HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06361
..,--
=
=,
-, ~
- -.;. ^',> f.'-'" ,', I~',,,;, ,'<' '~
,;: " ..c",~__,'~ ",' , " ' '"
THE CUSTER COMPANY
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.OI-t...1fe.1 "26e+ C'o,.L 't-~
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Appellant
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Appellee
MANDAMUS
LAND USE APPEAL
NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL
Appellant, The Custer Company., hereinafter "Custer" by and through its
attorneys, Caldwell & Kearns, files this Notice of Appeal from the October 12, 2001
decision of the Silver Spring Township Board of SupeNisors, and in support thereof
avers as follows:
1. This appeal is brought pursuant to Section 804 of the Subdivision and
land Development Ordinance of 1999 of Silver Spring Township, the Local Agency Law
2 Pa. C.S.A. 9751 et. sea., and the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code Act 247 of
1968, as amended, specifically 953 P.S. 11003-A, et. sea., as amended.
2. The Appellant is The Custer Company, a corporation duly organized and
existing in accord with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania having a
principal place of business located at 1309 laurel Point Circle, Harrisburg,
Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17100.
3. The Appellee is the Board of SupeNisors of Silver Spring Township, a
duly incorporated political subdivision having its municipal office located at 6475
Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17050-2319.
1
if'!
~,' ,
.~. ,~ .
_0
,..,' ,.', l~,
--'
.......' W~-,""",,-,,,,:
I' ~,'.,'.~~,:ms 1 and/or 2 for additional services. ~:::n~gi~~~::eC:i(':r~
. ,18t8 Items 3. 4a, and 4b.
It . fDrInt your name and a;ddress on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): '\
~ ~~- . I
'I: . Attadl this form to the'front of the mallplece, or on the back if space does not 1. 0 Addressee's Address
! ~ 20
. WriteI -Return RBCBIpt,ReqiJ8$tf1d" on the mailplQCe below the article numb.. . Restricted Delivery
f . The Return Receipt will show to whOm the article was dellvemd and the date Co' f f
'501 dJ!lIvered. nSUn postmaster or ea. Q.
g 3. Ar1ialeAddressed to: 4<1. Article Number J
I Silver Spring Township Board of 7099 3400 0018 5004 7658
ii. Supervisors 4b. Service Type !
~ ~~6Rafi<re~8Mg,P~e17050-2319 ~ :::':ail ~~~r: ~
o Retum Receipt for Merohandise 0 COO 1
DI-6361 Civil Term 1M 7. Date of Oel~~ / 2
/-'7-17 :>
g,
5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested ...
and fee is paid) Ii .
~
102595-98-8
Domestic fleturn
!!
-
.,
',""h_ .0",'1_<.:&,.,,,',,: ,)__i . ~', _'0","'><'"'" ',e' ""'j]", ";G>~H
4. Pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code
(hereinafter, "MPC"), the "governing body" for Silver Spring Township is its elected
Board of Supervisors (hereinafter, "Governing Body"), and the said Governing Body is
vested with the duties, requirements and responsibilities imposed upon it under the
provisions of the said MPC.
5. In accord with its responsibilities under the MPC, the Governing Body
did enact and have in effect, at all relevant times, a certain Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance of 1999.
6. One of the duties imposed upon the Governing Body pursuant to the MPC
and the Silver Spring Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance 1999 (hereinafter,
the "Ordinance") is to review applications for approval of subdivision land development
plats or plans, and to act upon those applications in accord with the provisions and
standards as set forth in the MPC.
7. Section 508(1) of the MPC provides:
(1) The decision of the governing body or the planning
agency shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the
applicant personally or mailed to him at his last known
address no later than 15 days following the decision.
(2) When the application is not approved in terms as filed
the decision shall specify the defects found in the application
and describe the requirements which have not been met and
shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statute or
ordinance relied upon.
(3) Failure of the governing body or agency to render a
decision and communicate it to the applicant within the time
and in the manner required herein shall be deemed an
approval of the application in terms as presented unless the
applicant has agreed in writing to an extension of time or
change in the prescribed manner of presentation of
communication of the decision, in which case, failure to
2
,":
, '~_1
',--,
',.1" ,
- ..~'-', - - ':" "0 . '.,:,,i Ii ",' ":.. /,' "
""" ~""",,-'r "~'~'.,;;,,., t_L.t~J
meet the extended time or change in manner of presentation
of communication shall have like effect.
8. Appellant, The Custer Company, is the equitable owner of certain
unimproved real estate, the subject of a Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development
Plan (hereinafter, the "Plan") , of approximately 31.70 acres, more or less, bearing
Cumberland County Tax Parcel No. 38-07-0459-018, located at or near the intersection
of Woods Drive (Township Road 585) and State Route 114 (Hogestown Road).
9. The legal owner of the unimproved real estate is the Estate of Fred
Schlosser, with whom Appellant has executed an Agreement for the sale of said
unimproved real estate.
10. On or about June 14, 2001, the Appellant, The Custer Company, filed a
with the Governing Body the Plan seeking approval of the Appellant's Plan for the
location and construction of a residential development of approximately forty-nine (49)
single family dwelling homes located at or near the intersection of Woods Drive
(Township Road 585) and State Route 114 (Hogestown Road).
11. In the application for approval of the Plan, Appellant requested one
waiver, to wit: a waiver of the requirement to provide a minimum rear yard of seventy-
five (75) feet on all reverse frontage lots.
12. The Planning Commission of the Governing Body did consider and
recommend the granting of the waiver request at its regularly scheduled public meeting
held on August 2,2001.
13. On October 10, 2001, at its regularly scheduled public meeting, the
Governing Body did deny the waiver request, as above cited, but did approve the
Preliminary Plan not as presented but subject to numerous conditions. The written
decision of the Governing Body was communicated to Appellant by letter dated October
3
r;:
, ',,; --0' '~o,"I,' ~~L','.
,__,'/" :~,> f" "",;t ~
l~'lbi
12, 2001, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and
made a part hereof by reference thereto.
14. Previous thereto, the Governing Body, at its regularly scheduled public
meeting of August 22, 2001 considered, but tabled, action on the Plan at the request of
the Appellant. Following said action, the Manager of the Governing Body, on behalf of
the Governing Body, communicated certain comments of the Governing Body to
Applicant as contained in certain correspondence dated August 24, 2001, a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof by
reference thereto.
15. By correspondence dated and delivered October 1 0, 2001, in advance of
the public meeting of the same date, Appellant Custer's Engineer for the Appellant,
Dawood Engineering, Inc. did communicate to the Governing Body Custer's acceptance
of many of the comments contained in the comment letter of August 24, 2001, but did
specifically reject, as inappropriate and/or not required by the Ordinance, certain
comments to specifically include comments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and
22. A true and correct copy of said correspondence is attached hereto marked Exhibit
"C" and made a part hereof by reference thereto.
16. Furthermore, in said correspondence, Appellant's Engineer did outline its
alternate proposed traffic improvements addressing comments Nos. 13, 14 and 15,
which were accepted by the Governing Body as set forth in condition No. 30 of its
conditional approval of October 12, 2001, Exhibit "A" attached hereto, which condition is
accepted by Custer.
17. Appellant Custer does not accept conditions Nos. 10, 11, 12
(which apparently has been modified by condition No. 30, which is acceptable to
Applicant), 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 22 of the conditional approval of October 12, 2001,
Exhibit "A", attached hereto, thus resulting in a disapproval of the Plan as so stated in
4
- ~,I ~Q " ~--~,' i' c ,," '':.~',I~",:~,>< "<, ,,'-';,'.. :,;."" ,;;",:. ,; <"";~'L~h~jl
the Ordinance. With regard to each and every condition to which Appellant, The Custer
Company, does not accept, as hereinbefore identified, the Governing Body has
completely failed to comply with the provisions of Section 508 of the MPC and the
Ordinance requiring, in each instance, why such conditions do not fulfill the
requirements of the Ordinance, and citing, for each and every condition which Appellant
Custer does not accept, the provisions of the Ordinance relied upon by the Governing
Body.
18. Furthermore, it is reasonably believed and averred by Appellant that, prior
to a vote on the waiver request hereinbefore briefly identified, the waiver was denied on
the basis of the failure of the Applicant to address a concern of the Board relative to
providing a second accessway on the Plan, although not required by the Ordinance,
and presumably, therefore, not on the merits of the waiver request.
19. Appellant, The Custer Company, believes, and therefor avers, that, in
view of the failure of the Governing Body to communicate its decision in a manner,
form, detail and specificity as required by the MPC, and indeed its Ordinance, there
exists, pursuant to Section 508(3), a deemed approval of the Plan as submitted with
only the conditions accepted by Appellant as hereinbefore identified.
20. Appellant, The Custer Company, furthermore avers that the Governing
Body, in establishing such conditions which are not accepted, and also in denying such
waiver request, did act arbitrarily, capriciously, with an abuse of discretion and contrary
to law by establishing conditions not contained in the Ordinance with regard to the
subject Plan and otherwise acting not based upon the merits of the waiver request.
WHEREFORE, Appellant, The Custer Company, respectfully requests Your
Honorable Court to enter judgment against the Appellee, Silver Spring Township Board
of Supervisors, directing said Appellee to enter upon its records and execute such
documents as appropriate, an approval (a "deemed approval") under Section 508(3) of
5
,
.,',..
'.~." "
'. < ,,>-' 'J, __0' ",I,,~,,~."', .' ^ :" '.",,;,. "'>/,v,;,,;):,:;,,%',;~ .',.'" '~,,' ::;....~
the MPC of the Plan of Appellant, in terms as presented with only the conditions as
accepted by Appellant, and also directing that it enter upon its records that the "waiver
for the minimum rear yard for reverse frontage shall be so marked granted", plus costs
and such other relief as the Court may deem adequate and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDWELL & KEARNS
Dated: \.-b~ ~12(S'\S\
(32030)
6
"i
.~
','''I
"^,-,,,,",,~,'; I~~'
:,J:~';';-". ,.~'d~";"';'" ~<:,:, ". " , '::':':'~';~Ii
VERIFICATION
!, Stan Custer, Jr., President of The Custer Company, who, having authority to execute this
Verification on its behalf, verify that the statements and averments contained in the foregoing Notice
of Land Use Appeal are true and correct upon my personal knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false averments herein are made subject to the penalties ofl8 Pa. C.S. 94904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
THE CUSTER COMPANY
By:
Dated:
7
@Ii
-""'!.-:'-'\";"'~::irrjfl!JO'"
'"'',:'"'>","t
" I, <,,' ''-'~I1Jmi'~I.U
18lli1
~
"llii~i~.i.;:~"~,,,;,~),,,;;.~j~ilp.~'"
~~o, ~ '"'
"',"",-'-~'"O'.";B] ~-- ~'"
"-
.......
?2
.Q.
f~
'"'-"
~",
,
~
Iv
~
...c.
~ ~
(()h~
~ 0 :JO
I ()
I
~~
~~
"We "=
.
",\'-1 ,-
r--i'\
~
:L--:i,
:=.:/
f'-:
~:~C
""-=::.c.-;
)>c...:=
;.;-~~
=<
'~'~',"~,,"~~, ~,
C>
','.
~:r
Ii:
Ii'
i:
Ii'
j:
~'
Ii
'i,
I
\
I
I
'~'"~
(-~ .
1;)
:,~~
:.:::
r."
(XI
, l' .
t
I~
".;'--~""'~' " r,'
WE CUSTER CCMPANY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
OOARD OF SUPERVISORS
NO.
01-6361 Civil Term
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
SS.
COUNTY
CUMBERLAND)
OF
TO: Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors
We. being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action
between The Custer Canpany vs. Silver Sprinq Township Board of Supervisors
pending before you. do carmand you that the record of the action aforesaid with
all things concerning said action. shall be certified and sent to our judges of
our Court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within 20
days of the date hereof.
together with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought
to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth.
WITNESS. the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P,J.
our said Court. at Carlisle, Pa.. the 8th
day of November
-'
2001
4~"" &>
2 1!tA~' r-;D~
Prothonota
,14:
co
LrJ
..n
I"'-
=r
C
C
LrJ
Postage $
Certified Fee
,<
. ~..~ ", ,,,-,, '" ,.;:
~,
co
.....
c
c
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delive/)' Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Postmark
Here
c
C
=r
ITI
Total Postage & Fees $
Recip;ent's Name (Please Print Clearly) (to be completed by mailer)
IT"
IT"
C
I"'-
.Street,-Apt:No.;.'orFi6-s0xNO.mn-mnmmm_nmn_______.u_nm____________u_
.tiiy,.SiaTe,-zIP"+"4----n---.---nm----mn_mn.mn____________mmn_n______._____
.1<;" '; '.i'.,. " ',,, -"",.:h." ,,~,f '''-''~';'' ,.~~~ ,',
'~;
~
:
, ",' . ~. ." ._b -, . '~'" ., ". C__,k",". :1,-"'; '" ,..,',.." -, ,/" ','" ".". ,,:'~~"__'?,'<"'~F', .<. '. ~;, "f~"i';j
. ,
THE CUSTER COMPANY
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2001-06361
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Appellee
MANDAMUS
LAND USE APPEAL
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please file with the Land Use Appeal filed in this matter on November 8, 2001, the
attached Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C".
By:
D'tedt~ \ l,~
01-390/32497-1
Ri
~fj)~::.", '>~:'~.:irm.(_ir~kil~llfi~~rh "~~j!~~;iWi",J:HW';;t.lii.uI( '~'W~~~..lU j2," ~,'~--'
. ~ ~~,~ '. ,
~,
" ,,""',,' ,>~,,~ ,
I
-I
,
1
'0 C 0
C ~n
s: :<!:
v DC' c:>
92j; ''':;;: ,,.
',', iT,
2C' ~;~!CJ
({):::.~-:. U1 :),1
..<.c" -,,-)
r,-m.
<....J ~ ~~1
~O
)>0 0:>
C
~ ()1 ~
(Xl ~
, ,~. '," '''', " _'. +" r' ~', '
, '".,',' ,~;,~' "<':"'~~';";"~--'~'"
,c':kL:i
10/14/2001 14:13
71 72326029
CUSTER GROUP OF CO
PAGE 02
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
Wayne M. Pecht, Chairman
Jackie J!akip, Vice-Chain"an
Jan N. LeBlanc
William C. Dunn
Maria L. Lewis
October 12, 2001
The Custer Company
Attention: Stan Custer, Jr., Presi,dent
1309 Laurel Point Circle .
RanisbUrg, P A 17110
RE:~liminary Subdivision Plan 2001-7P
The Manors at Carriage Place
Dear Mr. Custer;
.. ". .
The SilverSprmg Town$lnpBoard of Supervisors at its meeting held October 10,2001
denied the following wmver request for the above noted preliminary subdivision plan;
1. The minimum rear yard. for a reverse frontage lot shall be 75' (605.04.6).
. .
In addition, the Board otSupervisors approved the above noted pre)imimrrySUbdivision
plan subject to the followingcollditions:
1. The plan shallbe.~wn at a scale oflO, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 feet totheincl1
(402.01.1)_ .
2. . Waiver statement must be revised to acknowledge the outcome of requested
waivers (402.04:14).
3. Planning modulo or exemption mUst be approved by the ToWnship and DEP
(402.05.2).
4. Provide maximum curb cut on driveway detail (602.17).
5. Stotmwater Management Permit must be issued by Township when all Conditions
are met.
6475 Carlisle Pike . Mecbanicsburg, PA 17050-2391 . (117) 76(H)178 . (717) 766-16% FAX
EXHIBIT "A"
'l
hl~';;.l ,',', .,~,<,,' ","' '..-',,': ," '~"""'<; ~__
, .-'"-.,-- '-,"2'''..'_ :.i;.'.""'-:'; ;;";"',,,V:;';^;;,":;,"~ > ;'it~,'!;
10/14/2001 14:13
71 72326029
CLlSTER GROUP OF CO
PAGE 03
The Custer Company
Attn: Stan Custer, Jr., President
October 12, 2001
Page 2
6. Prov:ide evidenCe of an approved Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
7. Basin 13 outfall change in characteristics is not acceptable. Basin discharge should
be directed to cross cUlvert. Report indicates that discharging :flows will cross
Woods Drive; which is unacceptable.
8; Buried pipe doVl'ilstream of Basin B must be identified. The need to open or
. replac\,.tI;ris pipe as. a'part of this project should be provided in the Stormwater
Management RePort. '
9.. . Show that 100 yeiu- stOrm can safely be conveyed through site (e.g. show safe
overland conveyance. from low P!Jints in road). In addition to exhibit, provide
, calculation showIng that flow will not effect proposed structures (402.02).
10. . Lot SO should be.iJecessed to internal street system as a part of the overall site
concept for residential development. "Curb Cut" for Lot 50, as a part of
emergency access right-of-way, is not acceptable.
11. Recommend providing two access points offW oods Drive rather than one
boulevard entraD.ce. the Planning Commission also agreed with this
re"comDiendation.:.
12. Development haS'direct impact of Route 114 and Woods Drive. In. 2002, the
intersection will operate at LOS '0' or better during the AM and PM without
development except weiltbound will operate at LOS IF' (90.5 see) during PM
peak. With development, the westbound approach will drop to LOS IE' during the
AM peak and increased delay to 166.9 seconds during the PM peak. Recommend
. developer rriakeiinproVeinents of adding northbound and soUthbound left tiIm
lanes on Route 114 at Woods Drive intersection. In addition, provide funds in
. lieu of widening for westbollD.d Woods Drive and provide contribution for future
signalization. '
13. Developer should fund timing modifications at Route 11 and Route 114 if
necessary at time. of opening.
14. IfbQulev:u:d style.entrance is usW; a hazard marlcer must be placed at each end of
the median with ~e "keep Right" signs. Note on plan that all signs will be per
PennDOT specifications.
, "
IS. Sewageoflotll m~t be approved by Authority,
&1
-
""J'.;.'"
I,:., ,'",'~ ,,,~ '.,'" ,~v"':;""',,, ""','~"~"'~"'-'"'" . ;",,'_,',~,';':';
10/14/2001 14:13
71 72326029
CUSTER GROUP OF CO
PAGE 04
The Custer Ccimpany
AtIn: Stan Custer, Jr.; President :
October 12, 2001
Page 3
16. What is the intended use of Lot 50?
17. Developer should'look at.ahernate access locations to Woods Drive to eHm;n"te
conflicts with adjacent residential uses. The introduction of an additional
access/egress location win-reduce trips to the Carriage Place location.
18; '~c:klper8ho1Ud,.QQnsider transfen:ingll11lall strip of land behind existing lan4s of
Funkhouser and Stainer" to property Owners. -. .
19; Only one. type ofhydfant should be located in the development. Hydrant locations
must be approved:byEMC. '
20. Eliminate 12' emergency access drive that is proposed. Second full access point
should be provideid 8$ discussed in comment 11 above.
21. Actmu proposed waterline location from water companies should be shown on the
plan.
22, Developer should consider sidewalks and street lights for the developm61lts of this
, density and nature~
23. Recreation fees iIi. the amount of$350 per building lot must be paid prior to final
plan recording (SiDO 615.01).
24. Recording fees m~ be paid prior to final plan recording.
25. 100 year flow for;basin A outlet is incorrect in pipe calcUlations.
26.. The colmnn designated "Flow to" shows incorrect inlets for Al to A9.
27. Show centerlines.imd right-of-way lines for Woods Drive and Cobblestone Way
on Emergency Drtve Access Profile, along with proposed grades, vertical curves,
etc..
28. Extend taper on Carriage Place to a minimum of95 feet (per MUTCD).
29. The minimum rear y.ud for a reverse frontage lot shall be 75' (605.04.6).
'if
,".
""-"
.','"
^ ' .'i~,j
10/14/2001 14:13
7172326029
CUSTER GROUP OF CO
PAGE 05
The Custer Company
AtIn: Stan Custer, Jr., President
. '
October 12, 2001
Page 4
30. The B03.l;d accept~ the Route 114 improvements as presented to include the
installation of a ldl trim lane from eastbound Route 114 onto Woods Drive as
weU'asthe 2' widening of Woods Drive along the entire length of the
development. '
31. AppliQ3Il.t agreed to provide any additional right-of-way lKljacent to this property
required for filtUrib road i~vements.
If you have any questioins; please contact Kelly K. Kelch. AssiStaiit TownShip Manager. ,
Sincerely,
~
William S. Cook
Township Mimager
, WSCIksd '
cc: Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant township Manager
Mark B. Brueniitg, P.E., 1'ownshipEngineer
Dawood Engineering, Inc:, Applicant's Engineer
Estate ofFredCrlck Schlosser, Jr., Property Owner
+t
~~
I~' ,
.
uli
~"",,,;;u,,,.,i
".
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP .
Wayne M. Pecht, Chairman
Jackie Eakin; Vice-Chairman
jan N. Lenlanc
William C. Dunn
Maria 1. Lewis
August 24,2001
The Custer Company
Attention: Stan Custer, Jr., President
1309 Laurel Point Circle
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
RE: Preliminary Subdivision Plan 200 1-7P
The Manors at Carriage Place
Dear Mr. Custer:
The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors at its meeting held August 22, 2001
tabled action on the above noted preliminary subdivision plan at your attorney's request and
acknowledged the granting of an extension of time until September 13,2001 for plan review.
The following comments need to be addressed:
1. The minim~ rear yard for a reverse frontage lot shall be 75' (605.04,6).
Applicant requested a waiver to this requirement.. The Planning Commission
recommended the granting of the waiver request at its meeting held August 2,
2001.
2. The plan shall be drawn at a scale of 10, 20,30,40, 50 or 100 feet to the inch
(402.01.1).
3 . Waiver statement must be revised to acknowledge the outcome of requested
waivers (402.04.14).
4. Planning module or exemption must be approved by the Township and DEP
(402.05.2).
6475 Carlisle Pike . Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2391 . (717) 766-0178 . (717) 766-16% FAX
EXHIBIT "B"
.'[,0,,-,'"&"0'."'.1'
, "
,""'-..~",
".
The Custer Company
o Attn: Stan Custer, Jr" President
August 23,2001
Page 2
5. Provide maximum curb cut on driveway detail (602.1 7).
6, Stormwater Management Permit must be issued by Township when all conditions
are met.
7. Provide evidence of an approved Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
8. Basin B outfall change in characteristics is not acceptable. Basin discharge
should be directed to cross culvert. Report indicates that discharging flows, will
cross Wood~ Drive; which is unacceptable.
9, Buried pipe downstream of Basin B must be identified. The need to open or
replace this pipe as a part of this project should be provided in the Stormwater
Management Report.
10. Show that 100 year storm can safely be conveyed through site (e,g. show safe
overland conveyance from low points in road). In addition to exhibit, provide
calculation showing that flow will not effect proposed structures (402.02).
11. Lot 50 should be accessed to internal street system as a part of the overall site
concept for residential development. "Curb Cut" for Lot 50, as a part of .'
emerg\lncy access right-of-way; is not acceptable.
12. Recommend providing two access points off Woods Drive rather than one
boulevard entrance.
13. Development has direct impact of Route 114 and Woods Drive. In 2002, the
intersection will operate at LOS 'D' or better during the AM and PM without
development except westbound Will operate at LOS 'F' (90.5 see) during PM
, peak., With development, the westbqund approach will drop to LOS 'E~ during
the AM peak and increased delay to 166.9 seconds during the PM peak.
Recommend developer make improvements of adding northbound and
southbound left turn lanes on Route 114 at Woods Drive intersection. In addition,
, provide funds in lieu of widening for westbound Woods Drive and provide
contribution for future signalization.
14. Developer should fund timing modifications at Route 11 and Route 114 if
necessary at time of opening,
15. Study recommends the widening of Woods Drive approach to two (2) lanes at the
intersection with Carlisle Pike. Due to sight distance limitations, developer
"" '0" . '"0', ,. ," ,,' ,[. ,-- """ '~'"~~'.I "h".",~", ""'"~'--""""""'" "','~...'!."""O"'"",",,;'U"'J__""_.,' "'--~h,;.,
The Custer Company
Attn: Stan Custer, Jr., President
August 23, 2001
Page 3
@
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
should provide funds in lieu of widening for future improvements when
signalized. .
16.
Ifboulevard style entrance is used, a hazard marker must be placed at each end of
the median with the "Keep Right" signs. Note on plan that all signs will be per
PennDOT specifications.
17.
Sewage of lots must be approved by Authority.
18.
. What is the intended use of Lot 50?
Developer should look at alternate access locations to Woods Drive to eliminate
conflicts with adjacent residential uses. The introduction of an additional
access/egress location will reduce trips to the Carriage Place location.
Developer should consider transferring small strip of land behind existing lands
of Funkhouser and Starner to property owners.
Only one type of hydrant should be located in the development. Hydrant
locations must be approved by EMC.
Concerned with 12' emergency access drive proposed. Second full access point
should be provided as discussed in comment 12 above.
. If the right-of-way for stablized emergency access is provided as shown on this
plan, the hinds between the right-of-way and Lot 29 should be added to Lot 28.
Actual proposed waterline location from water companies should be shown on the
- ,
plan.
Developer should consider sidewalks and street lights for the developments of
this density and nature.
Recreation fees in the amount of $350 per building lot must be paid (SLDO
615.01).
Recording fees must be paid prior to final plan recording.
The Planning Commission recommended that two (2) access points be provided
to the development.
hi ",' "'
,',
~',~..i..~,':i
The Custer CompanY
Attn: Stan Custer, Jr., President
August 23, 2001
Page 4
29. 100 year flow for basin A outlet is incorrect in pipe calculations.
30. The column designated "Flow to" shows incorrect inlets for Al to A9.
31. Show centerlines and right-of-way lines for Woods Drive and Cobblestone Way
on Emergency Drive Access Profile; along with proposed grades, vertical curves,
etc..
, 32. Extend taper on Carriage Place to a minimum of 95 feet (per MUTCD).
This plan Will be reconsidered by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting scheduled for
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 5:30 p.m.. Please submit revised plans to the Township
office by Friday, August 31, 2001.
If you have any questions, please contact Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant Township Manager.
Sincerely, ~
t~l~
William S. Cook
ToWnship Manager
WSClksd
cc: Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant Township Manager
Mark B. Bruening, P.E., Township Engineer
Dawood Engineering, Inc., Applicant's Engineer
Estate of Frederick Schlosser, Jr., Property Owner
"" '.., 1',-"-",-,';' ~.,,,,,,,,,.."~.
, ,"
DAWOOD
ENGINEERING. INC.
Silver Spring Township
Board of Supervisors
6475 Carlisle Pike
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2391
Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plan 2001-7P
The Manors at Carriage Place
Dear Members of the Board:
On behalf of the CUSTER COMPANY (the Applicant), DAWOOD ENGINEERING, INC.
(DAWOOD) would like to summarize and address the remaining items for the above
referenced project. The following responses are in accordance with the Township Manager, Mr.
William S. Cook's comment letter dated August24, 2001.
1. The Applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a minimum
rear yard of 75 feet on all reverse frontage lots. We have provided a separate
waiver justification letter dated June 14, 2001 that we reviewed with the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission
recommended the granting of the waiver request at its meeting held on August
2, 2001. .
The Applicant, as provided in the review letter, will accept the following comments: comment
nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32. We offer the following
responses and summations from prior meetings for the Board of Supervisor's review:
,8.,9.
In accordance with an earlier meeting with the Township Engineer, we will
accept the Township Engineer's determination that the buried pipe should be
replaced. The applicant will replace the existing pipe within the Township's
existing right-Of-way as requested. The discharge from our pond will be directed
to this location.
11.,18.
The Applicant does not accept this recommendation. Lot 50 as stated by the
Applicant, is not part of the single-family development and, as such, will not be
accessed from an internal street. The applicant does not have any plans for the
development of this area. Gene~al Note 1 on the plan specifically states that any
future development of Lot 50 will require further Township approval.
MAIN OFFICE-HARRISBURG, PA
P.O. BOX 246 2040 GOOD HOPE ROAD
ENOLA, PA 17025
717.732.8576 FAX,717.732.8596
REGIONAL OFFICE-P1TISBURGH, PA
FOSTER pLAzA 651 HOLIDAY DRIVE SUITE 300
PITTSBURGH. PA 15220
EXHIBIT "C" 412.928.2051 FAX,412.928.2052
oi"',
,;;t~;;
,~ ~ '~', . I<:;w&<'" ,- "_ ' . '~:;",M~-",''''''~ "~" ",-, " - ",' ',,, " ' ,.,;';{~
.
L
Silver Spring Township
Board of Supervisors -
October 10, 2001
Page 2
".":"':':':":--""'-'"
. "<',,':',(:,.~ .., '
'~~"'~~~""
The applicant does not, accept this recommendation. The Applicant and
" WOOD firmly feel that a development of this size and character is adequately
served by one access point, a boulevard entrance. The boulevard entrance will
provide a separate ingress and egress lane each consisting of 18 feet in width.
A ten (10) foot landscaped median shall also be provided. Maintenance
responsibilities for this island shall be assigned to the Homeowner's Association.
,,',,';,,'..,,'-,.' '
,,"
Our Traffic Consultant has reviewed this issue and has indicated in the Traffic
Impact Study that one access point is appropriate for a development of this size.
In addition, at an earlier meeting with the Township's Traffic Engineer, he also
confirmed to us that, on a transportation basis, one access point is adequate for
a development of this size.
Our Traffic Consultant's review indicated that traffic from the development,
including emergency vehicles, could adequately exit and enter the site from the
boulevard style entrance. The Applicant has indicated that a singular access
provides better safety to the community and character that is essential for his
planned development of the subject property.
We also feel the boulevard style entrance has been successfully used in the past
to provide adequate ingress and egress for developments with one entrance.
The additional ingress/egress that has been provided for emergency vehicles
should eliminate any additional concerns of the Township. In summary, we feel
that the access for the development has addressed, on a traffic and safety basis,
a reasonable access point for the project.
The plan as submitted currently meets Township Ordinance requirements.
13.14.15., The Applicant has met with Township staff concerning these comments. Based
on the approved Traffic Impact Study it has been presented to the Township that
our project comprises only 1.6% of the traffic impact to the Route 114 and
Woods Drive intersection. We realize that the subject intersection functions at
poor Levels of Service with or without this development. As a result of earlier
meetings, the Township Engineer has provided us with concept sketches and
budgets for improvements to the intersection of Woods Drive and Route 114.
In reviewing the options the Applicant is proposing to construct a left turn lane
improvement for the Southbound approach on Route 114 at the Woods Drive
intersection. Since our project has no impact on turning movements from
Northbound approach on Route 114 traffic onto Woods Drive (weSt) these
improvements are not being proposed with this project. These improvements
will significantly reduce the length of time traffic on Woods Drive would have to
wait until accessing Route 114. The wait time will be reduced from 983 seconds
to 44 seconds for a westbound vehicle on Woods Drive (2012 no build versus
build).
MAIN OFFICE-HARRISBURG. PA
REGIONAL OFFlCE-PITISBURGH. PA
. ~'"
,., '. '-""+~ ,"~__"', ',C _,
...:~,"" ~, .- k<
Silver Spring Township
Board of Supervisors
, October 10, 2001 '
Page 3
The. Applicant is proposing to provide the referenced improvement subject to
" nDOrs approval. These improvements would also involve the upgrading of
the North side of Woods Drive to current Township standards from Route 114
intersection to the entrance to the Manors at Carriage Place.
16. 'The Applicant accepts this condition. "Keep Right" signs and haiard markers will
be placed'at each end of the median. We would request a modification to the
note reque~d by the Township Engineer to read, "all signs will be per Township
Engineer's approval" instead of "PennDOT specifications." This may allow more
options for projectsignage.
19. The Applicant does not accept this condition. The Applicant has reviewed many
alternate locations for the access and has selected the best location based on
sight distances and conflicts with residences.
20. The Applicant does not intend to transfer the small strip of land behind the
existing lands of Funkliouser and Starner to them. The Applicant will provide a
planted buffer in that location.
23. The Applicant does not accept this condition. The stabilized emergency access
has been provided with a 16-foot easement through Lot 50. The driveway
location currently meets Township Ordinance requirements.
25. The Applicant has revieWed the need for sidewalks and feels that, in a
development of this character and target market, sidewalks are not needed. The
cartway provides adequate space for pedestrians. In addition, the Applicant
believes that the house lighting will provide adequate lighting in the development
and that street lights are not needed. The plan as submitted currently meets
Township Ordinance requirements.
Having addressed the Township's outstanding comments above, the Custer Company
respectfully requests approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan 2001-7P, The Manors at
Carriage Place, conditioned upon fulfilling the outstanding comments.
Sincerely,
. DAWOOD
G, INC.
Cc:
Mr, Stan Custer, Custer Homes
Mr. James R. Clippinger, Caldwell & Kearns ./
Dell c my doc\land dev pro\201029\Board of Supervisors Let
MAIN OFFICE-HARRISBURG, PA
REGIONAl OFFICE-P1TISBURGH, PA
i~';";;~'-'";ll;",:~",;...;J
~
, {~"_1i~~~~i&illii"";-:filt.(lli;,"",~i-\'1Mwl>i!ej~iwim~lfaw..-_lli:Wr.'
'~'..,.'" W,",,^ '. """., ~ ~ '"^'~,'" ~ ,'~ w" ".,,,~. ',= ,',~.' ,"~'~,_
,,~,~,,~ ,W<~ ~. ~'"'~~, ~~,~."
'- '~,,'
-' ~,
~"~ .
".
.,
."
-'I
(") 0 0
c:: -n
-~ .- ...-\
> .~
-orq c.;) 8~
..J.
rn iT' .~
ZXl ::DR
zr~-
q~ ~~:: U1 ~~3~
r:::r::) ~
J:~o ---;",- ;;-=2 ~JS
-",1.
60 'E ~m
>c: "-t
~ ':"'l 3'i
(X) '<
m~
1 ,'_ 'u _ r. ';, ~,_, _ '" . 7, '_,_, -' ,~_\', ;;,1', ~, "",~' , ~', ','_' > ",!, "',", ";'-:{",,,
,
III
THE CUSTER COMPANY
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
: NO. 2001-06361
: CNIL ACTION - LAW
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
: rvIANDAMUS
: LAND USE APPEAL
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Kindly mark the above-captioned action settled and discontinued, with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDWELL & KEARNS
By:
James
Attome
Dated~ \.4t1s:o l.\
78511
~ili[~i[li!t<^,,~ }/.~-';;~;!.'". '-c'"^\,t>;., ''^J .'~:WL_iMd'11"wif,jR;jKo!~~~-,~,~tll\~~~;mj,~'"
,.
U..
\U)
~j
m.J.IDJ!lH:.KIIIl_,,,,,~..~.. "Jf~U... '.... ..,..~.........,..J",....J,.... ....,.. ..,..,....
.", ",',"
','.'<""'._^,
..
o~
",- ~-,",'.
,
,e',} ,
""-',
-~I:'
(J ,....,
c: = 0
=
~= J:"" -,-,
,~V["::, C/) :Ii_
:-1.:(-- f"N
-..,., -0 rn-!J
~~:? .. r"
-om
E:,::: Ul {~gg
_c:. C. ""'J -~-~
J:'E :.~-: [#J~
~)
:2: -'~.'
-'~ }.,;
.. 0'1 "<
"~.,
....
" '.. ~.
. ~ .," ""-
I,.'
,~', '. :<.'c'"
.' ~";;"~,jiltli,lli!\.",
WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC. SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY
MERGER TO FLEET MORTGAGE CORP.: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFF
VS.
NO. 2001-06445
DANIEL C. HILL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFENDANT
IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
P RAE C I P E
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly Settle and Discontinue the above matter of record.
PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER
By.
Leon P Haller ID #15700
Attar ey for Plaintiff
Purce I, Krug & Haller
1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 234-4178
DATE: September 14, 2004
~'';~,.;~",,~iii\i'jb;';\;'''':'<'''''-''~ -~''t~'~ltt:..ii..~.'"';..,j,'''~iM~,i;'~-g;Iiii-~~'''~'''
~" '~'--"""'""~"~"
-- ., .,,~,., ",~""'-'~~'-~~~",' ,'~" '-- ~.
~'~~ =>
",",
'"
,,~ ~,
-i'r''-"'''.''
/i
~N
6
~>"
,
F
~
it
If
!,
C) ~ r~
C::O .....,--'
c: "", -n
"~
-.;",.. U) -1
::r:
1'"1', -n
".! n1p
-'crn
Cl"~ ~~
--V
();:':s
C.) s1rn
.-..:..., ~r--
~~ t:..-::J -(
ro
-f: