The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-00739 ~ c'l (.:: "" ..:l :.:": \-' ~-i;;€:, U)9-. - c...)/'",-, ...... p,:S-) .....?- 0.- ~':l :-::1 'i,"" ,./,Y C; ,0 ",:," cD C' ")'/' ,.. W(.I- - r..,.-" -"/ =.J l" CO \"tlCiJ t;: ..' ,f- u.J ;i} 0_ u- .,,,~ ',C- 0' :::> 0 0.... U "\". r.J '0;1"" o ~ ~~ '.' situate at 240 Shady Lane, Carlisle (Middlesex Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. The Appellant, Curtis M. Barnett, is an adult individual and licensed veterinarian who resides at 7555 Wertzville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 and is an owner of the real property and business known as Carlisle Small Animal Veterinary Clinic situate at 25 Shady Lane, Carlisle (Middlesex Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. The Appellant, Richard J. Shultz, is an adult individual who resides at 520 Gale Road, Camp Hi.ll, Pennsylvania 17011 and is an owner of the real property and business located thereon, known as Colonial Peddler's Village, situate at 100 Shady Lane, Carlisle, (Middlesex Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 5. The above captioned Precautionary Land Use Appeal arises from as a result of the Mandamus action filed by Appellee, Triple Crown Corporation, Inc., on or about January 11, 1999 to 99-193 Civil, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, ,Pennsylvania, requesting entry of an order of deemed approval of a Subdivision and Land Use Plan known as the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan, 6, The Appellants appeared individually and/or by their \lndersigned attorney at all proceedings regarding this matter , held before the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors and Middlesex Township Planning Commission. -2- t""') " (1 18. At a public meeting on or about January 4, 1999, the Revised Grading and Site Plan was denied approval by the Board for failing to comply with the requirements of Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development and Zoning Ordinances. 19. The Board mailed Appellee, Triple Crown Corporation, Inc., a written decision dated January 18, 1999, A copy of the Board's decision containing its reasons for denying approval of the Revised Grading and Site Plan of Appellee, Triple Crown Corporation, Inc" is attached hereto, made a part hereof and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "D". 20. The Board's decision on January 4, 1999 was within 90 days of the October 30, 1998 submission of the Revised Grading :. , and Site Plan and therefore was in compliance with Pennsylvania , Municipalities Planning Code (hereafter "MPC"), 53 P.S. Section 10508. Triple Crown Corporation, Inc., in writing within 15 days of 21. The Boards decision was communicated to Appellee, January 4, 1999 and was therefore in compliance with Pennsylvania MPC 53 P.S. Section 10508. 22. Appellants believe and therefore aver that Appellee, Middlesex TownShip, denied approval of the Revised Grading and Site Plan in a timely manner in accordance with 53 P.S.10508 a.nd , that no deemed approval occurred. ,23.' Assuming for purposes of argument that a deemed approval of the revised Plan did in fact oCcur,under the law of -5- ('j (""" ~. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by filing a precautionary appeal, the Appellants, aggrieved neighbors, have a right to have the Plan considered on its merits for compliance with the applicable Township Ordinances and MPC. Grvshuk v. Kolb, 685 A.2d 629 ,CPa. Cmwlth. 1996). 24. The Appellants believe and therefore aver that the revised Preliminary Plan titled Shady Lane Warehouse Plan in issue is not in compliance with the MPC, the Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, and/or the Middlesex Township Zoning Ordinance for the following alternative reasons: a. Those set forth in Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors written Decision of January 18, 1999, Exhibit "D" to this Appeal, which are incorporated herein by reference thereto. b. Those set forth in Exhibit "A" to the Appellant's Petition to Intervene in the Appeal filed by Triple Crown Corporation, Inc. to the written Decision of the Board of Supervisors dated November 4, 1998, which,is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "E"'hereto. c. Those set forth in the written Decision of the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors dated November 3, 1998, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "C". d. Those set forth in the written Reports of Township Engineer, Bud Grove, P.E. dated August 2, 1998 and October 21, 1998, copies of which are attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibits "P" arid "G". -6- .~ 0, , e. Those set forth in the written Report of Appellants' Engineers, Pennoni Associates, Inc., dated July 30, 1998, copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "H". f. The submission of an alternative Grading and Site Plan as part of the pending Plan disapproved on October 30, 1998 is not an allowable procedure under the MPC or the Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. On the other hand, the MPC does not prohibit a landowner from filing more than one (1) Land Development/Subdivision Plan for separate consideration. By filing a one page revised Grading and Site " Planfor alternative consideration in conjunction with the presently pending Plan, Appellee Triple Crown Corporation, Inc. violated Section 508 of the MPC, 53 P.S. 10508 and Sections 301, 303 and 304 of the Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. 25, The Appellee Triple Crown Corporation, Inc. filed,an appeal from the disapproval of the original revised Shady Lane Warehouse Plan to No. 98-6773 Civil In the Court of Common Pleas' of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in response to which the, , Township is required to file a complete Record of the proceedings before the Township with the Prothonotary. The Record in that case is directly relevant to the within proceeding and all documents of record filed by the Township in conjunction with -7- ",11 "I. " ,-\ /..... / MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP WORKSHOP MEETING OCTOBER 30, 1998 OFFICIALS PRESENT: SUPERVISORS: SOLICITOR: ENGINEER: POLICE: ZONING OFFICER: SECRETARY: Robert Eppley Joe Capuano Chuck Shughart Keith BreMeman Bud Grove ChiefBany Shennan Mark Carpenter Mary Justh '. (, The meeting was called to order at 7:30 AM by Chairman Robert Eppley. MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY - Alison Shuler Operations Specialist, Glace Associates - The Supervisors requested a brief presentation of the Fetrow Acres & Iron Stone Ridge Study to determine the sewer needs of this area. It was reported that these two areas may need to have public sewer in the near future. The maps and charts that were presented indicate that fecal coIifonn was reported and the concentration was higher than desired. Mr. Shughart asked how many holding tanks were found through the study, It was reported that there are 4 holding tanks and 1 property in particular where the means of disposal is dumping in the back yard. Several options for running sewer and/or water were discussed. Mr. Shughart indicated that the financial concerns for the residents need to be considered when thinking about sewering these areas.' The township may need to apply for County or State money in order to accomplish this. Mr. Capuano asked if the Municipal Authority is looking for direction from the Supervisors. Mr. Rory Morrison indicated that was true. Mr. Grove stated that a Feasibility Study be done and that the Act 537 requires either on lot and sewer, within five years of the Act 537. Mr. Capuano asked if the study could be done and a report given at the December 2 meeting of the Supervisors. Mr. Capuano made a motion to have the Municipal Authority do a Feasibility Study. Mr, Shughart 'seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Supervisors decided unanimously to advertise for a Public Meeting to beheld on Wednesday, December 9th at 7:00 PM. ' PUBLIC COMMENT - Mr. Dale Shughart representing 4 property owners on Shady Lane stated that these property owners were opposed to the written modifications to the plans and such plans should be denied, Mr. Shughart told the Supervisors that the submission of alternate plans in Middlesex Township should not be allowed. There are no provisions for alternate plans under this Township's Zoning Ordinance. These alternate plans change the point of access and therefore become a substantial revision to the original plans, and should go back to the Planning Commission. 'Mrs. Crosswhite asked the Supervisors the status of the bridge on Hollowbrook Road. The bridge is over 100 years old and enhances the propllrty. Mrs. Crosswhite asked if the bridge ' . . Exh,h/t /lBIf ,I -, would be replaced with a similar structure, Engineer Grove explained that Grove Associates was doing an historical background check for information to be used in a feasibility study. Mr_ Grove stated that the bridge is the Township's responsibility and depending on what the report reveals is what the township will do, Mr. Bruce Bistline stated that with the start of the Comprehensive Plan, the Supervisors need to decide what they want for the future. Planning for sewer and water are imperative as well as where development in the Township is going to occur or where the residents want it to occur. If the present system of sewer and water had been developed properly, we could have had sewer and water in Carlisle Springs. Mr. Capuano stated that things change, and this is the reason why we are doing a Comprehensive Plan. Mark DiSanto, Triple Crown Corporation, stated that he has been in conversation with almost all the interested parties in the Shady Lane Plan in the last week. It is very difficult to understand the position we find ourselves in. This p.iece of property should be considered the ideal piece of property with a permitted use, sewer and water. Utilities are there and the pennitted use is there, Triple Crown is willing voluntarily to make almost $100,000.00 in improvements to Shady Lane and the Existing Right of Way. This is very large voluntary offer 'on our part to improve municipal streets, We request that this Board approve the plan with the waivers allowing us to access the property at the northern end and accept the voluntary road improvements. ' If waivers would be denied we have an alternate plan with the access at the southern end of the site. Mr. Grove did make comments on the plan that had been in the Township for over 90 days and Mr. Grove had a question about a drainage pipe on the southern entrance that he could make that a modification or condition of the plan, and a second access , drive for emergency vehicles. Our preference would be to allow us to do the improvements without any additional cost to the Township. The Township should not deny the plan on a vote by a vocal minority. Mr. DiSanto stated that if this plan does not move forWard, there is going to be litigation with regard to this property. Then this battle will be between Triple Crown and the minority residents on Shady Lane. This battle should not be fought with the Township. Mr. Curt Barnett asked the Supervisors to try, to do some signmcant advertising to make residents aware of the Comprehensive Plan Meeting, Mr. Foltz stated that there was a deed restriction on the deed to the Shady Lane property when Triple Crown purchased the property, We put restrictions on the deed to keep tractor-trailers from using the road in front of our homes in that way. If there were possibly another access we could consider the plans. Mr. Shughart asked the Supervisors not to accept the new plans, even though they may have been in the Township for 90 days, neither myself or my clients have had the opportunity to examine the plans, and we feel that these plans must follow proper procedure , (#98004) Shady Lane Warehouse Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan _ Mr. Chainnan before we take action on the Shady Lane! Triple Crown plan I would like to offer some remarks; It (3-d If ,. ,;.",\ /'...... As sometimes happens, and it seems with greater regularity, individuals and institutions generally object to Government when they believe their situation, whatever that may be, is threatened. In land use Government is relied on more and more to resolve whatever perceived problem may exist, On the other hand, if one is attempting to build a home or a business on their" on their land" , Govell1l'1ent is often looked at as an obstacle to use on ones land. As an American we the "right" to own land and to its use. That "rilZht" was protected, not granted, in a magnificent document drafted, in what George Washington called" the miracle at Philadelphia. The framers of the Constitution believed Property Rights were on an equal plane with the right to Liberty and the right to a life without oppressive Government. Property rights were so obvious to them that no dire~'t mention of protecting that right was included in the constitution prior to of adoption of the first 10 amendments, called the bill Of rights. Because some did believe these rights were too important not to receive special mention, these Bill ofRil!hts were_drafted_and_ratified as the first 1"0 amendments to the constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically acknowledged that there shall be freedom of speech, of religion. the press, the right to bear arms, and in the FIFTH Amendment the right to own property. " No person. .. ... ...., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, ......; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." These 1 0 amendments did not grant anything. They were adopted as insurance that these rights' could not be denied. A quote from William Patterson a delegate to the miracle in Philadelphia from New Jersey and later a Supreme Court Justice declared " The right of acquiring and possessing property and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights ofman.....The preservation of property then is the primary object of the social compact.." In 1865 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. In Section I of that amendment it states: ' "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process ofIaw; ...," " The author of the second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was John Bingham, a Republican representative from Ohio. In a speech he delivered some years before he drafted the sentence, Bingham stated that the due process of the Fifth Amendment secures natural rights for all persons, requires equal treatment by the law, and comprehends the highest priority for ownership. ': , These two amendments are unequivocal in the protection of property rights and by our nature as citizens of our country, we hold these rights dearly. But as adamant as we might be about protecting our own property, we have no problem with requesting dictates to someone else's. That trend is becoming more and more common, The attack is lead by those who believe by "their" presence and ownership of property they have transfonned that place they now occupy along with the surrounding area into a paradise that could never have existed, without their presence. They would never believe that just maybe paradise might have existed prior to their arrival. Whether it is paradise now, paradise before them, or if it will ever be paradise is only what one perceives what paradise is to look like and \\ (3- f '( , '. , "~'''. (". therefore they have no right to inflict their beliefs by restricting property rights to meet their idea of paradise. Government has no business joining them in their effort, In the matter of Triple Crown's project I will not take part in making motions or voting because I will be effected by this development either positively or negatively. Again that depends on how one views paradise, I believe to do otherwise would be a conflict of interest and our solicitor has confinned that to be the case. I will state that the developer is not an evil blight waiting to sweep us into hell. He is someone who owns property and has gone through the process mandated by our laws, which I was " elected to uphold, in an effort to use the property in a manner provided for in those laws. It is my understanding that one individual has made an effort to detennine his own destiny by offering to buy the land from the developer. Since we are in this room at this time to take action on the plan, I would assume that those efforts have failed. Others effected by this project want the Board of St,lpervisors to come to their rescue, Even the individual who sold the land to the initial developer wants us to stop this perceived carnage of the land. Denial of this plan will result in either the project going forward with little impact little input from the township or itwill result in someone owning a piece ofland that is wortWess to the owners. Approval of the plan will change some ones idea of paradise but for those who come later they may believe it is paradise, r 'I [" l i, I 'o' f I. ".'. THANK YOU Mr. Chairman Solicitor Brenneman address'ed Chairman Eppley and stated that Mr. Capu~o would not vote, due to a conflict of interest. Brenneman also made a determination that Mr. Shughart's voting on the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan was not a conflict of interest. Mr. Shughart made a motion on the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan for Shady Lane Warehouse, dated February 2, 1?98, revised July 20, 1998, to approve the waiver requirements of Article VIT, Sections 709, sidewalks. Mr. Eppley gave a second, the motion , carried with Mr. Capuano abstaining. Mr. Shughart made a motion to approve the waiver of Section 710, curbing. Mr. Eppley seconded, the motion passed with Mr, Capuano abstaining. Mr. Shughart made a motion to deny the request for a waiver of Section 903 c. which requires the finished elevation of proposed street or driveways to be a least ope foot above Regulatory Flood Elevation. The reason for the denial was a concern over safety for employees, drivers and others. Mr. Eppley seconded, the motion passed with Mr, Capuano abstaining. Mr. Shughart made a motion to deny the request for a waiver of Section 703.c (10) (b) which requires a clear sight triangle at the intersection of the proposed access driveway and Shady Lane due to safety reasons. Mr, Eppley seconded, the motion passed with Mr, Capuano abstaining, Mr. Shughart made a motion to deny the Plan as follows; I. Proposed access driveway and culvert are to be constructed in an embankment which are obstructions within the natural drainage way that passes through the rear of adjoining property which is contrary to the requirement of Ordinance Section 713.a which requires such facilities to, confonn with the requirements of Ordinance Article X failure to properly accommodate stann water drainage, 2.' Section 717.d (2) (e) Lack of design as noted in Grove Associates /.2. I, \l u- S .' .' ." .......-___._M. ....-....'\., ro.o. . memorandum dated 8/2/98, 3. Section 708.d (1) Truck safety when exiting on to Shady Lane as noted in Grove Associates memorandum of 8/2/98, 4. Section 703,c (12) failure to provide for a service alley as noted in Grove Associates memorandum of 8/2/98 5. Section 703.c (10) , (b) Clear sight triangle as noted in Grove Associates memorandum of8/2/98. 6. Failure to plan and provide for increased truck traffic on Shady Lane. 7. Failure to adequately address the concerns at the intersection ofRt. 11 and Shady Lane as per Cumberland County Planning Commission report. 8. Failure to adequately address the problem with the driveway design and its elevation at it relates to the flood plain established by the LeTort Spring Run, 9. All other reasons set forth in memorandums by Grove Associates dated 8/2/98 6/22/98. 10. All other remaining reasons as set forth by Middlesex Township Planning Commission recommendations and Board of Supervisors recommendations of 6/22/98. Mr. Eppley seconded, the motion passed with Mr. Capuano abstaining. Mr. Brenneman stated that at this point the alternate plan dated 7/30/98 by R J. Fisher received 8/4/98 needs to be referred to the Planning Commission. (#98019) Daniel P. & Ann-Marie Cunningham Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan _ Mr. Carpenter said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan to the Township Board of Supervisors granting a modification of requirements of Section 703. (e) with a note on the plan requiring sufficient road frontage for any future subdivision of lot 1 and a non-building waiver request for lot no. 1, and with the condition that a note be added to the plan. The plan will be decided on Wednesday, November 4th. Jim Allen and Torrie Page Representing PMRS - Mr. AIIen'explained that PMRS is an optional pension administrator run by State employees. Mr. Allen gave a brief description of benefits, and some comparisons to other plans. Our present plans - Police is a Defined Benefit Plan c Non-Uniform is known as a Defined Contribution Plan. Excess Interest is what makes PMRS different from Insurance Companies. As far as the Police Pension is concerned, the Supervisors have the opportunity to distribute the excess interest on years of service or an across the board basis, or keep it for the administration of the pension plan. Our Supervisors have always been very generous in distributing it back to the members. All police officersfall under the Act 600, guidelines for the maximum ane! minimum for benefits unless they are part ofPMRS then they fall under the Act 15 of 1974. By law the Supervisors could not give the officers the excess interest, except under Act 15 the Supervisors are allowed to do this. By law under Act 600 the maximum benefits would be 50% of pay, up to $100 per year service increment, and automatic cost of living raise. Under Act 15 the maximum benefits are as follows, maximum of 50% of pay, service increment which we do not have, automatic cost ofliving which we do not have and excess interest, which we do have; Other benefits which we could have are reducing the retirement age to 50, killed in service, cost of living raise, and years of service increment. Unit value of the policy is not known until September of that year. The Supervisors are the ones that need to line up the benefits that they want the employees to have. Mr. Allen told the Supervisors that he would be willing to come back to talk to the them and explain any benefits. Mr. Allen indicated that there are some Townships that they go in on a yearly basis to evaluate their plans, Voting Precinct Separation - Bob & Marion Smyser - Bob Smyser, Judge of Election for .. Middlesex Township asked the Supervisors what progress had been made as far as separation of the precinct. Mr. Capuano told the Smysers that the Election Bureau would rather give us more, II q3 -Co " ,~, .'~ , \ (--, ~\P~L.$S~.r Jf.'I1U * :~.lf. 1C....~ * *-jcIWJf. l'oWNS""~ MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP 350N,MlDDLESEXROAD,SUlTE 10 CARLISLE.PA 170130249-44090'795.96310 FAX249.8S64, Board 01 Supervisors: Robert M. Eppley. Joseph V. Capuano, Chartes W. Shughar1 Municipal SecI1II1'f. ,Mary G, Juslll Zoning OMcar. MIIIl< O. Carpente' November 3, 1998 '. Mr. Mark X. DiSanto Triple Crown Corporation 5351 Jaycee Avenue ' Harrisburg, PA 17112 Re: Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan For Shady Lane Warehouse Middlesex TownShip, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Dated: February 2, 1998, last revised July 20,1998 Dear Mr. DiSanto: I write to you in my capacity as Secretary of Middlesex Township on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Middlesex Township (the "Board'!) in order to communicate to you the decisions of the Board made with respect to the above-referenced Plan at a public meeting held on October 30, 1998. , With respect to the waivers or modifications requested, the Board through motions passed by a majority vote granted your request to waive the requirements of Article VII, Sections 709 and 710 of the Middlesex Township Subdivision ,and Land Development Ordinance (the "Ordina.nce") which respectively address the providing of sidewalks and curbing as part of the proposed Plan.' " The Board also by a motion passed by a majority vote denied your request for a waiver or modification of Ordinance Section " 903,. c, which requires the finished elevation of proposed streets or driveways to be at least one (1) foot above Regulatory Flood Elevation. The reason cited for this "denial was concern over safety for the employees, drivers and others who would access the site. Finally, the Board also by a motion passed by a majority vote denied your request for a waiver or modification of Ordinance Section 703.c(10) (b), which requires a clear sight triangle at the intersection of the proposed access driveway and Shady Lane.' The reason cited for this denial was that a clear sight triangle must be established for safety reasons at that intersection. As noted above, two (2) modificatfon or waiver requests were denied due to safety concerns. Accordingly, the'grant of these modifications would result in the existence of conditions EXh,6,f lie" ~ ~, ,-.-;.., Mr. Mark X. DiSanto November 3, 1998 Page Two contrary to the public interest. To the extent modifications and waivers were the subject of the hearing held on July 23, 1998, the factual or evidentiary basis for the reasons of denial set forth above are contained in the Transcript of Proceedings for that hearing. In accordance with Ordinance Section 1403.f, a copy of the minutes setting forth the action of the Board and the grounds for the denial of the modifications or waivers requested shall be transmitted to you once the minutes for the public meeting held October 30, 1998 are prepared and approved by tne Board. In addition to deciding the waiver and modification requests as noted above, the Board by a motion passed by a majority vote denied the Plan. The defects found in the application and Plan submitted and the requirements that have not been met with citations to the Ordinance, where applicable, are as follows: " 1. The proposed access driveway and culvert are proposed to be constructed in an embankment (fill) section which are obstructions within the natural drainage way that passes through the rear of adjoining property owned by Robert c. Foltz, Jr. and Gayle A. Foltz. The engineer for Middlesex Township has estimated that surface water on the Foltz property will therefore rise to an elevation 1.6 feet higher than it would under pre- development conditions during a twentY-five (25) year storm, spreading to horizontal limits within the Foltz property not experienced in the pre-development condition. 'This failure of post-development drainage patterns to simulate pre-development patterns is contrary to the requirements of Ordinance Section 1003.1. The failure of the facilities properly to accommodate storm water drainage is further contrary to the requirements of Ordinance Section 713.a which requires such facilities to conform" with the requirements of Ordinance Article X. 2. The submitted illustrations of proposed improvements to Shady Lane and the intersection of Shady L~ne and Route 11 are ' lacking in design specifics and required information. Ordinance Section'717.d(2) (e) requires that recommended improvements for roadways and intersections shall be listed and shall include external roadway and intersection design. Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (e) further requires all physical roadway improvements to be shown on the preliminary plan. The Plan submitted was defective and did not meet the requirements of Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (e) in the following particulars: a. Roadside gutter and other drainage designs are absent even though drainage improvements are needed; \l( _I /, ~ ,~. .;.' Mr. Mark X. Disanto November 3, 1998 Page Three b. The technical information submitted supporting pavement designs is insufficient to determine if the pavement section is structurally capable of withstanding fully loaded tractor trailer traffic. More core boring along Shady Lane and analysis is needed to support pavement design; c. No designs, other than "concept designs", were submitted for the Shady Lane/Route 11 intersection. The Cumberland County Planning Commission noted your failure to address the inadequate conditions that would result at this intersection in Report 98-98; d. The designs submitted failed to show cross- sections of existing topography with proposed design superimposed; and e. No listing of recommended improvements was provided indicating the party responsible for the improvement, the cost and funding of the improvement and the completion date for the improvement. 3. Trucks exiting the site by way of the proposed driveway will cross over the center line of Shady Lane ,and enter into the opposing lane of travel. Ordinance Section 708.d(1) provides , that' the location and angle of an access driveway approach in relation to the highway intersection shall be such that a vehicle leaving the driveway may do sc in an orderly and safe manner and with minimum interference with highway traffic. Neither the location nor angle of the proposed driveway allows access or entrY onto Shady Lane in a safe manner and with a minimum interference with traffic. ,Trucks and/or tractor trailer trucks leaving the site will be required to cross over the center line into the opposing lane of travel. As such, the driveway has not been designed in a manner conducive to safe .ingress and egress, contrary to Middlesex Township Zoning Ordinance Section 1~.02.A. 4. The Plan fails to provide for an alley or secondary service drive serving the proposed facility or, in the alternative, it fails to provide other provisions for service. Ordinance Section 703.c(12) (b) establishes that alleys or secondary service drives serving commercial and industrial establishments are required unless other provisions for service are provided. An "alley" (or service drive) is defined in Ordinance Section 202 as a minor right-of-way primarily for service access to the back or sides of properties and not i-ntended for general traffic circulation. No such alley or \\ C -;;2 " o . . .~ ,. , ["-.;;" Mr. Mark X. DiSanto November 3, 1998 Page Four service drive was designed or proposed by you and no alternate provisions for service were proposed. 5. The clear sight triangle proposed at the intersection of the private access driveway and Shady Lane does not meet the requirements of Ordinance Section 703.c(10) (b). Ordinance Section 703.c(10) (b) provides that proper sight lines must be maintained at all street intersections and that no building or obstruction higher than thirty (30) inches above the center line of streets shall be permitted in the area of a clear sight triangle. Further, Ordinance Section 202 defines a "clear sight triangle" as an area of unobstructed vision at street intersections. The clear sight triangle placed at the intersection noted above has included within it a portion of land located north of the access driveway owned by Lynn D. Hoffman and Suzanne Hoffman. There is no guarantee or assurance that proper sight lines can or will be maintained within the proposed clear sight triangle when the area within the triangle contains land privately owned by others, not within your control and not within the public right-of-way of Shady Lane. You have provided no evidence or indication that the Hoffmans have granted an easement or other interest on the portion of their property within the clear sight triangle to ensure an unobstructed sight line as required by Ordinance Section 703.c(10) (b). 6. The application and Plan fail to plan and provide for improvements to Shady Lane that would enable the road to safely accommodate the increased traffic, particularly truck traffic associated with the use of the proposed warehouse. These improvements were characterized as being "on-site" improvements. The Ordinance provisions relied upon and the ,deficiencies of the application and Plan are set forth in Paragraph 2 above, the contents of which Paragraph are incorporated by reference herein. 7. The application and Plan fail adequately to address the problem with the driveway design and its elevation as it relates to the flood plain area established by the LeTort Spring Run. One design option submitted has the potential to cause backwater conditions upstream of Shady Lane. The other design option would not ensure unobstructed access to the property as intended by Ordinance Section 903.c. The development options fail to eliminate reasonable hazards ,to life, health or property from flood or provide adequate safeguards against such hazards, contrary to Ordinance Section 702.a. 8. Both the engineer for the Township and the Planning Commission expressed numerous concerns about the application and Plan, which concerns served as a basis for the motion that was passed denying the Plan. \.\ c- 3 It : ... , . . h." . '", Mr. Mark X. DiSanto November 3, 1998 Page Five In addition to the items noted in the above paragraphs, furt~er.concerns noted ~y.the Township engineer and/or Planning Comm~ss~on were the ant~c~pated frequency of the tractor trailer traffic traveling Shady Lane as part of the proposed warehouse use, together with the restricted geometry of the curves of Shady Lane north of the Shady Lane bridge. These factors preclude a harmonious integration of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood contrary to Ordinance Section 702.b. Further, the resulting mix of tractor trailer traffic with both vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic associated with the present uses on Shady Lane raise substantial and real safety concerns. There was noted to be insufficient left lane storage on Route 11 to accommodate the increased truck traffic that will access the proposed site via Shady Lane. In addition, it is believed that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation would not ,approve a traffic light at the Shady Lane at the Route 11 intersection, which would otherwise been required by the increase in truck traffic, due to the intersection's close proximity to the light servicing the Giant Food Stores property immediately south on Route 11. Accordingly, a restriction on Shady Lane imposing a right turn onto Route 11 and changes in design of the intersection including an increase in the turning radius at Shady 'Lane and Route 11 would be required. For the reasons set forth immediately above, as well as those set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the application and Plan propose subdivision and development which is contrary to the stated purpose of the Ordinance ,to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Township and to insure conditions favorable to the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Township ,as set forth in Ordinance Section 102. Ordinance section 105 provides that provisions of the Ordinance shall be considered the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. For all the reasons ,set forth above, the application and Plan fail to meet both the minimum requirements of the Ordinance and the express purpose for which the Ordinance has been adopted. Yours truly, --e, J~!f;!!.hiP Secretary CC: 'Bruce F. Bratton, Esquire Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Il C.-~ I( ,,~,Y. :'"' ~: (" {...... ~\~~L!S~.r *. 1727 * t~: * -l<1~9. lb",ss\-\\'l MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP J50 N, MIDDLESEX ROAD. SUITE I. CARLISLE, PA 17013 . 249-4409 or 795.9631. FAX 249.8564 Board 01 SupervIsors Robort M. EppleV_ Joseph V Capuano. Charles W Shughart MUl'lIC:ipaJ Socrelary. Mary G, JU1llh Zoning Officer: Mark D. Carpenter January 18, 1999 Mr. Mark X. Disanto Triple Crown Corporation 5351 Jaycee Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17112 ,Re: Revised Grading and Site Plan (For Consider.ati.on Only if Redco Court Access is Rejected) For Shady Lane Warehouse Dated: July 30, 1998 Dear Mr. Disanto: I write to you in my capacity as Secretary of Middlesex Township on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Middlesex Township (the "Board") in order to communicate to you the decision of the Board made with respect to the above-referenced Plan at a public meeting held January 4, 1999. The Revised Grading and site Plan (the "Plan") was delivered to Middlesex Township on August 4, 1998 with a letter from your attorney, Bruce F. Bratton, Esquire, dated August 4, 1998 , ' directed to Mark Carpenter, the Zoning Officer. That letter, a copy of which is attached hereto, provided in part that the Plan: . . . is a revision to be made part of or considered a part of the preliminary SUbdivision and land , development plan for this project site if and on Iv if the township government should reject the use of Redco Court or impose such restrictions that its use becomes, impossible as a means of access to the proposed facility. (emphasis in original) .' On october 30, 1998, the Board took action on the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan for Shady Lane Warehouse dated February 2; 1998 and last revised July 20, 1998, and in so doing granted certain waiver requests, denied certain other waiver requests and denied the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan. The decision of the Board was communicated to you in writing by letter date~ November 3, 1998. ExhibiT tlD II " """I, (' Mr. Mark X. DiSanto January 18, 1999 Page Two Therefore, on October 30, 1998, the Board had in fact denied your plan which proposed access to the proposed facility by use of Redco Court. As a result of the decisions by the Board on October 30, 1998 and in consideration of the specific instructions given by your attorney in his letter to Mr. Carpenter of August 4, 1998, the Plan, as of October 30, 1998, was to be considered a revision made part of or considered a part of the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan. As indicated above, on October 30, 1998, the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan was denied. The Plan dat~d July 30, 1998 c~nstitutad a su~sta~tial revision to the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan. For these reasons, the Board on October 30, 1998 referred the Plan to the Middlesex Township Planning Commission. The Zoning Officer by letter dated November 2, 1998 confirmed the need, for the Plan to be properly filed and submitted by the sUbmis,sion of the completed application for plan approval, twelve sets of plans with any supporting documentation and the required plan SUbmission fee. Middlesex Township SUbdivision and Land Development Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Section 301 provides that no plans except sketch plans will be considered by the Planning Commission unless the plans, along with an application, all required supporting documentation and the required fees are submitted to the Township Secretary. Section 301 further provides that no application shall be deemed to be filed unless all requirements are met and fees therefor paid in full. Further, Section 303 of the Ordinance requires the subdivider or land developer to, submit an application for SUbdivision and land development and copies of the proposed Plan to the Township Secretary. Ordinance Section 308 provides that the fees set by the Board for review of plans are payable in advance. Finally, Ordinance Section 501 requires the SUbmission of two copies of the application for review and twelve copies of the preliminary plan. . Your purported plan submission was deficient and failed to meet the requirements of Ordinance Section 301, 303 and 308 in that you failed to submit the required application. You further failed to meet the requirements of Section 301 by not submitting the required supporting documentation as described in Ordinance Section 502 . Additionally , you failed to submit copies of the plan as required by Ordinance Section 303 and 501. Finally, you failed to submit fees as required by Ordinance Sections 301 and 308. " \\ 1) - ( ", .~ ) (--.., ,'i. , " Mr. Mark X. DiSanto January 18, 1999 Page Three Based upon the above, the Plan was never properly submitted and therefore no official action or review of the plan was required by the Township. Without waiver of this position and without prejudice to the Township, the Board by a majority vote on January 4, 1999 denied the Plan for the reasons set forth above as well as those described below. Assuming, but not conceding, that the Plan was properly submitted and could be considered on and after October 30, 1998, the warehouse use proposed on the Plan is not a permitted Use in the LI - Light Industrial District. Through Ordinance 8-98 enacted May 6, 1998 ~~hree ~onths Frior to the delivery of your Plan to Mr. Carpenter), the Middlesex Township Zoning Ordinance was amended. As a result, warehousing was removed as a permitted use in the LI - Light Industrial District. Such a use is permitted only in the IG - Industrial General District. The Board further denied the Plan for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated October 21, 1998 of Bud Grove, P.E., the Township's engineer. The defects found in the Plan as noted by Mr. Grove and the requirements that have not been met with citations ,to the Ordinance, if applicable, are set forth below. The access driveway and culvert are proposed to be constructed in an embankment (fill) section and as such are obstructions within the natural 'drainage way. These obstructions could cause storm water runoff to backup to the southern property line of the site and possibly into adjoining lands of Capuano. Calculations have not been provided to determine the limits of backwater. This failure of ,post-development drainage patterns to simula~e pre-development patterns is contrary to the requirements of Ordinance Section 1003.1. The failure of the facilities properly to accommodate storm water drainage is further contrary 'to the requirements of Ordinance Section 713.a which requires such facilities to conform with the requirements of Ordinance Article X. The submitted illustrations of proposed improvements to Shady Lane and the intersection of Shady Lane and Route 11 are lacking in design specifics and requirement information. Ordinance Section 717.d(2l (e) requires that recommended improvements for roadways and intersections shall be listed and shall include external roadway and intersection design. Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (el further requires all physical roadway improvements to be shown on the preliminary plan. The Plan submitted was defective and did not meet the requirements of Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (e) in the ,following particulars: \l'D_dll . ..,,, ",'.,. ~\ ,r" ,~ . Mr. Mark X. DiSanto January 18, 1999 Page Four a. Roadside gutter and other drainage designs are absent even though drainage improvements are needed; b. The technical information submitted supporting pavement designs is insufficient to determine if the pavement section is structurally capable of withstanding fully loaded tractor trailer traffic. More core boring along Shady Lane and analysis is needed to support pavement design; 'c. NC) desigl'ls, other than "conc:.~.,t c<!si',ms", were submitted for the Shady Lane/Route 11 intersection. The Cumberland County Planning Commission noted your failure to address the inadequate conditions that would result at this intersection in Report 98-98; d. The designs submitted failed to show cross- sections of existing topography with proposed design superimposed; and e. No listing of recommended improvements was provided indicating the party responsible for the improvement, the cost and funding of the improvement and the completion date for the improvement. The Plan fails to provide for an alley or secondary service drive serving the proposed facility or; in the alternative, it ,fails to provide other provisions for service. Ordinance Section 703.c(1.2)(b) establishes that alleys or secondary service drives serving commerclal and industrial establishments are required unless other provisions for service are provided. An "alley" (or service drive) is defined in Ordinance Section 202 as a minor right-of-way primarily for service access to the back" or sides of properties and not intended for general traffic circulation. No ' such alley or service drive was designed or proposed by you and no alternative provisions for service were proposed. The Plan further fails to note the cartway width of Shady Lane along the frontage of the site for both existing and proposed conditions. Ordinance 501.s requires the Plante, contain specifications for widths of cartways. The designation of such widths is absent. tl1)_3tl , ~_."" ,'",~ Mr. Mark X. DiSanto January 18, 1999 Page Five Ordinance Section 703.c.(2) provides that where a subdivision abuts an eXisting street of inadequate width, sufficient additional width shall be required. The Plan depicts a cartway width for the southbound lane of Shady Lane along the frontage of the site that is inadequate and should be increased to match the width of the northbound lane in order to avoid eccentric widening. In addition to the above, Ordinance Section 1001 requires the submission of a storm water management Plan for each subdivision or land development plan. No such plan was submitted in reference to, the Re"ir;ed f;r",diny anJ Sita Plan; 11 addii:ion, no revisions Were made to the Storm Water Management Plan/Report and Calculations submitted with respect to the Preliminary SUbdivision. and Land Development Plan to make it compatible or consistent with the Revised Grading and Site Plan. Finally, the restricted geometry of the CUrves of Shady Lane north of the Shady Lane Bridge together with the anticipated frequency of the tractor trailer traffic traveling Shady Lane as part of the proposed warehouse Use preclUde a harmonious integration of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood contrary to Ordinance Section 702.b. The resUlting mix of tractor trailer traffic with both vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic aSsociated with the present Uses on Shady Lane raise substantial and real safety concerns. ' As with the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan that was denied on October 30, 1998, the revised Grading Site Plan dated July 30, 1998 is contrary to the stated purpose of the Ordinance to protect the health, Safety and general welfare of the residents of the Township and to ensure conditions favorable to the health, safety and general welfare of the r~sidents of the TownShip as set 'forth in Ordinance Section 102. Yours truly, , ?:;~ :'t~ TownShip Secretary cc: BrUce F. Bratton, Esquire Dale F. ~hughart, Jr., Esquire I, '-l <])-'1 !~ 0. M. There is no computation of actual impervious area in regard to the 60% - 40% impervious/pervious split for basin no. 1 and basin no. 2, Post Development Conditions, as required by Section 1002.j. (2) of the Ordinance. N. Basin routings for basin #1 on pages 19 and 21 do not peak. Routing must be provided which shows peak as required by Section 1001.j. (5) of the Ordinance. O. Stormwater run off calculations were not certified with the signature of the person responsible for their content as required by Section 1002 of the Ordinance. P. The emergency spillway in basin no, 1 provided additional weir in the outlet structure, rather than an increase in the emergency spillway size as required by Section 1002.j of the Ordinance. Q. The Traffic Assessment submitted by the Developer suggests three lanes of traffic on Shady Lane, two out bound and one in bound, while the "Improvement Plan for Shady Lane" indicates a single in bound and a right-only out bound lane which is not in compliance with the requirements of Sections703.a.1 and 717,e of the Ordinance. The right 'out only conf:lgurationis not desirable. ;,' R. The Traffic Assessment is incomplete in that it fails to detail the trips generated from the proposed three lot ,development across from Giant/Hoss's driveway as required by Section 703.a.1and 717.e. of the Ordinance. -,3- ~~ E-3(' f\ , (..........' S. The truck traffic was not quantified and specifically addressed in turning movement distributions as required by Sections 703.a.l. and 7l7.e. of the Ordinance. Based upon the information presented, it appears that the truck traffic will account for more than 50% of the in bound morning peak hour trips and out bound afternoon peak hour trips. Truck traffic should have been broken out and an independent distribution developed for truck trips. T. In order to adequately accommodate the proposed truck traffic, it will be necessary to obtain additional right-of-way in four (4) locations to provide a design shown in accordance with Section 703.c.2 of the Ordinance in regard to the following: 1. Property on the southeast corner of Shady Lane and ,Route 11 will require right-of-way to allow for the corner improvement. The improvement is necessary for the truck movement from Shady Lane to northbound Route 11. 2. Property surrounding the LeTort Spring Run bridge replacement will be needed to allow the proper construction of wingwalls and bridge abutment with the widening roadway. 3. Property immediately north of the private access drive will be needed to allow for proper construction of turning radii for trucks leaving the site and proper clear site triangles , will require an easement. 4. Property will be needed adjacent to Route lIon the southeast side immediately south of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. ' -4- , , Il e _ 'I t ) /,', , ' U. A hydraulic and hydrologic (H & H) study must be provided for the proposed bridge replacement in order to determine the effect upon the flood plain as required by Section 703.a.2 of the Ordinance. The methodology for preparing the study must be compatible with FEMA's to determine actual impact to water surface. No Report was filed. V. Proposed paving of Shady Lane does not appear adequate for use. Existing paving must be cored and pavement design prepared to determine adequacy of existing pavement to accommodate proposed loading. The Developer indicated that a core was taken at the entrance to the tract, however, a more extensive program must be provided to determine the adequacy of Sections of Shady Lane subject to proposed loading. Copies of certified borings were not submitted for determination as required by Section 703.a.l of the Ordinance. W. The Board of Supervisors erred in failing to reference and incorporate the aforesaid Report of Mark B. Bruening, P.E. by reference in its Written Decision and said Report in its entirety, is incorporated herein by reference thereto. II. The Written Decision of the Township failed,~o specify additional failures of the Plan to meet the requirements of the Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance as set forth in the Report of the Township Engineer, Bud Grove, P.E., Grove Associates, dated August 2, 1998 and filed with the -5- , t, \( E- S- -....'..-..,."..., .-..., /-". Township as follows: A. The proposed access driveway and culvert are proposed to be constructed in an embankment/fill section and as such are obstructions within the natural drainage way that passes through the rear of the Foltz property, which obstructions would cause , stormwater runoff to back up onto the Foltz property and spread the horizontal limits within the Foltz property beyond the pre- development condition in violation of Sections 713, 1002.i, 1003,h, and 1003.i of the Ordinance, B. Section 717.e of the Ordinance requires the specification of detailed information regarding Shady Lane \ including a list of recommended improvements for both roadways and transit, for each improvement, the party responsible for the improvement, and I the cost of funding of the irnprovement, and the , completion date of the improvement. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report failed to comply with this requirement and further fails to provide additional details as required by Section '703, 709 and 710 of the Ordinance, C. Trucks exiting the proposed access drive, WB 50 and larger, would cross the center line of Shady Lane and enter into, the opposing lane, in violation of Section 708. D. Trucks exiting the site, WB 50 and larger will cross over the center line of Shady Lane and enter the opposing lane. The compound radii at the intersection are inadequate and violative of Section 708.d, of the Ordinance. -6- (I llE-(.; "'J ~-\, '.' Board of Supervisors. The specific testimony of each witness called by the Petitioners is incorporated herein by reference. D. In its appeal, ,the Appellant relies upon a previously approved Subdivision and Land Development Plan for the premises, which Plan approval occurred in January 1988, said Plan being recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 55, Page 52 et al. The Written Decision of the Board of Supervisors failed to specifically note Section 508(4) of the MPC, 53 P.S. 10508(4), which expressly provides only five years of protection to subsequent Ordinance changes. The five years of protection provided by Section 508(4) expired more than five years prior to the filing of this Plan. The Plan is subject, to the requirements of the 1990 Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Appellant obtains no protection from the previous Plan approval. E, Following the filing of the original Plan by the Appellant, the Township amended Section 11. 08 of the Zoning Ordinance removing warehouses, such as proposed by the Appellant, from the list of permitted uses in the Light Industrial District. Thereafter, the Appellant made substantial revisions to the Plan. As a result of those substantial revisions after the amendment of the Ordinance, the revised Plan should have been considered a "new Plan", under the MPC, Township Ordinance and case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and as such the proposed use as a warehouse is a violation of Section 11.03 of the Middlesex -9- \1 E-11( '] r Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended, and an approval should have been denied for violation of said provision of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The Board of Supervisors erred in failing to reference and incorporate the aforesaid Statement of Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire, by reference in its Written Decision and said Statement in its entirety, is incorporated herein by reference thereto. IV. The Township Board of Supervisors erred in failing to take c:ction to disapprove a "alternative", revised grading and site Plan dated July 30, 1998 submitted by the Appellant "for consideration only" if the access proposed in the original Plan was rejected, for the following reasons: A. At the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 30, 1998, the Developer/Appellant to take final action on the above referenced Alternative Plan. The Petitioners, by their undersigned attorney, requested that the Supervisors take action on the Plan,because the 90 days required by the MPC would expire ,absent such final action. The statements of the undersigned attorney for the Petitioners were incorrectly report"ed in the 'proposed Minutes of the meeting. Upon review of those proposed Minutes, on November 10, 1998, the undersigned attorney for the Petitioners requested that the Minutes be corrected to accurately reflect his statements in regard to the Alternative Plan, The Board of Supervisors declined to amend the proposed Minutes and ' . -10- \( E -10 I( '1 (' adopted them as originally prepared. The Minutes of the meeting and correspondence between the undersigned attorney for the Petitioners and the Board of Supervisors are a part of this record and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Additionally, it is believed and therefore averred that a tape recording of the meeting was maintained which will accurately reflect the statements of the undersigned attorney for the Petitioners. It is requested that the tape recording of the meeting be considered a portion of the record in regard to ~hese proceedings, to be filed with the record by the Township ,and incorporated herein by reference thereto. B. As stated by the undersigned attorney for the Petitioners at the meeting on October 30, 1998, there are no provisions in the MPC or the Township Ordinance allowing the submission of alternative Plans. Therefore, approval of the Alternative Plan should have been denied for failure to comply wi th Section 303 of., the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance which provides the consideration of only one set of Plans and not filing of alternative plans. C. The Alternative Plan in question was reviewed by the Township's engineer. Numerous Ordinance deficiencies in regard to said Plan are stated in the Memorandum of Bud Grove, P,E., Township Engineer, dated October 21, 1998, which Memorandum isa part of the record in this case, and which deficiencies are incorporated herein br reference thereto. -11- II E _II" '08/05/1998 11: 56 71 7-N9~564 .01."_' l~~ l':U~ ~^l 71 40 OeDD I MIDDLESEX TCMNS~IP PAGE 05 GROI'I! A5$OCIAn:s . ~.. 1I1DDLSSIiX 'niP llJoot I am certainly not going to refute Mr. SealllS' testimony os he is the "expertU and is in charge during such events, I feel obligated. however, to review with you certain other information thot may help you make an informed decision as to grant or deny the waiver request, (; From Q pure engineering perspective, I cfln with reasonable certainty tell you that Shady Lone and the access driveway into the site con be raised to an elevation one (1) foot above the Regulatory Flood Elevation (RFE). I can also state with certainty that inorder to do so additional right-ot-way (ROW) will be required to accommodate side slopes extending beyond cartway. Also, t"e driveway across the road from the proposed access drive will be altered resulting in 0 rather steep slope into it from Shady Lone. If additional ROW is not obtained retaining walls will be needed to overcome the difference. in elevation between the road surface and the adjacent ground elevation beyond the existing ROW. Gl.liderail will be needed to protect the motorist rom damages and injuries caused by troverslng this differenCE in elevation accidentally. $ we.seeit, there are two options available to raise the access riveway to the required eh!vQtion. Option 1, as indicated on the lans referenced above. raises the driveway and transitions the levation difference at its Shady Lone intersection to points on hady Lane north ond south of the access driveway. Said ransition or "blending" extends approximately 128' to the north nd 147'to the south of the acceSs drivel Shady Lane ntersection, The second option is to raise Shady Lane to the equired elevation beginning at a point approximatefy 155' north f the center of the existing bridge to the aforesaid point 147' outh of the access drive Shady Lane intersection. The second q F _311 3 FUMilS-l998 13:04 . .,..". '. \-,' . >,".' ",'",' 717 249 8S64 93Y. 'P.0S '08/05/1998 11: 56 717-249-8564 " U~/U./U Ulli 15:0. FAX 7/'110 oeu MIDDLESEX TO/'INS,Jl~~ PAGE 06 CROVE A590CIAtES. ... JlIVDLESEl 'IIIP llJooo option would therefore require raising Shady LOlle for an overall l~ngth of 650 feet, mOr'e or less. Option 1 would obviously requir'e less constr'uction and less additional ROW than Option 2, Both options have the potential to couse a backwater condition upstream of Shady !.ane. Option 1 will cause less backwater upstream thon Option 2. The HEC-RAS Study referenced above estimates virtually no backwater impact upstream os a result of Option 1. Whereas the some study estimates Q potential to roise the water surface elevation at a point upstr'tCIm by 1.83 feet. which is a substantial impact, Bear in-mind. that 'this impact is based upon leaving the bridge at its. present location and sim\?1v raising its deck. Other types of bridge designs providing more of a waterway opening (cleor span) could be designed which could reduce this impact. Since these other designs were not modeled in the aforementioned study we Can not be sure to what extent the impact could be reduced. We believe the intent of this section of the SLI)O (903.c) is to pro.vide a means to require developments to have unobstructed access during the emergency (100 year) storm for health, safety Qnd welfare reasons, When reviewing each Option relative to the intent of this seCfion of the SLDO it is obvious that only Option 2 satisties the intent.. If Option 1 w~re constructed, vehicles would not be able to cross the Letort to eithe.r get into or' leave the site. Based upon the above diSCUSSion, if you ore so inclined to deny the waiver. we recommend that Option 1 be rejected because it . does not satisfy the intent of the SLOO. Option 2 should be required if YOIJ det~rmine that the benefits derived by raising Shady Lane to o.ne (1) foot above the ~rE justify overcoming the obstacles and costs involved to design andconsrruct the road in a II F-r-Ir 4 Al.Xi-0S-1998 13: 04 717 2498564 93:( .08/05/1998 11: 56 71 7-249-8564 ..'.,,- "l'~ U:UO f'.u 7J';(0 0088 MIDDLESEX TCMNSHIP CIlOVE A9SOClATIiS r ",._..,..w_.....__ '~".'.'...' " . PAGE 08 .~. ... NIDDI.tSEl 'niP iii 007 obtain a channel cross section. This reason is understandab'~, but none the less, we estimate that surface water will rise to on elevation 1,6 feet higher than it would under predevelopment conditions during the 25-year stOl"m, Recent information provided our office by tfledevelopers' engineer illustrates. in the their op:inion. that surface water will not bock up onto the Foltz property beyond the limits of a previously recorded drainage easement. It is our opinion that the tolerance aI/owed by said engineer is minimal. Calculations have not been submitted indicating surface water will remain within the aforesaid eosement as surface water is converted from sheet flow to. concentrated flow and directed to the west toward . Shady Lane. Furthermore, if any cell of the 5.cell culvert. becomes clogged, the possibility of backwater beyond the limits of the easement becomes more of a reality, We recommend 0 better attempt be made at simulating sheet flow through the culvert by increasing its cross sectional area thereby-n:ducing headwater and decreasing backwater. The developers engineer should also check the proposed finish grade contours surrounding the inlet end ot the culvert. It would appmr that contour 428 is not plotted corl"~ctly. 4, (702,b) [34] Although the developer has made an attempt to propose development of this project in a manner that would have the least impact on existing businesses on Shady Lane by widening the existing roadway where it may be poSSible within the confines of the existing legal ROW, we feel that given the anticipated frequency of tractor trailer traffic traveling Shady Lane and the restricted geame!1)' of the curves immediately north. of thaShady Lane bridge this roposal falls short of harmonious integration of "Old" and "new". Ithough "New" can be more harmonious with "Old" by widening hady Lane to limits proposed by the developer (28 ft. cartway) as ~ \I F~ 6 '( 1Ui-eS-1998 13: l!l6 717 249 B564 93" P.08 . . 08/05/1998 11: 56 717"249-8564 ~Z!..!'..fU ~:U7 FA! TI"lO 06U MIDDLESEX TOWNSI-(~ P PAGE 11 CROll; A"O~I.\ms " ... '"11I'LEsSX T/lP r;bOIO 1, [4J Although the Lelort Regional Authority has commented on the sedlmenlpond designl relative to contaminant removal, we still QlCpress concem as atated in our pntViOUll memoranda, 2. [8] After many hours of review, numerOU8 site visits, and, listening to many hours of verbal input from the developer and citizens alike, 4 have come to the conclusion that although the devefoper has proposed improvement concepts based upon the area within his control or Township control that being within the elC/sting public ROW, I believe that thQ3e improvements are Insufficient relative to pUblic safaty. ' I am concemed about the mix of tractor-trailer traffic with both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, Without complete removal of the trees on Shady lane and expansIon of the pavement width to at least the minimum allOWed with curbs (36 feet) in straight (tangsnt) sections of Shady Lane and provide sidewalks in elCisting and potentially high pede&t1lan traffic areas, we cannot look favorably on . this plan. Without widening (36 to 54 feet) the pavement through existing and or proposec/ curves to accommodate the tendency of trector.tratlers pulling to the center of travel lanes because of the lack of superelevation. we cannot look favorably on this plan, If the existing degree of cUlVature were flattened this dimension could be rlllduced. We lire reasonably certain that all of these items will require additional right - of - way and cooperation of the adjoining and neighboring property owners. These issues become especially important given that there ill additional land south of the Letort Spring Run that could be developed in similar fashion to what is presently being proposed and would USe Shady Lane 8S 8 means of ingress and egress. The comments and conclusions stated above are based upon what we feel are prvdent engineering standards and principles and mayor may not represent reqUIrements of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, As lluch If asked far a recommendation by either the Planning Commission or Board of II F- 7 " 9 FO:H:lS-1998 13:07 717 249 8S64 93% P.11 10122/9801:09 FAX &4006DO ---";" - - - -. ~--r-- , ',.." . GROI'E: A~, (' Emergency Management Coordinator and Fire Chief for Middlesex Township, As we recall Mr. Beams' testimony, he stated that if a catastrophic event occurred that rendered the site unreachable by vehicle from Shady Lane he would not order vehicles under his command to access the site from I-81. His reasons were based upon safety concerns relative to I-B1 traffic, time delays caused by "cutting through fencing' and removal of guiderai!. and potential damage to emergency vehicles caused by uneven terrain, I am certainly not going to refute Mr. Beams' testimony as he is the "expert" and is in charge during such events. I feel obligated, however, to review with you certain other information that may help you make an informed decision as to grant or deny the waiver request, From a pure engineering perspective, I can with reasonable certainty tell you that Shady Lane and the access driveway into the site can be raised to an elevation one (1) foot above the Regulatory Flood Elevation (RFE). I can also state with certainty that inorder to do ,so additional right-of-way (ROW) will be required to accommodate side slopes extending beyond cartway. If additional ROW is not obtained retaining walls will be needed to overcome the difference in elevation between the rood surface and the adjacent ground elevation beyond the existing ROW. Guiderail will be needed to protect the motorist from damages and injuries caused by traversing this difference in elevation accidentally. Raising Shady Lane to an elevation one (1) foot above the RFE has the potential to cause a backwater condition upstream of Shady Lane, The HEC-RAS Study referenced above estimates a potential to raise the water surface elevation at a point upstream (;_;;2" ,.,.... Ii!I 004 3 " ,10/22f98 01: 09 FAX 5400699 GRO\'E ASSOC, -.:...--.. - - .~ --:---. (" , by 1.63 feet, which is a substantial impact, Bear in mind that this impact is based upon leaving the bridge at its present location and simply raising its deck. Other types of bridge designs providing more of a waterway opening (clear span) could be designed which could reduce this impact. Since these other designs were not modeled in the aforementioned study we can not be sure to what extent the impact could be reduced, Based upon the above discussion, you should deny the waiver request if you determine that the benefits derived by raising Shady Lane to one (1) foot above the RFE justify overcoming the obstacles and costs involved to design and construct the road in a safe and reasonable manner. and, that all other possibilities for "emergency access" have beenexpfored and have been deemed to be unattainable or not feasible. 2. (501.aa)- Clear sight triangle; A clear sight triangle should be placed over the intersection of the access drive and Shady Lane. This,can be done easily. There should be no need for a waiver request. 3, (713,1002.i, 1003.h, 1003.1) The proposed access driveway arid culvert are proposed to be constructed in an embankment (fill) section and as such are obstructions within a natural drainage-way. As such, it is not unreasonable to assume that said obstructions could cause storm water runoff to backup to the southern property line of the site, and, possibly onto adjoining lands of Capuano. Calculations are needed to determine the limits of backwater. .4. (702.b) Although the developer has made an attempt to propose development of this project ina manner that would have the least impact on existing businesses on Shady Lane by widening the . existing roadway where it may be possible within the confines of the existing legal ROW; we feel that given the anticipated frequency of tractor trailer traffic traveling Shady Lane and the restricted geometry ~"/ .' of (9--3 ~005 4 , '. ,10/:2198 01:10 FAI 5~00699 .' ~---_._--~_.- GROVE ASSOC, -r. of the curves immediately north of the Shady Lane bridge this proposal falls short of harmonious integration of "old" and "new". Although "New" can be more harmonious with .Old" by widening Shady Lane to limits proposed by the developer (28 ft, cartway) as compared to leaving Shady Lane in an "as-is" state, it falls short of what it should be without going beyond the limits of the existing ROW and securing additional ROWand or cooperation of the surrounding land owners. 5. (703, 709,710, 717e) This plan submittal illustrates "guidelines" for proposed improvements to Shady Lane, as did the plan set that was the subject of previous memoranda to the Planning Commission from our office. In pre.vious memoranda we asked for complete design details. Some of the information illustrated on the plan that is the subject of this review might be acceptable as "typical" details but this project needs specifics. Relative to some of the "guidelines" submitted and other requirements: (a). Eccentric widening should be discouraged. All centerlines should be in the center bf the pavement section and if at all possible in the center of the existing right of way, (b). Roadside gutter and other drainage designs are absent. In addition to pavement widening I drainage improvements are needed. (c) ,The pavement section should be structurally capabie of . withstanding fully loaded tractor-trailer traffic. The technical information submitted supporting pavement designs is insufficient. A more aggressive program of core boring along Shady Lane and analysis of the same is needed to support pavement designs. (d),Designs for the Shady Lane IRt.11 intersection and Rt. 11 lane improvements should be submitted. Concept sketches have 'I been submitted but are not acceptable as preliminary designs. (e),Cross sections of existing topography with proposed designs superimposed thereon should be submitted. Cross sections should be taken everY 50 feet at a minimum and at every q G - <f- '. ~008 5 " .100'22'08 01: II FAX S400apO -,.....:.-.---. -,- - -~-, GROI'E .\SSOC, ,,.......:. ~008 -.-..-...-. 10.(703,c{2}) Cartway width should be Increased on the southbound, lane of Shady Lane along the frontage of the site to match the width of the northbound lane as eccentric widening should not be allowed, 11, Erosion and Sedimentation Controls as previously submitted and approved by Cumberland County Conservation District should be placed on this plan sheet. Also modifications needed to address the plan revision resulting from moving the access drive to the south must also be included, The bottom line is that a true substitute for plan sheet 4 of 9 should be be submitted. 12,(1001) Stormwater Management Plan I Report and Calculations must be revised so that It is consistent and compatible with the proposed site and grading plan revisions. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Although the Letort Regional Authority has commented on the sediment pond designs relative to contaminant removal, we stIlI , express concern as stated in our previous memoranda. 2, After many hours of review, numerous site visits. and, listening to many hours of verbal input from the developer and citizens alike, I have come to the conclusion that although the developer has proposed improvement concepts based upon the area within his control or Township contro,1 that being within the existing public ROW, I believe that those improvements,are insufficient relative to public safety, I am concerned about the mix of tractor-trailer traffic with both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Without complete removal of the trees on Shady Lane and expansion of the pavement width to at least the minimum allowed with curbs (36 feet) in straight (tangent) sections of Shady Lane and provide sidewalks in existing and potentially high pedestrian traffic areas, we cannot look favorably on this plan, Without widening (36 to 54 feet) the pavement through existing and or proposed curves to accommodate the tendency of tractor-trailers pulling to the center of travel lanes because of the lack of superelevation, we cannot look favorably on this plan, If the '\ /' II 19-to 7 .10/2219S 01: 11 FAX 5400S9~ r- GRO\'[ ASSOC, ,._."__._.__.,,_ ._. _.._, 1-.----,- -.- -, r" existing degree of curvature were flattened this dimension could be reduced, We are reasonably certain that all of these items will require additional right - of - way and cooperation of the adjoining and neighboring property owners, These issues become especially important given that there Is additional land south of the Letort Spring Run that could be developed in similar fashion to what is presently being proposed and would use Shady Lane as a means of ingress and egress. The comments and conclusions stated above are based upon what we feel are prudent engineering standards and principles and mayor may not represent requirements of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. As such if asked for a recommendation by either the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors relative to approval of the plan as is presently proposed, as professional civil engineers charged with the responsibility of putting public safety concerns above all else. we would have to , recommend denial of the plan, We come to this conclusion without malice or prejudice to any of the parties involved in this project. We firmly believe all interested parties are doing what they feel is best given their individual circumstances. 3. If this plan is looked upon favorably by the Board. we recommend ' the following contingencies be placed on the approval: (a).(501.h) The plan be properly notarized and signed by the landowner and or the developer. (b),(1002) Full basin routing reports are attached as supplements to the stormwater management report to replace the abbreviated reports presently submitted. (.c). (717) The traffic assessment report is updated to include information provided in the GCW Subdivision Plan - Traffic Assessment. (d), (707f) The lighting plan be enhanced, if necessary, to meet the requirements of the SLDO. II /' . I. .l.;) - / ~009 8 ,. r] (' July 30, 1998 Shady Lane Warehouse Page 2 Mr. Curtis M. Barnett - 7. A driveway permit must be issued by Township (708), 8. It appears that compound radii provided at the intersection of access drive and Shady Lane are not adequate for truck traffic (708.d) In order to exit the site, a WB50 truck type must not enter opposing lane when making turn. Issue of available right-of-way is not a design factor. 9. Provide curbing and sidewalks (709) (710), Developer requesting a waiver to this section. 10. The EIA Report should be certified as correct by preparer. Had the Township agreed to the preparer of the Study? (718,c) 11, Species of existing trees should be shown on plan (718.d.(5) (a)), 12. The finished elevation of streets and driveways shall be at least 1 foot above the regulatory flood elevation (903.c). Developer requesting a waiver to this section. 13, One tree per 1000 sq, ft. or gross floor area must be provided in addition to street trees, buffers, off-street parking, etc. (l203.n.(l))~ '__ 14. Bonding of all improvements must be provided prior to the approval of final plan (1300). 15; 'H.O.P. is required for improvements at intersection of Shady Lane and U.S. Route II, as indicated on "Improvement Plan for Shady Lane" dated July 14, 1998 with no revisions. H,O.p. Plans should be submitted by developer for review andilreliminary plan should not be approved until permit is obtained (703.a.l) (l7.d.2.e) (702. a). B. Stormwater (Stormwater Management Narrative as prepared by R. J. Fisher and Associates, dated 02/02/98 last revised 03/23/98) Comment: No revised information has been submitted for review. 1. The 60% impervious, 40% pervious split for Basin #1 and Basin #2 post-development conditions does not appear appropriate. Actual impervious area calculation should be provided (1002.j.(2)), 2, Basin routings for Basin #1 on pages 19 and 21 do not peak. Routing should be provided which shows peak (l002,j.(5)). 3. Stomlwater runoff calculations must be certified with signature of person responsible for content (1002), II 1-/-02" , .' 3. 4, ~ (', July 30, 1998 Shady Lane Warehouse Page 3 Mr. Curtis M. Barnett 4. What is the purpose of the rectangular weir on Basin HI? The weir is not activated until the 100 year stonn with clogged orifice. It would be better to increase emergency spillway size rather than providing additional weir inoutIet structure (lD02.j). 5, Stormwater Management facilities runoff computations shall be based on the soil cover ,complex method, An alternative method may be approved by Township Engineer and Township Board of Supervisors (1003), 6. Recommend a clay core design be provided for embankments of detention basins with construction details. 7. 'Recommend that emergency spilIwaysbe capable of safely discharging 100 year post- development stonn for the upgrade dr,ainage area in the event the discharge structure (or culvert) is "clogged". C. Traffic Study 1. Inconsistency exists between plans entitled "Improvement Plan for Shady Lane" dated, June 3, 1998 last revised July 14, 1998. which were included with plan set dated February 2, 1998 last revised July 20, 1998 and "Improvement plam"for Shady Lane" dated July 14, 1998 with no revisions as submitted as separate set. It is stated that the proposed improvements are consist~nt with the recommendationsof, ' the Traffic Assessment (TA) prepared by Grqver Miller. The TA does notrecommend right-out only for Shady Lane at Route 11. The TA suggests three (3) lanes onSmdy Lane (2 outbound and 1 inbound) while the "Improvement plan for Shady l.ane"dated' July 14, 1998, with no revisions indicates a single inbound and a right-only outbound lane (703,a.l) (717.e), ' 2, .,':', ,.,'" -,:':,,',,"'," ..' :;"":::i~q,- The right-out only configuration is not desirable. This wilI create a "cut-through'.:, tt~t'fic ,,' situation through the Giant/Hoss's parking lot. ....r.'.;.,;'.::..,.:. , The proposed lane taper for northbound Route 11 is insufficient asshoWll, l?n" ' "Improvement Plan for Shady Lane" date July 14, 1998, with no revisions. Only245~ is provided while 320' is the minimum PennDOT should allo,w. This can be achieved,,}, by extending the lane taper into the bay taper. Doing this will provide 355' fo~ the lane'~ii;{),:'{~':0,\1i:?:!~f taper (703 c) (717 e) - ',:."!:,;;:i~:;'t~C;~~;,':i1 ' " ",<,,;y;p0f4f:' (0~ Additionally, the following comments made during the previous reviw ha~e~otl>~#i;?7:.i;i;ti!i;!;i; addressed and are restated below (703.a.l) (717.e). "':<'j:',:;)'::;;:;:~:iMi't:};~i' ,:' ::: :,",:'.' '-,.",'- :~.> .:;;,' ,.,::,.,,";,,:,t?:-:,:}i;t:l}i:)n~~~;:& '!" -. a. Trips generated from the proposed three (3) lot developmentacros~:ff~Ill{t!!:tl!ij;fi!{); Giant/Hoss's driveway should be included in the traffiCanalySes::,,:::,>,,;[;,:!~;;S'- . '.. "";.,'-..,.:..._",.'.1..,,,,,,,,,",,..+,, \I LJ - 3 I, ...........y}i.:5!:C}~Jj;L" I . ',', .c".,. 0","". ".', "1'.'r:';~"~""""':f'''O : .. ',~:-i:,"::"::.;:':f \;}t, ,:~1,'J::;;';~;~JJ~~f:)J11:~~:~ -") r July 30, 1998 Shady Lane Warehouse Page 5 Mr. Curtis M. Barnett D. Bridge Replacement 1, Proposed bridge structure should be reviewed for adequacy by Township prior to Land Development Plans approval. Probable construction cost appears to be adequate based upon limited information provided, however, final estimate should be based upon final design for bonding purposes. 2, Township should be concerned with the proposed non-composite prestressed concrete adjacent box beam bridge with bituminous wearing surface design. Bridges of this type tend to develop longitudinal cracks in the bituminous surface due to loading of this type (trucks). Longitudinal cracking creates maintenance problems in maintaining wearing surface and allows water to penetrate box beams. Recommend replacement of proposed bituminous wearing surface with concrete deck in accordance with PennDOT Standards. 3. A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit required for proposed bridge improvements, due to the change in cross-section of bridge replacement (see report prepared by HRG dated June 4, 1998). 4, Hydraulic & Hydrologic (H&H) Study must be provided for boll! options indicated on "Possible Improvements Plan" daled 6/3/98 as prepared by R. J. FiSlied & Associates' Inc. to determine effect on Floodplain (903.a.2). Methodology for preparing study must be comparable to FEMA's to determine actual impact to water surface, No report has been provided to us for review and comment. E. General 1. Have appropriate permits. been obtained for proposed bridge replacement structure and Land Development Plan (e.g. NPDES, encroachment, etc,)? 2. Trees should not be placed in berm of delention basin, The trees may effect the integrity of the berm. " 3. With the improvements proposed on Shady Lane cross-sections should be provided at a minimum of a 50 foot interval, to insure adequate cross slope is available and corresponding drainage along Shady Lane. 4. Paving section shown does not appear adequate for use, Existing pavement should be cored and a pavement design prepared to determine the adequacy of existing pavement to accommodate proposed loading, The developer indicated that a core was taken at the entrance to the tract, however a more extensive program must be provided to determine adequacy of sections of Shady Lane subject to the proposed loading, Copies of certified boring should be submitted for determination (703,a.l). q H- 5 if >- ~ ~ IN wQ N :::>:::;; (.)"'- :r: 82: ( o::Q .,,-; '-L.-1.. C- o::] 'T'p IN 565 OJ. 2 UJQ- 0:2 Ef~ , UJw 5. mc.. r-:-" .... ~ u_ 0'\ B 0 0'1