements are
inst.lled on tbe l.nd included w1thln the subject pl.t.
(Ord1nance 82-60, October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordin.nce 235-71,
October II, 1971, Article VII, 1701)
Sale of Lots t.su.nce of r.ra1t or
luild1na, ot ift . su lvi.1on or opaent ..y
p.rmit to .r.ct, .lter or repair any buildlnl upon land 1n a subdiv1s1on
or land development, unles. and until a plat of such subdivision or land
-29).
(ll-702, cont'd)
(22-702, cont'd)
J"vel')pment shall have been approved and properly recorded, and until
impr"vt!mt!nt~ requirdd by the Governing Body shall have bt!en constructed
,)r guaranteed as herein provided. Where owing to special conditions, a
llteral enforcement Qf this provision would rt!sult In unnecessary hard-
shlp, the Governing Body may make such reasonable exception thereto as
wlll not be contra~y to the public interest, and may permit sale of a
lot, issuance of a pdrmit, or erection of a building subject to conditions
ndcessary to assurt! adequate streets and other public improvements.
(Ordlnance 82-60. October 24, 1960, as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
uctober 18, 1971, Article VIto H02)
i
HOl.
1.
development
ordinance.
General Provisions.
The Governing Body shall not approve any subdivision or land
plat except in strict conformance with the provisions of this
2. The Governing Body may alter any subdivision or land develop-
ment plat and specify alterations, changes, or modifications therein which
it deems necessary and may make its approval subject to such alterations,
changes or modifications.
3. ~o road, street, lane, alley, or related improvement shall be
accepted as part of the highway system of the municipality or for main-
tenance unless opened, laid out, graded and improved in strict accord-
ance with standards and specifications of the municipality.
4. Before acting to approve any subdivision or land develop.ent
plat, the Governing Body may arrange a publlc hearing thereon, after living
such notice as say be deeDed desirable in each case. If a public hearinl
has be.n held upon a pr.liminary plat, a publlc h.aring shall not b.
required upon the fin.l plat unl.ss the final plat departs substantially
from the preliminary plat or plan.
5. B.for. approYinl any subdivision or land d.velop.ent plat,
the Gov.rning Body shall require a vritt.n agr.eaent tbat the nec.ssary
grad lng, paYing, stre.t taproye..nts, curbs, sidewalks, stre.t lilhts,
fire hydr.nts, water ..lns, and sanit.ry sev.rs, as may be required by
the Gov.rnlng Body, shall b. install.d in strict accordance with the
stand.rds .nd sp.clfications by the applicant wlthin a sp.clfied tiae
p.rIod. Th. vritten aar....nt whlch shall include a bond, deposlt of
funds, or oth.r securiti.s sufficient in amount as shall be d.terained
b~ the ~nicIpal Inlineer and acceptable to the Coyerninl Body, to cov.r
the cost of such L.prove.ents.
6. Coapletion of laproy...nts or luarant.. ther.of pr.requisite
to fl~l plat ap,royal - No plat shall be flnally approYed unl.ss the
streets shown on such plat haYe be.n .pprov.d .5 required in thl. ordinance
and any walkwaye, curbs, gutt.rs, stre.t lights, fir. hydrants, shade
trees, ~t.r ..lne, sanitary sewa;s. sto~ drains and other L.proy...nts
as required in the subdIv1s1on and land developaent ord1nance have been
lnstalled 1n .ccordance vtth the ord1~nce. In lieu of the co.plet1on of
...2'4..
(22-703(6), cont'd)
(22-703(6), cont'd)
any lmprovements requlred as a condltlon for the flnal approval of a plat,
the appllcant shall provlde for the deposlt with the munlclpallty of a
corporate bond, or other securlty acceptable to the Governlng Body ln an
amount sufflclent to cover the costs of any lmprovements whlch may be
requlred. Such bond, or other securlty shall provlde for, and secure
to the publ1cr the completion of any lmprove:nent5 whlch may be requlred
wlthln the perlod flxed for such completlon. In the case where develop-
ment h projected over .1 perl.:>d of years, the Gov"rnlng R,)lly may authorlze
submlsslon of flnal plats by sectlon or stages of llevelopment subject
t" such requlrements or gUdnnt"es as to lmprove:nent'l ln future sectlons
or stages of development as lt flnds essentlal f.:>r th" protectlon of any
finally approved sectlnn .:>f the development.
7. ~ase from lmprovement bond
(a) When the developer has completed all of the necessary
and approprlate lmprovements, the developer shall notify the Coverning
Body, ln wrltlng, by certlfled or reglstered mail, of the completlon
of the aforesaid lmprovements and shall send a copy thereof to the
Municlpal Englneer. The Covernlng Body shall, within ten (10) days
after receipt of such notlce, dlrect and authorlze the Municipal
Englneer to inspect all of the aforesald improvements, The Municipal
Engineer shall, thereupon, flle a report, in writlng, wlth the
Covernlna Body, and shall promptly mall a copy of the same to the
developer by certlfied or reglstered mall. The report shall be
made and mailed within thirty (30) day. after receipt by the
Hunicipal Englneer of the afore.ald authorization from the Covern-
ing Body; .aid report shall be detailed and .hall indicate approval
or reJectlon of sald improvements, either in whole or in part, and
lf said improvements, or any portlon thereof, shall not be approved
or .hall be rejected by the Hunlcipal Engineer, .aid report shall
contain a .tatement of rea.on. for .uch nonapproval or rejection.
(b) The Coverning Body .hall notify the developer, in writins
by certified or reailtered mall, of the actlon of .ald Covernins Body
wlth relation thereto,
(c) If the Covernlna Body or the Hunlcipal Enalneer fails
to comply wlth the tlme 11mltation provision. contalned herein,
.11 1aprove~nt. will be deemed to have been approved and the
developer .hall be released from all 11abl11ty, pur.uant to It.
performance guaranty bond.
(d) If .ny portlon of the sald improvements shall not be
'pproved or shall be rejected by the Covernina lody, the developer
shall proceed to complete the .ame and, upon completlon, the ....
procedure of notiflcation, as outlined herein, shall be followed.
(e) Nothin. hereln, however, shall ~e con.trued in lialta-
tlon of the developer's rlaht to conte.t or que.tlon by le.al pra-
ceedin. or otherwls., any determlnatlan of the Governln. lody or the
Munlclp.l [n.lnesr.
-:q~-
(22-800)
(22-800 )
Articl@ Viii - Pen~lty and Enforc@m@nt
~8l)O. Penalty. Any person. partnership, or corporation who or
which heing the owner or agent of the owner of any lot. tract or parcel
of land shall layout, construct, open or dedicate any street, sanitary
sewer. stOnD sewer. water ~in or other improvements for public use,
travel or other purposes or for the common use of occupants of buildings
abutting thereon. or who sells. transfers or ~grees or enters into an
agreement to sell any land in a subdivision or land development whether
by reference to or by other use of a plat of such subdivision or land
development or otherwise, or erect any huilding thereon. unless and until
a final plat has been prepared in full com?liance with the provisions of
this ordinance and of the regulations adopted hereunder and has been
recorded as provided herein. shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. and upon
conviction thereof. such person. or the members of such partnership, or
the officers of such corporation. or the agent of any of them. responsible
for such violation shall pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1000) per lot or parcel or per dwelling within each lot or parcel. All
fines collected for such violations shall he paid to the municipality.
The description by metes and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other
documents used in the process of selling or transferring shall not exempt
the seller or transferor from such penalties or from the remedies herein
provided. (Ordinance 82-60. October 24. 1960. as amended by Ordinance 235-71,
October 18, 1971. Article VIII. f800. and by Ordinance 387-80)
f801. Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the 3uilding Inspector.
and he is hereby given the power and authority to enforce the provisions
of this ordinance. The Building Inspector shall require that the applica-
tion for a building permit shall contain all inforaation necessary to
enable him to ascertain whether the proposed building. alteration or use
is located in an approved final plat. No building permit shall be issued
until the Building Inspector has certified that the site for the proposed
building, alteration or use coqplies with all the provisions of this
ordinance and conforms to the site description as indicated on the
approved and recorded final plat. (Ordinance 82-60, October 24. 1960.
as amended by Ordinance 235-71, October 18, 1971, Article VIII, f801)
f802. Appeals to Court from Subdivision and Land Development
Decisions. The decisions of the Governing Body or the Planning Agency
with respect to the .pproval or disapproval of plats may be appealed
directly to court In the same manner and within the same time limita-
tions, as is provided for zoning appeals from the decisions or findinls
of the Zoninl Hearing Board by Act 247 (Pennsylvania ~unicipalities
Planning Codel. (Ordinance 82-60. October 24. 1960. as amended by
Ordinance 235-71. October 18. 1971. Article VIiI. f802)
f80l. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable
and if any provision. sentence, clause. section. part or application thereof
sh.ll be held tl1el.l. invalid, or unconstitution.I, such tlleg,ltty.
invaltdtty or unconstitutionality shall not affect or impair .ny of the
reftloltntng pr"vtst01'l1. sentences. clauses. sotcUons. "r appllcatl...ns.
-297-
(22-1001)
(22-1001)
Part 2
Flood Plaln Regulations
S1001. Definitions.
..
Building: any enclosed or open structure other than a boundary
fence occupying more than four square feet of area.
Developer: any landowner, agent of such landowner or tenant with
the permission of such landowner, who makes or causes to be made a sub-
division of land or a land development.
Dwelling: a building designed and constructed for reSidential
purposes in which people live.
Fill: any act by which earth, aand, gravel, rock or any other
materiar-Is placed, pushed, dumped, pulled, transported or moved to a new
location above the natural surface of the ground or on top of the stripped
surface, including conditions resulting therefrom. Fill shall not include
material placed within foundations walls.
Flood: a temporary inundation of normally dry land areas.
Flood Fringe District: the area inundated by the regulatory flood
which is not included within the Floodway District, which has been
adopted as a part of the East Pennsboro Township Zoning Ordinance
(Chapter 27), and which is shown on the East Pennsboro Township Official
Floodway and Flood Fringe Map.
Floodproofing: any combination of structural and nonstructural
additions, chanaes, or adjustaents to properties and structures which
reduce or ellalnate flood d....e to lands, water and sanitary facllitles,
structures, and contents of buildlnas.
Ploodway Dl.trlct: the desllnsted part of the area inundated by
the rerulatory flood requlred to carry and discharle the flood waters of
the reaulatory flood without causlna a rise in the elevation of that
flood of ~re than one foot, whlch has been adopted as part of the Eaat
Pennaboro Township Zonina Ordinance, and which is shown on the last Penns-
bora Township Official Floodway and Flood Prinle Hap.
Land develo~nt:
(1) the i.prov..ent of one lot or two or acre conti&uous lots,
tracts or ~rcels of land for any purpose involvinl (a) a Iroup of two
or acre buildiftls, or (b) the division or allocation of l.nd or s~ce
between or aacnl two or ~r. ..1stina or prospective occupants by ..ana
of, or for the purpose of str.ets, c~n areas, leaseholds, condoainiu~s,
bul1dinl lroups or other fea~~!'I;
(2) , subdivision of land.
-299-
(22-1001, cont'd)
(22-1001, cont'd)
~obile home: ~ transportable, single-family dwelling intended for
p~r"Hno!nt ,)ccupancy, office or plac~ of ass~mbly contained in one unit, or
in two units designed to be joined into one integr.ll unlt capable of agaln
b~ing 3ep.lr.lt~d for repeated towlng. which arrives at a slte complete and
ready f.)r <lccupancy except for minor and incidental unpacklng and assembly
<lper,ltlons, and cQllstructed so that it may be us~d without a permanent
founlhtion.
~ew mobile home park or moblle home subdivision: a parcel (or
contiguous parcels) of land divided Into two or more mobile home lots for
ro!nt or sale for which the construction of facilities for servlcing the
lot on which the mobile ho~e is to be affixed (lncluding at a minimum.
the installation of utilltles, either flnal site gradlng or the pouring
of concrete pads, and the construetlon of streets) Is completed on or
after the date of enactment of this ordinance.
Regulatory flood: the flood that has one chance In one hundred (or
a one percent chance) of being equalled or exceeded in any year. For the
purposes of this ordinance, the one hundred year flood (base flood) as
defined by the Federal Insurance Administratlon. U.S. Department of H~using
and Urban Development In "Flood Insurance Study. Township of East Pennsboro.
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania."
Regulatory flood elevation: the elevatlon of the regulatory flood
at a polnt.
Structure: a walled and roofed bul1ding. Includlng a gas or liquid
storage tank, that 1. princlpally above ground. as well as a mobile ho.e.
Subdivislon: the dlvislon or redivision of a lot, tract, or parcel
of land by .ny means into two or more lots. tracts, parcels or oth.r
divlslons of land Including changes in existing lot line. for the purpo..,
whether imm.diat. or future. of 1...., transf.r of own.r.hip or buildinl
or lot development; provided, howev.r that'th. division of land for aari-
cultural purpo... into parcel. of more than ten (10) acres, not involving
any new str.et or .a....nt of acce.., .hall be .xempted.
(Ordlnance 127-77. April 19, 1977. Article 1)
11002.
O.
General Provision..
Purpo... Th. sp.cific purpo.e of these proviSion. i.l
A. to relulate the .ubdivision and/or development of land
located In the Floodvay and Flood Frinle DI.trlct. in ord.r to pro-
mote the len.ral health. valfar., and .afety of the c~nit11
I. to r.qulr. that each .ubdlvl.ion lot In the Floodway aad
Flood Frlnl. DI.trlcts b. provided with a .afe bulldinl elt. with
adequ.tt acce..; and that public facllltl'. whlch ..rYe such u...
be d..ilned and Installed to preclude flood daaala .t th4 ti.. of
Initial constrvctlon;
-100-
(22-1002. cont'd)
(22-1002, cont'd)
C. to protect individuals from buying lands which are
unsuitable for use because of flood hazards by prohibiting the
subdivision and/or development of unprotected lands in the Floodway
and Flood Fringe Districts.
(Ordinance 327-77, April 19, 1977, Article II)
11003.
O.
consult
erosion
ment on
be made
created
Application Procedures and Plat Requirements.
Pre-application Procedures. Prospective developers shall
the County Conservation District representative concerning
and sediment control and the effect of the proposed develop-
geologic conditions. At the same time a determination should
as to whether or not any flood hazards either exist or will be
as a result of the subdivision or development.
1. Preliminary Plan Requirements. In addition to the informa-
tion normally required by the Township for review and approval of pre-
l1ainary plans, the following information, prepared by a registered
engineer or surveyor, shall be required when any part of the proposed
subdivision or land development is within the Floodway or Flood Fringe
Districts.
A. Name of engineer. surveyor, or other qualified person
responsible for providing the information required in this section.
B. A map showing the location of the proposed subdivision
and/or land developaent with respect to the Floodway and Flood Fringe
Districts, including information on, but not limited to, the regulatory
flood elevations, boundaries of the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts.
proposed lots and sites, fills, flood or erosion protective facilities,
and areas subject to special deed restrictions.
C. Where the subdlvislon and/or land development lies
partially or completely in the 'loodway or 'Iood 'rinae Districts
or Vbere the subdivision and/or land develop.ent borders on the
'loadway or 'lood Frln.e Districts, the prelia1nary plan ..p
shall include detailed information giving the location and eleva-
tion of proposed roads, public utilities, and buildina sites. All
such ..ps shall alao show contours at intervals of two (2) or five (5)
feet dependina upon the slope of the land and ldentify accurately
the boundaries of the 'loodway and Flood Fring. Districts.
2.
required ..
enainear or
Final Plan leq\l1r_nts. n.. followina information shAll b.
part of th. final plan and shall be pr.pared by a re.ist.red
surveyor:
A. All tnforaAtloft required for the submission of the pre-
lia1ury ,lAll incorporatlna any clwl... reqveated by the loard of
C_l..ioMfS.
-)01-
(22-1003(2), cont'd)
(22-1003(2), cont'd)
B. A plot plan ~r development plan showing the exact location
and ~levation of all proposed buildings, structures, roads, and public
utilities to be constructed in the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts.
All such plot plans or development plans shall show contours at
intervals of two (2) or five (5) feet and identify accurately the
boundaries of the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts.
C. Copies of all other permits required for construction of
the facilities shown on the subdivision or land development plan;
which may include, but are not limited to, water quality management
permits, erosion and sedimentation control permits, dams and
encroachments permits, and driveway permits. These copies shall be
submitted prior to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Performance Bond. No final plan shall be approved by the
Board of Commissioners until the improvements required by this ordinance
are constructed in a satisfactory manner and approved by the Board of
Commissioners. tn lieu of such construction, the Board of Commissioners
may grant final approval prior to completion providing:
A. The developer enters into an agreement with the Township
guaranteeing that the improvements will be installed in accordance
with the plans, specifications, and schedules approved by the Board
of Commissioners prior to plat approval. This agreement shall also
guarantee that no lot will be sold or building constructed in the
Floodway ~r Flood Fringe Districts prior to completion of all pro-
tective works or measures planned for such lot and of all necessary
access facilitie..
B. Simultaneous with the execution of the agreement specified
in subsection (A) of thi. Il003.3, the developer offers a fiscal
surety to guarantee performance of this alreement and installation of
improvements by the developer/owners at their own axpense in accord-
anca with the approved plans, speCifications, and schedules. The
surety bond shall be in the full amount of the estimatad costs.
The eur.ty agr....nt shall b. cond1tioned upon final apprOYal of
the plat. The bond shall be offered by the d.valop.r, his al.nt or
an .uthorized bondinl fira. Tha bond shall consist of a certified
check, escrev account, or irrevocable letter of credit in f.vor of
the Township of East Pennsboro. Any cash bond say be deposit.d by
the Township of East Pennsboro in an inter.st-bearine account.
C. Th. daveloper alr.es that the deposit in .scrow ..y be
applied by the Cov.minl Body for the coapletion of laproveeent. a.
alreed and that one hundred percent (IOOl) of the amount of the
deposit in escrev say be held by the Township of last r.nnsbora
for. period of six (6) .onths co.aencinl on the data of final
c~pl.tion.of luch i.,rov...nts and fifty parcent (50l) of tha
amount of the daposit in .screv ..y be hald by tha Township of
Ent Pannsborn for a period of Sill (6) IIOnthl co.aeftCina on a
data lix (6) IIOnths lubsequent t~ the date of final complation
of such laprove..nts for tha putpo.a of:
-)0:-
(22-1003(3-C), cont'd)
(22-1003(3-C), cont'd)
(I) guaranteeing and securing the correction of any defect
in material or workmanship furnished for such improvements latent
in character, and not discernible at the time of final inspection
or acceptance by the Governing Body, and
(2) guaranteeing against any damage to such improvements
by reason of the settling of the ground, base or foundation thereof.
Such agreement shall also provide that the bond may be applied by the
Township of East Pennsboro for any amounts incurred correcting such
defects. The balance of such deposit, including interest, if any,
held at the end of such period shall be returned by the Governing
Body to the depositor. or paid to the order of the depositor by the
Governing Body.
D. Prior to offering any improvement to the Governing Body,
the developer furnishes a written guarantee that all indebtedness
incurred for supplies, material, labor furnished, or engineering
and professional services in the construction of improvements shall
have been paid in full and that there are no claims for damage or
suits against the contractor involving such improvements.
(Ordinance 327-77, April 19, 1977, Article III)
11004. Design Standards and Improvements.
O. General
A. Where not prohibited by this or any other laws or ordi-
nances, land located in the Floodvay or Flood Fringe Districts may
be platted for development vith the provision that the developer con-
struct all buildings and structures to preclude flood da..ge in
accordance vith this and any other laws and ordinances regulatin.
such dsvelopment.
B. No subdivision and/or land development, or part thereof,
shall be approved if the proposed development and/or laprovements viII,
individually or collectively, increase the regulatory flood elevation
more than one (1) foot at any point.
C. Buildin. sites for residences or any other type of
dwelling or accommodation shall not be peraitted in any Floodvay
District. Sites for these uses ..y be peraitted outside the
Floodway Diltrict if the sites of dvellina units are .l.vated to
a heiabt at least one (1) foot above the eleyation of the reaulatory
flood. If fill is used to raise the eleyation of a lite, the fill
area shall extend out laterally for a distance of at least fifteen
(IS) feet beyond the liaite of the proposed structures. No fill or
other obstruction to the free flow of flood vaterl shall be placed
in the Floodvay District, except as provided by the Zonina Ordinance.
D. guildin, sites or fill for structures or buildings other
thaG for residentiat us.s shall not be peraitted in the Floodvay
District. Allo luch sites for Itructures or buildings outside the
-30l-
(22-1004(0-D), cont'd)
(22-1004(0-D), cont'd)
Floodway District s~all be protected as provided for In (C) of t~is
11004. However, t~e Governing Body may allow t~e subdivision and/or
development of areas or sites for commercial and Industrial uses at
an elevation less t~an one (1) foot above t~e regulatory flood if
t~e developer ot~erwlse protects t~e area to one (1) foot or assures
t~at t~e buiLdings or structures will be floodproofed at least up to
t~at ~elg~t, in conformance wit~ t~e Building Code.
E. If t~e Towns~lp of East Pennsboro determines t~at only a
part of a proposed plat can be safely developed, it s~all limit
development to t~at part and s~all require t~at development proceed
consistent wlt~ t~is determination.
F. When a developer does not intend to develop t~e plat
~imself and t~e Towns~ip of East Pennsboro determines t~at additional
controls are required to insure safe development, it may require t~e
developer to impose appropriate deed restrictions on t~e land. Such
deed restrictions s~all be inserted in every deed and noted on every
recorded plat.
1. Excavation and Grading. Where any excavation or grading is pro-
posed or where any existing trees, s~rubs or ot~er vegetative cover will
be removed, the developer s~all consult the County Conservation District
representative concerning plans for erosion and sediment control and to
also obtain a report on t~e soil characteristics of the site so that a
determination can be made as to the type and degree of development the
site may accommodate. Before undertaking any excavation or grading, the
developer shall obtain an erosion and sedimentation control permit from
the Co-=onwealth of Pennsylvania, if required. An erosion and sedimenta-
tion control plan mUlt be prepared, whether or not a permit is required.
Prior to coaaencement of any fill or excavation activitiel in the Floadway
or Flood Frinle Diltrictl, the developer shall obtain a fill and excavation
permit from the Bul1dlna Offlclal.
2. Dralnale Facl1ltlea, Storm dralnale facl1itles s~all be deellned
to convey the flow of eurface vaters vithout daaale to perlons or property.
The syst.. lhall inlure drainale at all pointl alonl streets, and provlde
positive drain'le avay fr~ bulldln.l.
Plans s~all be subject to t~e approval of the Board of Co.misllonerl. The
Board of C~11110nerl .., require a prlmarily underlround Iyst.. to
,cc~ad.te frequent floods and a secondary surface IYlte. to accoagodate
l,rger, lell frequent floodl. Dralnaae plans Ihall be conllltent vith
local and rellonal drainaae plan.. The facilities shall be dellaned to
prevent the dlscharle of excess runoff onto adjacent propertle.. If
subdlvilion or land de.elopaent plan. include any relocation or .lteration
of an ..1Itina vatercourl., an analYli. prepared b, a r.ll.tered enaineer
shall be submitted. The an.lYll1 shall show clearly the effect of the pro-
posed relocatlon or alteratlon on the flood-carrylna capacity of the vater-
~~urse, and sh.ll conlider floadinl of . "Inltude up to and lncludlnl the
re.ulatory flood. Mo relocatlon or alteratlon vlll be .pproved if the
fl~od-carrylna cap.clty of the vatercourse in questlon Is reduced.
-104-
(22-1004(2), cont'd)
(22-1004(2), cont'd)
The Building Official shall notify in writing all adjacent communities
and the State Coordinating Office of the Pennsylvania Department of Community
Affairs prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit
copies of such notifications to the Administrator.
The Buirding Official shall assure that the flood-carrying capacity
within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained.
3. Streets. The finished elevation of proposed streets shall be
established with due consideration given to the need for access to developed
properties during times of flooding. The developer shall submit, where
necessary, profiles and elevations of streets to detenuine compliance with
this requirement. Drainage openings shall be sufficient to discharge
flood flows Without unduly increasing flood heights.
4. Sewer Facilities. All new or replacement sanitary sewer systems
located within the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts, whether public or
private, shall be floodproofed up to an elevation one (1) foot above the
regulatory flood elevation, and plans therefor shall be submitted to the
Township Municipal Authority for approval.
S. Water Facilities. All new or replacement water systems located
in Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts, whether public or private, shall be
floodproofed to a point one (1) foot above the regulatory flood elevation.
6. Other Public Utilities and Facilities. All other new or
replaceaent public and/or private utilities and facilities shall be
elevated or floodproofed to a point one (1) foot above the regulatory
flood elevation, except for individual services to existing structures,
which shall meet the requirements of the Building Code.
7. Mobile Home Parks. The following requirements shall be met
for all nev .cbile ho.. parka and mobile home subdivisions located vithin
Flood Fringe Dlstricts; and shall apply relardle.s of whether or not a
partlcular mobile ho.. ls attached to a peraanent foundation.
A. Stands or lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on
pl1lnlS 10 that the lowe.t floor of each .cbl1e home viii be at lea.t
one foot above the relulatory flood elevatlon.
I. Adequate .urface drainage and access for a mobile hoee
hauler .hall be provlded.
C. When ftObile hoee. are to be elevated on pilinl', lot.
shall be larle enoulh to peralt .tep., piles shall be placed in
stable soil no more th.n ten feet apart, and reinforc...nt shall
be provided for pl1lng. mor. than .i8 f.et .bove Iround level.
(Ordinance 327.77, Aprll 19, 1971, Articl. tV)
-105-
(22-1005)
(22-1005)
11005. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. To the extent consis-
tent with, or ~re restrictive than, the provisions of this ordinance, the
provisions of Ordinance No. 82-60 (and any amendments thereto) [Part I
of this chapterl shall remain in fulL force and effect in the Floodway and
Flood Fringe Districts. This ordinance shall supersede any inconsistent
provision of any ordinance (including Ordinance No. 82-60 and any amend-
ments thereto) currAntly in effect in the Floodway and Flood Fringe
Districts. However, any provision of any ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect to the extent such provision is more restrictive than
the related provision of this ordinance. (Ordinance 327-77, April 19,
1977, Article V)
11006. Severability. Should any section or provision of this ordi-
nance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a Whole, or of
any other part thereof. (Ordinance 327-77, April 19, 1977, Article VI)
11007. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree of flood
protection lought by the provisions of this ordinance is considered
reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering
methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood
heights may be increaled by man-made or natural causes, such as ice jl..
and bridge openingl reltricted by debris. This ordinance does not imply
that areas outlid. the Vloodway and Flood Fringe Diltricts or that land
uses peraitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood
damages.
This ordinanc. Ihall not create liability on the part of tbe Town.hip
of Ea.t Pennsbora or any offic.r or ..ploy.e thereof for any flood d...se.
which result from reliance on this ordinance or any ad.iniltrative decIIIon
lawfully ..de ther.under.
In addition, the srant of a perait or approval of a subdivI.ion and/or
land d.v.lopaent plan Ihall not con.titut. a r.pre..ntation, luarant.., or
warranty of any. kind by the aunicipality or by any officlal or .-ploy..
thereof of the practIcablllty or saf.ty of the propoled U.., and .hall
create no llabillty upon the auniclpallty, It. offlclal. or ..ploy....
(Ordlnanc. ]27-77, Aprll L9, 1977, ArtIcle VII)
-306-
(22-2101)
(22-2101)
Part 3
Storm Water Management
A. Ceneral Provisions
.
12101. Purpose. The purpose of this Part 3 is to:
A. promote the general health, welfare and safety of the Township;
B. regulate the modification of the natural terrain and alteration
of existing drainage from new subdivisions and land developments in order to
control erosion and sedimentation of soils and preserve stream channels;
C. regulste certain earth disturbing activity, and placement of
fill, structures or pipes in the Floodplain; and
D. provide design, construction and maintenance criteria for per-
manent on-site stormwater management facilities for the purpose of controll-
ing storm water, erosion and sedimentation.
(Ordinance 421-82, November 3, 1982, 11.01)
12102. Short Title.
the "Storm Water Managl!lllent
11.02)
This Part 3 shall be known and III&Y be cited as
Ordinance". (Ordinance 421-82. November 3. 1982,
12103. Applicability.
ship, business or corporation
without written approval from
It shall be unlawful for any persons, partner-
to undertake any of the following activities
the municipality.
A. All earth disturbing activities except those required for
agricultural purposes.
a. Diversion of piping of any natural or manmade stre.. channel.
C. In.tallation of storm water system or appurtenane.. thereto.
D. Placement of fill, .tructures or pipes in the floodplain as
designated Oft the official floodplain map of East Pennsboro Township.
E. Land develop..nt.
F. Land subdivisions.
C. Installation of i.pervious cover, 10,000 square feet or aore
in an area.
(Ordinance 421-82, Moveaber 3. 1982. 11.03)
j2104. Abrolation and ereater ae.trletioas. Thi. Part 3 superced..
any provi.ion. of Chapter 22, Artiele 5, 11513 and 604 of the Code of Ordi-
nances of the Township of East 'ennsboro dated ~ov..ber 5. 1910 a. aaended.
All other ordinances sball r...in in full force and effect to the eatent
that those provisiona are acre restrictinl or to the extent that such ordi-
nance. would otherwise apply. (Ordinance 421-12, Moveaber 3, 1912. 11.04)
Added 1/4/191)
-306.1-
(22-2201)
(22-2201 )
B. Definitions
f2201. Definitions. The following words and phrases, as used in this
Stormwater ~anagement Ordinance, shall have the meaning hereby ascribed
thereto unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
ACCELERATED EROSION - the removal of the surface of land through the
combined action of man's activities and the natural processes at a rate
greater than would occur because of natural process alone.
APPLIC~~T - any legal or equitable landowner, lessee, optionee or his
authorized agent who submits plans. data or applications to the Zoning Offi-
cer or other designated Township official for the purpose of obtaining any
approval or permit.
DEBRIS BASIN - a barrier or dam constructed across a waterWay or at
other suitable locations to form a silt or sediment basin.
DETENTION POND - a vegetated pond designed to drain completely after
storing runoff only for a given storm event and release water at a prede-
termined rate. It is also known as "dry pond".
DEVELOPER - any landowner, agent or tenant With permission of such
landowner, who makes or causes any development of a tract or parcel of land
or a lot.
ENERGY DISSIPATOR - a device used to slow the velocity of storm water,
particularly at points of concentrated discharge such as pipe outlets.
GRASSED WATERWAY - a natural or san-sade drainageway of parabolic or
trapezoidal cross-section shaped to required dimensions and vegetated for
safe disposal of runoff. It il alia known as a "swale".
HOLDING POND - a retention or detention pond.
LAND DEVELOPHENT -
A. the t.provement of one (I) lot or two (2) or ~re con-
tiguous loti, traCtl, or parcell of land for any purpose involving:
1. a group of two (2) or ~re buildingl.
2. the division or allocation of land or space
betveen or amonl two (2) or ~re existing or prospective
occupants by seanl of, or for the purpole of streetl,
c~n areas, leaseholds, condoainiu.., building Iroups
or other fe.tures.
3. .ny fill, excavation, or ~ve.ent of earth
involving two (2) or ~re acres.
I. a subdivision plan; any develop..nt of a parcel of land
Which involves installation of Itreets and alle,. sa, not be dedi-
cated to public use and the parcel ..y not be divided la-.4iatety
for tile PUt1los.. of COt.vl~'lnce. transfer or sale.
Added 1/4/198)
-)06. ).
(22-220L, cont'd)
(22-220L, cont'd)
ON-SITE STORK WATER MANAGEMENT - the control or runoff to allow water
falling on a given site to be absorbed or retained on site to the extent
that after development the peak rate of discharge leaving the site is not
significantly different than if the site had remained undeveloped.
OWNER - the legal or beneficial owner or owners of land including the
holder of an option or contract to purchase (whether or not such option or
eontract is subject to any condition), a lessee if he is authorized under
the lease to exercise the rights of the owner, or other persons having a
proprietary interest in the land. shall be deemed to be an owner for the
purpose of this part.
PERSON - any individual or group of individuals, corporation. unin-
corporated association, cooperative or partnership.
RECORD DRAWINC - the set of prints of the original facilities. showing
any changes made during the construction process.
RETENtION POND - a pond containing a permanent pool of water designed
to store runoff for a given storm event and release it at a predetermined
rate.
SEDIMENT BASIN - a temporary dam or barrier construCted across a
waterway or at other suitable locations to intercept the runoff and to trap
and retain the sediment.
SUBDIVISION - an area of land divided by the owner or agent, either
by lots or by metes and bounds, into lots or parcels two (2) or more in
number, for the purpose of conveyance, transfer, improvement or sale, in-
cludina the appurtenant roads, streets, lanes, alleys and ways dedicated
or intended to be dedicated to public use or to the use of purchasers or
owners of lots frontlna thereon. The words "resubdlv1s1on", "plot", "re-
plot", "plan" or "replan" shall be used interchangeably with the wor~ "sub-
division", and shall have the meaning set forth in this section.
TOWNSHIP - East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, 'ennsylvania.
(Ordinance 421-82, Noveaber J, 19B2, 12.01)
MotH 1/4/1983
-306.4-
(22-2301)
(22-2301 )
C. Procedures
12301. Plan Content. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control/Storm-
water Management Plan (herein referred to as "ESC/SIIM Plan") shall consist
of a map and a narrative. It shall be prepared by a registered engineer,
surveyor. archttect or landscape architect. It shall include the follow-
ing:
A. A general statement of the project. The date the project 1s
expected to begin and expected date final stabilization will be completed,
must be included 1n the narrative. The project location shall be shown on
a seven and one-half (7 1/2) minute USGS topographic map.
B. Topographie features of the project area which shall be shown on
the map are as follows:
(1) Existing and finished contours (two feet (2') except
in areas where slope is greater than fifteen percent (15%), in
which case the contour interval shall be five feet (5'));
(2) Boundary lines of the project area; and
(3) Existing drainage on the project area and adjoining
prop.rties (floodplain, streams. lakes, ponds, easements, etc.).
The map shall contain a certification by the preparer that it is
current and an accurate representation of the site.
C. The proposed alteration to the area shall be shown on the map,
including lots, streets, parkinl areas, storm drainale (including piping and
inlets), eroslon control facilities, area of cut and fill and the limit. of
earth disturbance and stormwater manalement facilities.
D. Runoff Calculation.:
(I) Volume. of runoff from the drainage area(s) .hall
b. calculated to determin. the .izing of temporary and pe~nent
facl~itl.. to control stora vater and eroslon. For the purpo.e.
of this Part 3. storm event. ar. ba.ed on the amount of runoff
durina a period of twenty-four (24) hour. a. follow.:
Stota Frequency
2 y.ar
5 year
10 year
25 year
100 year
Inch.. of Rainfall
2.9"
3.8"
4.7"
5.1"
6.5"
(2) lunoff calculations .hall b. ..de for the .it. and
ar.a. which contribut. dra1n..e to the .it.. Th... calculat10ftS
thall be b..ad on land u.e, t1.. of concentration .nd other
ttand.rd ..,ect. of hydraultc analystt.
AddM 1/4/191]
-306.5-
(22-2301, cont'd)
(22-2301. cont'd)
(a) Temporary Control Measures or Facilities -
Runoff calculations of the site's condition during develop-
ment shall be used to size temporary control measures.
(b) Permanent Control Measures or Facilities -
(1) All retention ponds and detention pondS
(holding ponds) used as permanent storm ~ater control
facilities shall be designed using as a minimum. the
standards for debris basins as outlined in the "So11
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook for Cumber-
land. Dauphin and Perry County Conservation District".
(2) Permanent control measures or facilities
shall be designed to assure that the maximum rate of
storm~ater runoff is no greater after development'
activities than what would result from a predevelop-
ment ten (10) year storm. Calculation of the pre-
development peak discharge shall presume a good grass
cover as outlined in the "So11 Erosion and Sedimenta-
tion Control Handbook for Cumberland, Dauphin and
Perry County Con.ervation Districts". Variation frOlll
the ten-year design .torm may be at the discretion of
the Township Engineer. More stringent criteria de-
termined in accordance with sound and accepted en-
gineering practices shall be required in .ensitive
areas where storm vater problems presently exist.
When more stingent criteria i. con.idered by the
Township Engineer. he shall present his recoamenda-
tion to the Plan Review Board. The capacity of the
outlet structure, such a. exi.ting .torm .ever sys-
t.... shall control the rate of discharge. Runoff
calculations shall also be made to insure that run-
off fro. the developed upstream vatershed area
(ba.ed on the applicable municipal or county COD-
prehen.ive land use plan) can be accommodated by
the pipes. draioale ea...ents. vater courses, etc.,
on the slte.
()) lunoff calcul.tions .hall also include
cOlllplete hydroloaic and hydraulic analysiS of all
ero.ion control facilitie.. includina but not li.ited
tOI
(a) velOCities of flev. slopes.
capacity and rouahness coefficient of con-
duits and Irassed vatervaysl and
(~) capacity of sediNant ba.ins .nd
perslnent holding ponds.
A44ed 1/4/1981
-106.6-
(22-2301. cont'd)
(22-2301. cont'd)
(4) All computations used in conjunction
with the analysis and design of storm water manage-
ment facilities be based on the Soils Cover Complex
~ethod of the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Runoff from sites with
drainage areas less than ten (10) acres can be cal-
culated by the Rational ~ethod. Sites with drainage
areas of ten (10) to twenty (20) acres may be cal-
culated by the Rational ~ethod or by Soils Cover
Complex ~ethod. Drainage areas in excess of twenty
(20) acres shall be analyzed by Soil Cover Complex
~ethod.
E. The staging of earth disturbing activities shall be described
ln the narrative. detailing the sequence of erosion control installation in
relation to the installation of improvements.
F. Temporary and permanent control measures or facilities. includ-
ing holding facilities and swales. shall be shown on the map and described
in the narrative.
C. A maintenance program for control facilities shall be included
in the narrative. describing the method of disposal of materials removed
frea the control facilities or the project area.
(Ordinance 421-82. November 3. 1982. 13.01)
12302. Design Criteria for Erosion Control Facilities.
A. For purposes of all erosion control facilities. the design
standards and specifications of the "Eroslon and Sedimentation Control Hand-
book for Cumberland. Dauphin and Perry County Conservation Districts" shall
be considered the minimal acceptable standard.
(1) The grassed waterway may be utillzed in place of con-
duit piping in those areal where soil conditions allow recharge
of groundwater. The usage of grassed watervays shall not be per-
mitted in areas of year round or sea.onally high ground water table
unless provision is made to handle long-duration flows. for example,
by means of subsurface drainage or stone centered watervays.
B. In areas underlain with li.estone geology, pond. .hall be
limited to the detention (dry) type unless the developer can show a special
need for a retention pond. in which case it shall ~ave a lining. Detention
ponds shall be prohibited in areas of known sinkholes unless the pond is
lined. If a sinkhole develops in a pond or ch.nnel before acceptance by
the munlcipalty. a linlng shall be required.
C. Any pond. with slope. steeper than three (3) to one (1) shall
be enclosed with a fenc..
D. Detention ponds '4y be valved b~ the Townshlp [nlln.er at sltes
in close pro.Laity to the major streaa. Thls ls to facllltate dralna.e prlor
to stre.. flooding.
(Ordln.nce ~~1-a2, Sov~ber ), lq!~. I),J;\
A4ded 1/4/1983
-)O~.1-
(22-2303)
(22-2303)
12303. Construction Criteria for Erosion Control Facilities. Con-
struction standards of erosion control facilities shall be in accordance
with the approved plans and accompanying specifications. The construction
standards for erosion control facilities outlined in the "I::roslon and Sedi-
mentation Control Handbook for Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry County Conser-
vation Districu....hall be considered the minimal acceptable standard. Con-
trols shall be installed at the initial stage of earthmoving and otherwise
as outlined in the staging of earthmoving activities section of the ESC/SWM.
(Ordinance 421-82, November 3, 1982, 13.03)
12304. Maintenance Criteria for Erosion Control Practices. Main-
tenance is an essential part of the successful functioning of a storm water
management system.
A. Maintenance during development activities of a project shall be
the responsibility of the contractor, developer and owner and shall include
but not be limited to:
(1) removal of silt from all debris basins, traps or
other structures or measures when sixty percent (60%) of capacity
is filled with silt;
(2) periodic maintenance of temporary control facilities
such as replacement of straw bale dikes, straw filters or si~ilar
measures;
(3) establishment or reestablishment of vegetation by seed-
ing and mulching or sodding of scoured areas where vegetation has
not successfully been establishedi
(4) installation of controls necessary to correct unfore-
seen problems caused by storm events within design frequencies;
(5) removal of all temporary measures and installation of
permanent measures upon completion of the project.
8. After the project has been accepted by the Township (except in
cases where agreement. to the contrary have been previou.ly executed), main-
tenance shall be the responsibility of the Town.hip and shall include:
(1) li.tna and fertilizinl veletated channel. and other
areas accordlnl to .pecification. in the "Erosion and Sedimenta-
tion Control Handbook for Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry County
ConservaUon Districts".
(2) mowina to maintain adequate stands of Iras. and to
control veeds. Chuical veed control may be used if State and
Township relul.tions are met. Selection of seed aLxtures should
reflect the type of maintenance required ~y the Township.
(3) r~yal of silt froa all petsanent structure. which
trap tilt or sediment.
C. It shall be the resro~sibility of the Township Enaineer to in-
spect .11 permanent facilities and see that corrective action is taten where
nece.."ry .
(Ordinance 4~l-l2. Soyember 1, l~S2. Il,O~)
Added 1/4/1951
-106.8-
(22-2501)
(22-2501)
E. Plan Submission and Enforcement
~2501. Plan Submission and Approval.
A. An ESC/SWM Plan for any activity described in 11.02 [12102 here-
of] shall be s~bmitted to the Zoning Officer for approval. The Zoning Offi-
cer shall refer the ESC/SWH Plan to the Township Engineer and Plan Review
Board for their recommendation. However, the Zoning Officer may waive the
requirements of certain items of the ESC/~ Plan outlined in 13.01 [12301
hereof] upon recommendation of the Township Engineer and Plan Review Board.
B. In the case of subdivision activities, the submission require-
ments and procedures of the ESC/SWM Plan shall be in accordance with Chapter
22. Part 1, Article 3. of the Code of Ordinance. Township of East Pennsboro
dated November 5, 1980 as amended.
C. The ESC/SWM Plan will be submitted to the Board of Commissioners
with the subdivision plan to allow for timely review and inclusion in the
final subdivision plan of any revision which may result from the reviews of
the Cumberland County Planning Commission. the Cumberland County Conserva-
tion District. and Township Planning Commission.
(I) Evidence that the ESC/SWH Plan has been submitted
to the Cumberland County Planning Commission or Cumberland County
Conservation District and Township Planning Commission shall be
presented to the Board of Commissioners.
(2) The review and comments of the Cumberland County
Conservation District and Township Engineer shall be considered
by the Board of Commissioners in taking action on any subdivi-
sion plan.
D. The final ESC/SWM Plan approved by the Board of Commissioners
shall become a supplement to the final subdlvision plan and be subject to
all rules. regulations and procedures pertalninl thereto. as vell as the
followinl requirement:
(I) Prlor to the final approval of a subdivision plan
by the Board of ComDissioners. the developer must provide se-
curity to the Township as stipulated in Section 509 - Comple-
tion of Iaprovements or Guarantee Thereof Prerequisite to Final
Plot Approval. Section 510 - Release fr~ Iaprove..nt Bond. and
Section 511 - R...dies to Effect Completion of Iaprove~nts. of
the Pennsylvania ~nicipalities Planninl Code.
E. An application fee for the review and approval of open ponds
for the purpose of defrayinl future ..inten.nce shall be calculated at a
rate of one thousand dollars ($1.000.00) per acre or portion thereof vith
a a1nuaua fee of tvo thousand dollars ($2.0oo.00l. This fee shall be paid
to East 'ennsboro Township by the owner.
(Ordin.nce ~21-a2. Sov..ber 3. 1982. 15.01l
Added l/4/1981
-306.11-
(22-2502)
(22-2502)
12502. Adherance to Approved Plan, It shall be unlawful for any per-
son ~o undertake any earth disturbing activity on any property except as pro-
vided for in the ESC/SWM Plan approved pursuant to this part. It shall also
be unlawful for any person to alter or remove any control structure required
by the ESC/SWM Plan pursuant to this part or to allow the property to remain
in a condition whtch does not conform to the approved ESC/SWM Plan. (Ordi-
nance 421-82, November 3. 1982. 15.02) -----
.
.
12503. Enforcement. The Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized
and directed to enforce all of the provisions of this ordinance. Upon pre-
sentation of proper credentials. the Township Engineer or Zoning Officer may
enter at reasonable times upon any property Within the Township to investi-
gate or ascertain the condition of the subject property in regard to any
aspect regulated by this part.
A. All inspections regarding compliance wtth the ESC/SWM Plan shall
be the responsibility of the Township Engineer or Zoning Officer.
(I) A set of design plans approved by the Board of C~
missioners shall be on file at the site throughout the duration
of the construction activity. Periodic inspections shall be
made by the Township during construction.
(2) At the completion of the project, and as a pre-
requisite for the release of the guarantee, the Owuer or his
representative shall:
(a) provide a certification of completion
from a professional registered engineer verifying
that all permanent facilities have been constructed
according to the plans and specifications and ap-
proved revisions thereto.
(b) provide a set at record drawings.
(3) Alter receipt of the certitication at completion by
the Board at Coamissioners, a final inspection shall be con-
ducted by the Township Engineer or Zoning Otlicer to certify
compliance with this part.
B. Prior to acceptance ot any storm water tacilities, tinancial
security shall be posted in the amount ot ten percent (101) at the actual
cost at installation tor a term ot eighteen (lS) months tor the purpose ot
securing structural intearity at the storm water tacilities.
(Ordinance 421-52, November 3, 1982, 15.0l)
12504. Violations. In the event that an owner fails to comply with
the provisions at this part, the Township sh.ll provide written notification
ot violation, and the owner s~.ll be subject to the penalty provisions at
thls part or other pe~lty provisions contalned in the Subdivision Ordinance.
(Ordin.nce 421-82. ~ov..ber 1, 1952, 15.04)
Added 1/4/1981
-106.12-
.
ORDINANCB NO. '" 1)~ g- 95
AN ORDINANCB or THE TOWNSHIP or BAST PIHNSBORO,
CUKBBRLAIID COUNTY, paamVLVANIA, AJlBHDING VARIOUS SECTIONS
AHD SUBSECTIONS or CHAPTBR 22 or THE CODa or ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE BAST paamSORO TOWNSHIP SUBDIVISION Mm LAND
DEVELOPKBNT ORDINANCE.
BE IT ENACTED AHD ORDAINED by the Board at
Commi..ioner. at the .aid Town.hip and it i. .nact.d and
ordained by the Authority at ...., a. tallow.:
SECTION 1: AJODIDIIINT8
.
Chapt.r 22 at the Code at Ordinance. r.latin. to
.ubdivieion .nd land dev.lop.ent i. hereby a.ended in the
tollowin. p.rtioul.r.:
A. Article V i. ..ended by .ddin. the tollowin.:
1. Seation 516: Street 0..1..- In TII. 1'-8 'on.t
8lOD. Dl.trlat .nd R-C R..ld.ntlal
Con..rvatlon Dlatrlat-
a.
The tollowin. variationa in .inor or local
.
aoe... .treet d..ian .ay be utili..d only
by deyelop.ent. in the '-8 'ore.t Slop.
.
I
and R-C Residential Cons.rvations, as
detined in Chapter 27 ot the Code ot
Ordinanoes and shall be approved tor use
by the Board ot Commi..ioner. in
aooordanoe with Artiole 4 Varianoe.,
Seotion 401 ot this Ordinanoe and
tollowin. a review by the Township
In.ineer. Suoh variations shall only be
approved when shown to aohieve the
ooneervation purpo.e. .tated in the
Town.hip Zonin. Ordinanoe tor the subjeot
aonin. di.triot. on an individual
o..e-by-oase ba.ie.
.
(1) The minimum ri.ht-ot-way width tor
minor or local aoee.. etre.t. ehall
b. thirty (30) t.et. The minimum
oartway width tor minor or 100.1
aooe.. street. shall be twenty (20)
teet. Cul-de-.ac turnaround. .hall
be de.i.ned with a minimu.
ri.ht-ot-way width ot ninety (90)
teet in dia.eter and a minimum
oartway width ot .eventy (70J teet in
dia.eter to the out.ide curb.
.
~
Seation 2: Severability. The provi.ion. ot thi. Ordinano.
are deolar.d to be ..verabl.. It any ..otion, .ub..otion,
..ntenc., clau.e, phra.e or provi.ion h.r.ot i. h.ld or
jud.ed by any oourt ot competent juri.diction to b.
unconetitutional, ill..al or oth.rwi.e invalid, any .uch
holdin. or jud.m.nt .hall not b. con.tru.d a. att.ctin. or
impairin. any ..otion, .ub..otion, ..nt.noe, alau.., phra..
or provi.ion ot thi. Ordinanc.. It bein. the .xpr....d
int.nt ot the Board ot Commi..ion.r. that thi. Ordinano.
would hav. b..n .nact.d had .uch uncon.titutional, ill..al
or oth.rwie. invalid ..ction, .ub..ction, clau.., phra.. or
.
provieion not hay. b..n includ.d h.r.in.
.
~flI
1-
~-,
Enacted and Ordained thi.
19~5 .
day ot
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COKKISSIONERS,
TOWNSHIP or lAST PINNSB
_0tt~
S.cr.tary
By'
.
5