Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-5220AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL Appellee : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL AND NOW this 18th day of October 2004 comes the Appellant, Aubrey Sledzinski and files this Land Use Appeal from a decision of the Borough Council of the Borough of Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, granting a land development approval on the grounds set forth below: 1. The Appellant, Aubrey Sledzinski is an adult individual and the owner of 400 North 17th Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Sledzinski"). 2. The Appellee is the Borough Cmmcil of the Borough of Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania with offices at 2145 Walnut Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania (the "Borough"). 3. The premises in question in this appeal is a 6.75 acre tract located on the eastern side of North 17th Street, Cmnp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the "Premises"). 4. The Premises is located in an R-2B residential district under the provisions of the Borough of Camp Hill Zoning Ordinance. 5. The Premises is owned by Rhodes Development Group, Inc., with an address of P.O. Box 622, Lemoyne, Pem~sylvania (the "Owner"). 6. The Owner made application with the Borough for approval of a land development plan to develop the Premises with a thirty (30) unit multi-family development known as the 17th Street Project (the "Plan"). 7. On September 17, 2004, the Borough issued a written decision approving the Plan with five (5) requested waivers and subject to four (4) conditions (the "Decision"). A copy of the Decision is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 8. The Plan provides that the Premises abuts and uses North 17 Street for access. 9. Section 200-45.B(1)a provides that multi-family developments must directly abut and access a major collector street as set forth in the Borough of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan. 10. In the Borough of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan, North 17th Street is not set forth as a major collector street. 11. The action of the Borough in approving the Plan was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion and contrary to law in that the Plan does not comply with Section 200-45.B(1)(a) of the Borough of Camp Hill Zoning Ordinance because the Premises does not abut nor does it access a major collector street as set forth in the Borough of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan. WHEREFORE, Appellant requests that this Court reverse the action of the Borough Council of the Borough of Can~p Hill and direct that the Plan, which is the subject of this appeal be denied. ' Ste~' S-~e'-~Attomey lgI2M~44859TM 23 Waverly Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 (717) 903-1268 Attorney for Appellant EXH. IBIT'2 A" CAMP HILL BOROUGH PLAN CONDITION FORM Plan Name/Title: Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for 17th Street Project Plan Type: Preliminary/Final Land Development Date of Action Taken: Wednesday, September 8, 2004 Action Taken: Approved, subject to condition Waiver(s) Approved: § 404, pertaining to submission of separate Preliminary Plan. { 607, pertaining to curbing along North 17th Street and private access drives witkin the proiect ~ 502.11.c.(D, pertaining to multi-family access driveway width § 608, pertaining to sidewalks. The waiver of sidewalk requirement is ~,ranted for the fi:ontage alon~ North 17th Street north of the northern line of the northern private access drive. ~ 507.2, pertaining to storm water runoffrate. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: satisfaction of all Engineer comments as listed in the attached September 1, 2004 review letter; approval of the Sewer Facility Planning Module by the Permsvlvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP): installation of sidewalks for the fronta~,e along North 17°~ Street from the proposed southern private access drive into the development to the proposed northern private access drive: and furnishing of appropriate financial security for all proposed improvements in accordance with Camp Hill Subdivision and Land DeveloCment Ordinance (SALDO]. Attached Comments of Engineer: Letter dated September 1,2004, reviewing Plan Submission No. 4. Post Approval Items: Reduced l~lans are required for recording; electronic copy required for Borough's files Date odes Compliance Officer The undersigned, being duly authorized, hereby accepts the condition(s) that the Borough Council has placed on the action of the above-referenced Plan. Date/ - (~her or Authorized Representative CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, STEVEN A. STINE, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Land Use Appeal upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing same in the U. S. Mail, postage pre-paid this 18th day of October, 2004. SERVED UPON: Borough Council Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Rhodes Development Group, Inc. P.O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043 AUBREY SLR~ZINSKI VS. BO~OUG~ COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 CIVIL TE5~4 WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ) SS. TO: BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGHOF CAMP HILL We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between AUBR~Y SLRBZINSKI VS. BON2~3GHCf~CTL OW T~R~ll~ OF C~Mp WILL pending before you, do co~]and 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 Cc~monwealth. WITNESS, the Honorable GEORGE E. HOFFER, P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 18TH day of OCTOBER 2004 AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant VS. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 Civil Term RECORD TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: The following constitutes the Record in the above-captioned action: 1. Thomas Scully letter dated 1/27/04 re: Act 14 Notification for a General NPDES permit. 2. Letter dated 2/3/04 from Thomas Scully to E. ICaittel re: Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan. 3. Application for Subdivision or Land Development Approval. 4. Cumberland County Application for Plan Review'. 5. Copies of Plan Set. 6. Stormwater Narrative dated 2/3/04. 7. Sewage Planning Mailer. 8. T. Scully letter dated 2/3/04 submitting waiver report. 9. Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan dated 2/3/04, with map. 10. Cumberland County Subdivision/Land Development Review Report dated 2/6/04. 11. Letter from B. Shaffer re: Cumberland County Conservation District review notice dated 2/13/04. 12. Borough Engineer Review Report dated 2/17/04. 13. Letter dated 2/27/04 from E. Finkelstein to J. Rhodes re: Lemoyne Investment Properties. 14. Letter dated 3/8/04 from B. Jaymes to J. Rhodes re: comments by Cumberland County Conservation District re: erosion and sedimentation control plan. 15. Borough Engineer Review letter dated 3/15/04 re: receipt of second submission of Plan. 16. Letter dated 4/7/04 from T. Scully to E. Knittel. 17. Letter dated 4/26/04 from T. Scully to E. Knittel. 18. Application for PA DEP dated 4/28/04 sewage facilities planning module. 19. Letter dated 5/17/04 from B. Jaymes, Cumberland County Conservation District to J. Rhodes re: permit for stormwater discharge. 20. Letter dated 7/2/04 from RJ Fisher Engineering to J. Clark, Hartman Associates re: Stormwater review of Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan. 21. Borough Engineer comments letter re: stormwater discharge dated 7/16/04 enclosing 2/6/04 letter re: Lemoyne review comments. 22. Letter dated 8/27/04 from T. Scully to E. Knittel enclosing revised Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan. 23. (Revised) Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for 17th Street Project. 24. Letter from R. Felker, Pennsylvania American Water to T. Scully dated 8/31/04 re: request for public water service. 25. PA DEP Sewage Facilities Planning Module Corrtponent 4A - Municipal Planning Agency Review 26. J. Bennett letter to J. Rhodes dated 9/17/04 re: Plan Approval and Plan Condition Form. 27. J. Rhodes letter to J. Bennett dated 9/21/04. 28. Camp Hill Planning Commission Minutes of2/17/04. 29. Camp Hill Planning Commission Minutes of 3/16/04. 30. Camp Hill Planning Commission Minutes of 7/20/04. 31. Camp Hill Borough Council Minutes of 9/8/04. CERTIFIED TO BE THE RECORD IN THE ABOVE-iREFERENCED MATTER. Do,rna L~tac:k, Se~6ta~-y' - Camp Hill Borough Council AUBREY SLEDZINSKI VS. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-52120 CIVIL TERM WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) : COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) SS. TO: BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between AUBREY SLEDZINSKI VS. BOROUGH COUNCIL OW pending before you, do cc~nand 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 Con. non 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 18TH day of OCTOBER , 2004 . TRUE' COPY FROM RECORD in Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand' ENGINEERING, PLANNING, SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bridge Street · New Cumberland, PA 17070 717-774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org January27,2004 Camp Hill Borough 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Act 14 Notification for a General NPDES Permit Rhodes Development 17~ Street Project - Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County Certified Ma#receipt no. 7003 2260 0000 1265 2f67 Dear Borough Officials: This letter is to inform you that our client, Rhodes Development Group, will be filing an application with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, through the Cumberland County Conservation District, for a General NPDES Permit to permit discharge of stormwater from construction activities, for the above referenced development, which is located along the east side of 17~ Street, in Camp Hill Borough. Proposed development is townhouses on 6.7 acres. A location map is attached for your information. This notification is being provided in accordance with Act 14, P.L. 834. D.E.P. invites you to send comments to D.E.P. related to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances per Acts 67 and 68. These Acts amended the Municipalities Planning Code to support sound land use practices and 'Growing Smarter" policy. Acts 67 and 68 direct State agencies to consider comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances when reviewing applications for permitting of facilities or infrastructure. Please identify any land use concerns or issues associated with the proposed project, if there are any. Along with your comments, you are encouraged to send as much information as necessary to support your comments. This can include a copy Of your comprehensive plan that relates to the project, or a copy of any applicable zoning ordinance provision. You may also want to identify locally designated growth areas, Keystone Opportunity Zones, and efforts to preserve open space and prime farmland. ACt 14 requires that applicants provide a copy of this notification of the permit to each municipality and county in which the permitted activity is located. Please consider this letter to serve as "Notice of Intent' that a 'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" Permit for coverage under a general permit for discharge of stormwater from construction activities is being submitted for approval to the appropriate agencies. No action is required on your part. ii,~l~omas C. Scully ~ qSYLVANIA ]ERNAL AFFAIRS 10LOGIC SURVIEY WE~ T) I ~36 SITE MARYSVILLE 8 MI. i'~'"'WO,~ML~y,~E~URG I. I MI. 338 :.HA~,,~/SBU,eG LEMOYNE PENN 8 Y'LVA_NTt~. 7,5 MINUTE SERIES NW/,I* NEW CUMBERLAND I5' QUADR~{.C~ 000 FE~ 340 ENGINEERING, PLANNING, SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE R..L Fisher & Associates, Inc. 546 Bridge Street · New Cumberland, PA 17070 717-774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org HA1VD DELIVERED February 3, 2004 Mr. Edward .1. Knittel, Manager Camp Hill Borough 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Preliminary / Final Land Development Plan/,'ar 1~ Street Project Dear Mr. Knittel, Enclosed are the following items, which comprise an official submission to Camp Hill Borough for review and processing of the above referenced plan: --10 copies of the plan set, consisting of 8 sheets each, dated 2/3/04; --1 copy of the Borough application form; --1 copy of a letter from me explaining the waivers requested; --2 copies of a Stormwater Narrative, dated 2/3/04; --2 copies of a sewage planning mailer (an exemption is requested); and -10 copies of building elevaUons and plans, consisting ,of 3 pages each. Please call or e-mail me, or Bob Fisher at my office, if you need additional information or copies; we could deliver them promptly. A fee for recording will be provided closer to the time that may occur. My e-mail address is scullv@dfisher.org We will send today this plan directly to the Cumberland County Planning Commission for review, along with their application and review fee. A copy of their application form is enclosed for your information. Please transmit the plan to the Engineer who reviews the sanitary sewer design. If a sewer exemption cannot be processed, would you pl{~se inform us of that fact, and what problems exist, and we can prepare a full sewage module. We will submit the plan directly to the County Conservation District for review of the erosion control design, and eventual issuance of an NPDES permit. We will attend the February 13 meeting you have scheduled, to begin review and discussion of this site's design. The enclosed items should provide Borough staff and the Planning Commission detailed information for consideration. You may call Ken Varner, Mike Lau, or John Rhodes at Rhodes Development Group with any questions regarding the building designs. Their number is 730-7055. FJsi)er & A.~ociate~. Zn~ ~ Thomas C. Scully enclosures copy: Rhodes Development Group Cumberland County Planning Commission APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL Camp Hill, Pennsylvania File No. 'T'ime Limit Date Date of Application Filing $ Recording $ Total $ County $ Project Name Project Location Tax Parcel No(s) o~ Iq 'EL 5f/'~¥ ,~' /)iei~l~ Check One .~ . Preliminary/FTnai Subdivision . Fi~l ..~: .. Land Development ' Proposed use , . Zoning District(s) No. Of Lots ! Average Lot Size ~, '75 /~. ~E~ ( if Subdivision) Public Water ~ Yes Ne Public Sewer ~,~'._ Yes No Owner's Name/,/e~ /°~4 i~r ~'~,~r~, J/lC, Phone No. (~3~ 3~- Z3c~5 Address c[~ ~oqcJ ~eH .Er~pCe'5~,, ../~c,. ' Appii~n~ Name ~bE~ pEVEao~E~T C~VPPhone No. , 7Po - 7a55, Engineers / Architect Firm Coma~ Pemon ~Ob~-~T.~, Provide a General description of the proposed project: C...o,,4bo ,,'al.,~/ v~ $, ?v6Li C u,/,~'i'~l~ APb 5bCOEl~ b~ILL ~E' /Z~OVi &Ei~' C :\C o ret\Office7~WPWin 7~ubapp~ .wpd TitJe BOROUGH OF cAMp 'HILL 2Z,45 WALNUT STREET CAMP HILL, PA AMOUNT OF ACCOUNT THIS PAYMENT BALANCE DUE 0849 DOLLARS Cumberland County Planning Commission Application for Plan Review Municipality Surveyor Plan Classification: Owner/Developer Address Total Tract Area: [] Subdivision 1~ Land Development [] Combined ,'75 Existing # of Lots: Existing Sewerage [] Public System: F'rel~inau Final I:'/F M~or Phone Number Subdivided Area: Developed Area: Proposed # of Lots: / [] On-Lot e[~:None (Subdivision) ~, 7~ (Land'Development) Proposed # of New Dwelling Units: .~ 0 Pre. posed Sewerage ~Public [] On-Lot [] None System: Existing Water [] Public System: [] Well ]iil None Proposed Water .1l[ Public [] Well [] None System: Zoning District: Existh~g Land Use: V/q.C.~NT' Are any ~/subdivision waivers requested?' List variances/waivers requested: ~iYES 5'0 . / Proposed L~d Use: [] NO Date plan to be reviewed by Municipal Planning Commission.: Purpose of the Plan: £~ ~v~Lop~-~7~ Fees Submitted: $ ?00 ,,5-;"' Cheek Number: [~07 Signed by: ~ Date: '2-/'3/0? ***The Cumberland County Planning Commission meeting i.v held on the third Thursday of each month. The cut off date for plan submission is nine (9) days prior to the meeting. Please submit this application and one copy of the plan to: Cumberland County Planning Commission 1 Courthouse Sq Carlisle, PA 170i3 (717) 240-6377 OVERSIZED DOCUMENT STORMWATER NARRATIVE ~r LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 17T~ STRRW. T PROJECT located in Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, PA February 3, 2004 Prepared by-- Robert J. Fisher, P.E., P.L.S. R.J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & DRAINAGE CONCEPT Proposed development involves construction of 30 townhomes, and associated private driveways and parking. A grass-lined detention basin is proposed to receive the runoff from all proposed impervious surfaces. The basin outflow will discharge to an existing pipe system on the downhill property. A previous legal document provides an easement for utilities and drainage for the benefit of this site. Runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces will reach the detention basin via overland flow or storm pipes. No on-site c. urbing is proposed in order to retain a more casual and aesthetic setting, and because it is not necessary for safety. Runoff from the site impervious surfaces, and from 17th Street can flow through grass areas for cleansing and infiltration, per Best Management Practices thall are currently encouraged by D.E.P. Should a large storm event occur that exceeds the pipe system capacity, overflow runoff will travel ovedand across Iow points between buildings, and stilll enter the proposed basin. At the main entrance into the site, where there is an existing culvert under 17th Street, where off-site flow is collected into the proposed storm pipe system to the basin.. Three inlets are present there at this Iow point in 17~ Street, so should one clog, there are other ways for runoff to enter the system. One of the inlets has a type 'C' top for added protection against clogging. The proposed detention facility is designed to discharge the peak post-development 10-year storm well below the peak pre-development 10-year storm for the on-site watershed analyzed. A 6" circular orifice will regulate flow out of the basin. Proposed stormwater facilities shall be owned and maintained by the owner of the lot on which they are located. In this case, a condominium association will eventually control the property once it is turned over from the developer. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2004. A separate narrative for description and design calculations for the erosion control measures will be submitted separately to the County Conservation Distdct for approval, including an NPDES permit for discharge of stormwater from construction activities. METHODS & ASSUMPTIONS The Rational Method through the Virginia Tech/Penn State Urban Hydrology Model (VTPSUHM) were used to generate the runoff calculations in this report. The runoff coefficients used for the Rational Equation were dedved from the Table 1, a copy of which follows. All odginal soil in this area is hydrologic soil group C. Travel time calculations are based upon the S.C.S Segmental approach, TR-55. Sheet flow is limited to the maximum length of 150 feet. Concentrated flow is assumed where no well defined channel is evident. Minimum value time of concentration of 5.0 minutes is used where the Tc is less than 5.0 minutes. Rational Method runoff hydrographs are based upon rainfall intensities derived from PDT-IDF, region 4. MSRM within VTPSUHM is used for detention basin routing. Pre-development peak flow is calculated for the 10-year storm, per the Borough's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Section 507. See Map #2 herein for the pre-development watershed analyzed. Post-development peak flow is calculated for the 10-year storm. The post- development watershed is identical to the pre-development. Map #1 herein shows the site location, as well as off-site drainage areas on a portion of a U.S.G.S. quadrangle map. Calculations, drainage area maps and computer printouts follow. 1t8 Acre ~/4 Ac~-e 0-2% 0.08' o.14 0.12 0,15 0.10 0,14 0,05 0.08 0.~ Table 1 - Runoff Coefficients for the Rational Method H_vd(oloq_ [_~_ Soil Grouo and ~;Iooe,.Ranqe ^ B C 2-6% 6+% 0-2% 2-6% 6+% 0-2% 2-6%. 6+% o.13 -0116 o.11 o.ls o. 1 o. 4 o.19-'o o. 8 o.m o. s 0.2.0 0.30 O. 18 0 .28 0,/5 0.37 0.23 0.34 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.2.0 0,28 0,08 0,~I 0.08 0,11 0.11 0.t4 0.10 0.14 0,28 0.31 0.27 0,30 0,,37 0.40 0.35 0.39 0.26 0.2.9 0.24 0.34 0.37 0.33 0,37 D 0-2% 26.% 6+ % 0.18 0.23 0.31 O-P4 0.,'~ 0.41 0.37 0.2.4 0.34 0~44 0.30 0.40 0.$0 0,45 0.30 0.42 ,0.52 0.37 0-50 0.82 0.30 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.40 0.37 0.26 0.35 0.44 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.16 0,12 0,16 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.16 0,20 0.15 0.20 0,25 0.35 0.30 0.33 0.C,8 0.33 0,36 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.42 0.49 0.41 0,4,5 0.54 0.33 .0.27 0.31 0,36 0,30 0.34 0.40 0.42 0.36 0.40 0~47 0.38 0.42 0.52 1/3 Acm 1 Ac~e 0.19 0,33 0.26 0.22 0,26 0.30 0.25 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.32 0.39 0.28 0.32 0.35 0,30 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.38 0.45 0,36 0.40 0.50 0.16 0,20 0.24 ' 0,19 0-2.3 0.28 0,22 (I.27 0,32 0,2~ 0.30 '0.37 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.28 0,32 0.36 0,31 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.38 0,48 0.14 0o19 0,22 0.17 0.21 0-2.6 0,20 (I.~ 0.31 0.24 0,29 0.35 0.22. 0,2.6 O.2:g 0.24 0.28 0~34 0.28 0,32. 0.40 0.31 0,35 0.46 Indt=alaJ 0.67 0,68 0.68 0,(~ 0,68 0.69 0.68 0,69 0,6~ 0.69 0,69 0,70 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.85 0,8~ O.l~. 0.86 0,66 0,87 0,88 0.86 0.88 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0,72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0,89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.89 Streets Open Space Parking 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.72 0.74 0.72 0.73 0.76 0.73 0.75 0,78 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.80 0-82 0.84 0.84 0,85 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.95 0-05 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.16 0,21 0.,~8 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.14 0,19 0.2.8 0.18 0.2,3 0.32 0,22 0.27 0.39 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.87 0,85 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.87 O.G5 0.96 0.97 0.95 '0.9~ 0.97 0,95 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.97 ~ource: Runoff coefficients for ~orm recurrence lntetvaJs less than 25 years , Runoff coefficients for storm recurrence Intervals of 25, years or more Rawls, W.d., S.L. Long, and FLH. McCuen, i981. Comparison of Urban Flood Frequency Procedures. Prelknlnar~ Omf~ Report prepared for the Soil Conservation Servic~, Beltsw'ale, Maryland. ~YLVANIA ERNAL AFFAIRS '^LOGIC SURVEY EST) MA/~YSVILI~ 8 MI. YSBURG I. I MI. 338 !HARRISBURG (STA'r LEMOYNE QUADP._A~GI~ PENNSYLVANIA 7.5 MINUTE SERIES CI'OPOG~ NW/4 NEW CUMBERLAND I5' QUADRAI~OLE 240 000 FEET 340 Oisposal MAP #l U.S.G.S. LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000 feet _3 SUMMARY OF PEAK FLOWS - Pre-development: Post-development: detention basin discharge: PEAK RUNOFF {'cfs) !O-year 7.76 PRE-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED-- Most of the site, as well as a small off-site area drain to one Iow point within this site, located in the southeast comer of the property. There is currently no outlet at this location. Theoretically, runoff would pool there until it overtops a concrete retaining wall against an office parking area on the downhill property. It appears that runoff currently infiltral[es the ground at this location. From older mapping, it appears that the original landform drainageway that crossed through the middle of this site was filled within the last few decades, creating the current Iow point. Also, it appears that the downhill adjacent office buildings also filled the original drainageway, and did not provide a specific route for uphill runoff. The concrete wall mentioned above created the Iow point trap on this site, discussed above. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land use acres on*site ferest, average 2-6% slope 5.93 on-site ferest, 6+% slope 0.53 street right-of-way, 2-6% slope 0.79 off-site 1/8 acre lots, average 2-6% slope 0.45 off-site % acre lots, avera~le 2-6%. slope . 1.77 TOTAL: 9.47 C CA .13 0.771 .16 O.O85 .73 0.577 .33 0.149 .31 0.549 Cw=.23 2.131 Time of concentration is 16.33 minutes; see the printout which follows. See Map #2 herein for watershed area and time of concentration route. Following also is a runoff hydrograph. SCS Segment.~l,, Trave! Time Summary for PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION Segment 1: Overland Flow L = 150 ft, S = .05 ft/ft, n = .15, P(2yr/24hr) = 2.9 in Travel Time = 9.9 minutes Segment 2: Concentrated Flow L = 120 ft, S = .03 ft/ft, Unpaved surface Travel Time = .7 minutes Segment 3: Concentrated Flow L = 556 ft, S = .01 ft/ft, Unpaved surface Travel Time = 5.7 minutes Total Travel Time = 16.33 Minutes Rational Formula Hydrograph' PDT-IDF Storm Intensity Chart 10 Year Storm in PA. Region 4 at PRE-DEV. WATERSHED Time of Concentration: 16.33 min. Drainage Area: 9.470 acres. Weighted 'C* Factor: 0.230 Rainfall Rainfall Time Incr. Total Intensity (min) (inches) (inches) (in/hr) Flow (cfs) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 O. 12 0.12 0.45 0.98 33 0.23 0.35 0.84 1.82 49 0.97 1.32 3.56 7.76 65 0.38 1.70 1.41 3.07 82 O. 15 1.86 O. 57 1.23 98 O. 14 2.00 0.52 1.13 114 0.11 2.11 0.40 0.87 131 0.10 2.21 0.36 0.78 147 0.09 2.29 0.33 0.71 163 0.08 2.38 0.30 0.65 WATERSHED BOUNDARY., .. / ml~ war~ TIME OF CONCENTRATION ROUTE MAP #2 PRE-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED 1" = 100 feet PROPOSED POST-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDs,,-, The same area as the pre-development watershed will flow to the proposed detention basin. The basin is located in the same area as an existing depressed area, where runoff currently collects. The basin discharge will be regulated by a 6' sharp-edged circular orifice cast into a modified PennDOT type 'M' inlet. A trash rack is provided over the orifice. The grate of the inlet acts as the emergency spillway. The orifice severely restricts the outflow. Should both the orifice and the inlet grate become clogged for some reason, then overflow would go over the concrete retaining wall and into the office building parking lot on the downhill property; this is where any overflow currently discharges. Cleaning of the orifice and pipe system can be done from the manhole and inlet system proposed. DETAINED AREA IN THE PROPOSED BASIN- 10-year storm: land ~{~ on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope on-site pervious (grass), average 2-6% slope on-site pervious (grass), average 6+% slope street right-of-way, average 2-6% slope off-site 1/8 acre lots, average 2-6% slope off-site % acre lots, avera~e 2-6% slope TOTAL acres C CA 2.02 .86 1.737 2.19 .17 0.372 2.19 .24 0.526 0.85 .73 0.621 0.45 .33 0.149 1.77 .31 0.549 9.47 Cw=.42 3.954 Time of concentration is 13.18 minutes, compiled as follows: -10.6 minutes to inlet #A5 (see the pdntout on page 19) -0.65 minutes travel time in the pipe system from A5 to A3 (260 ~l=eet (~6.7 feet/second) -1.93 minutes travel time through the basin to its outlet structure (see page 9) --13.18 Total minutes See Map #3 herein for the watershed boundary and time of concentration route.. Following are printouts, in this order: --hydrograph into the basin, which is routed through the basin; --detention basin design information; and --routing of the 10-year storm through the basin. WATERSHED BOUNDARY TIME OF CONCENTRATION ROUTE MAP #3 PO~I'-DEVELOPI~ENT WATERSHED 1" = 100 feet Summary for TIME IN BASIN SCS SeRme~tal Tr, aveI Time Segment 1: Concentrated Flow L = 229 ft, S = .015 ft/ft, Unpaved surface Travel Time = 1.9 minutes Total Travel Time = 1.93 Minutes Rationa! Formula Hydrograp!~. PDT-IDF Storm Intensity Chart 10 Year Storm in PA. Region 4 at POST-DEV. TO BASIN Time of Concentration: 13.18 min. Drainage Area: 9.470 acres. Weighted 'C' Factor: 0.420 Rainfall Rainfall Time Incr. Total Intensity Flow (min) (inches) (inches) (in/hr) (cfs) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 O. 12 O. 12 0.53 2.09 26 0.23 0.3 5 1.04 4.16 40 0.86 1.21 3.92 15.57 53 0.37 1.58 1.70 6.74 66 O. 16 1.74 0.73 2.89 79 0.12 1.86 0.54 2.16 92 0.10 1.96 0.47 1.85 105 0.09 2.05 0,42 1.67 119 0.08 2.13 0,38 1.52 132 0.08 2.21 0.35 1.40 At time = 330 minutes, the flow is 0.6tt CFS. to DETENTION BASIN DESIGN INFORMATION Outlet Structure Configuration_ Outlet Structure Configuration for PROPOSED BASIN Stage 1: Circular Orifice Invert Elevation = 460 feet Diameter =.5 feet Discharge Coefficient = .6 Stage 2: Grate Inlet Crest Elevation = 464 feet Effective Perimeter = 11.54 feet Effective Flow Area = 5.4 square feet Stage 3: Ouffali Culvert Invert Elevation = 459.8 feet Pipe Diameter = 1.5 feet Pipe Length = 200 feet Pipe Slope = .01 ff/i~ Mamfiag n = .013 Entran~ Condition = SEH Number of Barrels = 1 Basin Storage/Elevation Input Elevation Storage (ft) (acre-fO 460 0 461 .008 462 .065 464 .457 466 1.11 Basin Rating Curve Outlet Rating Table for PROPOSED BASIN Basin Basin Water Outflow Elevation (cf s) Riser Box Water Elevation 459.80 459.80 459.80 460.08 460.15 460.20 460.24 460.27 460.27 460.32 460.32 460.37 460.37 46O.40 460.40 460.43 460.43 460.46 460.46 460.48 460.48 460.50 461.00 461.60 459.80 0.00 460.00 0.00 460.20 0.08 460.40 0.31 460.6O 0.44 460.80 0.59 461.00 0.72 461.20 0.83 461.40 0.93 461.60 1.01 461.80 1.10 462.00 1.17 462.20 1.25 462.40 1.31 462.60 1.38 462.80 1.44 463.00 1.50 463.20 1.56 463.40 1.61 463.60 1.67 463.80 1.72 464.00 1.77 464.20 4.90 464.40 10.64 Tailwater Elevation (ft) N'/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Outfali Culvert Control N/A N/A ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT ORIFICE CONT 10-YEAR STORM ROUTED THROUGH THE PROPOSED BASIN Modified puls Routing; Inflow Hydrograph: C:\VTPSUHM~CAMPHIN.HYD Storage/Elevation Curve: C:\VTPSUHM~CAMPHILL.ES Discharge/Elevation Curve: C:\VTPSUHM~CAMPHILL.EO Basin Bypass Capacity = 0.0 cfs Starting Pool Elevation = 460.00 feet Time Interval = 5.491667E-02 hours Event Hydrograph Basin Storage Time Inflow Inflow Used (hours) (cf s) (cfs) (acre-fO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.05 0.52 0.52 0.001 0.11 1.05 1.05 0.004 0.16 1.57 1.57 0.007 0.22 2.09 2.09 0.012 0.27 2.61 2.61 0.019 0.33 3.12 3.12 0.029 0.38 3.64 3.64 0.040 0.44 4.16 4.16 0.053 0.49 7.01 7.01 0.073 0.55 9.86 9.86 0.105 0.60 12.72 12.72 0.151 0.66 15.57 15.57 0.209 0.71 13.37 13.37 0.268 0.77 11.16 11.16 0.317 0.82 8.95 8.95 0.355 0.88 6.74 6.74 0.383 0.93 5.78 5.78 0.404 0.99 4.81 4.81 0.420 1.04 3.85 3.85 0.432 1.10 2.89 2.89 0.439 1.15 2.70 2.70 0.444 1.21 2.52 2.52 0.448 1.26 2.34 2.34 0.451 1.32 2.16 2.16 0.453 1.37 2.08 2.08 0.455 1.43 2.01 2.01 0.456 1.48 1.93 1.93 0.457 1.54 1.85 1.85 0.457 1.59 1.81 1.81 0.458 1.65 1.76 1.76 0.457 1.70 1.71 1.71 0.457 1.76 1.67 1.67 0.457 1.81 1.63 1.63 0.456 1.87 1.59 1.59 0.456 1.92 1.56 1.56 0.455 Elevation Basin Above MSL Outflow (feet) (cfs) Outflow Total (cfs) 460.00 0.00 460.13 0.06 460.46 0.35 460.92 0.67 461.08 0.76 461.20 0.83 461.36 0.91 461.55 0.99 461.78 1.09 462.04 1.19 462.21 1.25 462.44 1.32 462.73 1.42 463.04 1.51 463.28 1.58 463.48 1.63 463.62 1.67 463.73 1.70 463.81 1.72 463.87 1.74 463.91 1.75 463.93 1.75 463.95 1.76 463.97 1.76 463.98 1.76 463.99 1.77 463.99 1.77 464.00 1.77 464.00 1.79 464.00 1.80 464.00 1.79 464.00 1.78 464.00 1.77 464.00 1.77 463.99 1.77 463.99 1.77 0.00 0.06 0.35 0.67 0.76 0.83 0.91 0.99 1.09 1.19 1.25 1.32 1.42 1.51 1.58 1.63 1 67 1 70 1 72 1 74 1 75 1 75 1 76 1.76 1.76 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.79 1.80 1.79 1.78 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 Event Hydrograph Basin Time Inflow Inflow (hours) (cfs) (cf s) Storage Elevation Basin Outflow Used Above MSL Outflow Total (acre-fO (feet) (cfs) (cfs) 1.98 1.52 1.52 0.454 2.03 1.49 1.49 0.453 2.09 1.46 1.46 0.451 2.14 1.43 1.43 0.450 2.20 1.40 1.40 0.448 2.25 1.38 1.38 0.447 2.31 1.35 1.35 0.445 2.36 1.32 1.32 0.443 2.42 1.29 1.29 0.441 2.47 1.27 1.27 0.439 2.53 1.25 1.25 0.437 2.58 1.23 1.23 0.434 2.64 1.21 1.21 0.432 2.69 1.19 1.19 0.430 2.75 1.18 1.18 0.427 2.80 1.16 1.16 0.425 2.86 1.14 1.14 0.422 2.91 1.12 1.12 0.419 2.97 1.11 1.11 0.417 3.02 1.09 1.09 0.414 3.08 1.07 1.07 0.411 3.13 1.06 1.06 0.408 3.19 1.04 1.04 0.405 3.24 1.03 1.03 0.402 3.30 1.02 1.02 0.399 3.35 1.00 1.00 0.396 3.40 0.99 0.99 0.393 3.46 0.98 0.98 0.390 3.51 0.96 0.96 0.386 3.57 0.95 0.95 0.383 3.62 0.94 0.94 0.380 3.68 0.93 0.93 0.377 3.73 0.92 0.92 0.373 3.79 0.91 0.91 0.370 3.84 0.90 0.90 0.366 3.90 0.89 0.89 0.363 3.95 0.88 0.88 0.360 4.01 0.87 0.87 0.356 4.06 0.86 0.86 0.353 4.12 0.86 0.86 0.349 4.17 0.85 0.85 0.346 4.23 0.84 0.84 0.342 4.28 0.83 0.83 0.339 4.34 0.82 0.82 0.335 4.39 0.81 0.81 0.331 4.45 0.80 0.80 0.328 4.50 0.79 0.79 0.324 463.98 463.98 463.97 463.96 463.96 463.95 463.94 463.93 463.92 463.91 463.90 463.88 463.87 463.86 463.85 463.83 463.82 463.81 463.79 463.78 463.76 463.75 463.73 463.72 463.70 463.69 463.67 463.66 463.64 463.62 463.61 463.59 463.57 463.56 463.54 463.52 463.50 463 49 463,47 463,45 463 43 463 41 463 40 463 38 463 36 463,34 463 32 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.59 1.59 Event Hydrograph Basin Storage Time Inflow Inflow Used (hours) (cfs) (cf s) (acre-fO Elevation Basin Above MSL Outflow (feet) (cfs) Outflow Total (cfs) 4.56 0.79 0.79 0.321 4.61 0.78 0.78 0.317 4.67 0.77 0.77 0.313 4.72 0.76 0.76 0.310 4.78 0.76 0.76 0.306 4.83 0.75 0.75 0.302 4.89 0.74 0.74 0.299 4.94 0.74 0.74 0.295 5.00 0.73 0.73 0.291 5.05 0.73 0.73 0.288 5.11 0.72 0.72 0.284 5.16 0.71 0.71 0.280 5.22 0.71 0.71 0.277 5.27 0.70 0.70 0.273 5.33 0.70 0.70 0.269 5.38 0.69 0.69 0.265 5.44 0.69 0.69 0.262 5.49 0.68 0.68 0.258 463.30 1.59 1.59 463.29 1.58 1.58 463.27 1.58 1.58 463.25 1.57 1.57 463.23 1.57 1.57 463.21 1.56 1.56 463.19 1.55 1.55 463.17 1.55 1.55 463.15 1.54 1.54 463.14 1.54 1.54 463.12 1.53 1.53 463.10 1.53 1.53 463.08 1.52 1.52 463.06 1.52 1.52 463.04 1.51 1.51 463.02 1.51 1.51 463.00 1.50 1.50 462.98 1.50 1.50 Total Routing Mass Balance Discrepancy is 0.19% DRAIN INLET AND PiPE END CALCULATIONS The Rational Method is used to calculate peak runoff. Runoff co,efficients are from the Table at the beginning of this Narrative. See Map ~t herein for the watershed areas, and the time of concentration routes, where applicable. 'n' value for pipes is taken from manufacturer's information, a copy of which follows at the end of this section. TO PIPE END #C1-- This is a culvert under the egress driveway. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land use acres C CA on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope 0.11 street right-of-way, average 2-6% slope 0.05 on-site oervious ¢orass~. averaQe 2-6% $1ooe 0.29 TOTAL 0.45 .86 0.095 .73 0.037 .17 0.049 C.w=.40 0.181 Time of concentration is minimum value of 5.0 minutes. Q~o= CIA = (.40)(5.41)(0.45) = 0.97 cfs TO iNLET #~4-- This inlet is in a lawn sump cendition, and has a hood opening for added protection against clogging. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land use acres on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope 0.18 street right-of-way, average 2-6% slope 0.22 on-site pervious (~rass), averaae 2-6% slope 0.62 TOTAL 1.02 .C CA .86 0.155 .73 0.161 .17 0.105 Cw=.41 0.421 Time of concentration is 9.46 minutes; see a printout which follows. TO EXISTING INLET #~5-- This is the existing inlet and culvert at the Iow point in 17th Street. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land use acres C CA street right-of-way, average 2-6% slope 0.50 1/8 acre lots, average 2-6% 0.45 % acre lots, average 2-6% slope 1.09 on-site oervious ~rass). averaoe 2-6% slope 0.05 TOTAL 2.09 .73 0.365 .33 0.149 .31 0.338 .17 0.009 Cw=.41 0.861 Time of concentration is 10.6 minutes; see a printout which follows. TO INLET ~,6--- This is in a lawn sump condition. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land ~l~ acres on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope 0.14 street right-of-way, average 2-6% slope 0.06 on-site oervious (orass). averaae 2-6% slope 0.35 TOTAL 0.55 C CA .86 0.120 .73 0.044 .17 0.060 Cw=.41 0.224 Time of concentration is the minimum value of 5.0 minutes. Q~o= CIA = (.41)(5.41)(0.55) = 1.22 cfs TO INLET ~7-- This is in a lawn sump condition. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land u$~ on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope on-site pervious ('t3rass)., avera;le 2-6% slope TOTAL acres c 0.61 .86 0,41 .17 1.02 Cw=.58 CA 0.525 0.070 0.595 Time of concentration is the minimum value of 5.0 minutes. Q~o= CIA = (.58)(5.41)(1.02) = 3.20 cfs TO INLET #83-- This is in a lawn sump condition. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land p~e , acres C CA on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope 0.82 .86 0.705 on-site r)~rvlous (grass). average 2-6% slope 0.5;2 .17 0.088 TOTAL 1.34 Cw=.59 0.793 Time of concentratioa~i~ the minimum value of 5.0 minutes. Q~o= CIA = (.59)(5.41)(1.34) = 4.28 cfs TO INLET f~2- This is in a lawn sump condition. All soil is hydrologic group 'C'. 10-year storm: land use on-site impervious, average 2-6% slope on-site oervieus (arass). averaoe 2-6% slooe TOTAL acres C CA 0.18 ..86 0.155 0.80 ..17 0.136 0.98 Cw=.30 0.291 Time of concentration is the minimum value of 5.0 minutes. Q~o-- CIA = (,30)(5.41)(0.98) = 1.59 cfs ,SCS Sezmental Travel Time Summary for TO INLET #A4 Segment 1: Overland Flow L z 42 ft, S -- .01 ft/ft, n := .15, P(2yr/24hr) ~- 2.9 in Travel Time ~- 6.8 minutes Segment 2: Concentrated Flow L ~ 491 ft, S -- .036 ft/ft, Unpaved surface Travel Time ~- 2.7 minutes Total Travel Time -- 9.46 Minutes Rational Formula Hydrograph PDT-IDF Storm Intensity Chart 10 Year Storm in PA. Region 4 at TO INLET # ~-~- Time of Concentration: 9.46 min. Drainage Area: 1.020 acres. Weighted 'C' Factor: 0.410 Rainfall Rainfall Time Incr. Total Intensity (mia) (inches) (inches) (in/l~r) Flow 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 0.10 0.10 0.63 19 0.23 0.32 1.43 28 0.70 1.03 4.46 38 0.35 1.37 2.,.0 47 0.16 1.54 1.03 57 O. 12 1.66 0.79 66 0.08 1.75 0.:;3 76 0.08 1.83 0.52 85 0.08 1.90 0.49 95 0.07 1.98 0.45 0.00 0.26 0.60 1.86 0.92 0.43 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.19 SCS Segmental Trn. ve.l.Time Summary for TO EXISTING INLET #AS Segment 1: Overland Flow L -~ 150 ft, S ~ .05 ft/ft, n ~ .1S, P(2yr/24hr) -- 2.9 in Travel Time -- 9.9 minutes Segment 2: Concentrated Flow L -- 120 ft, S -- .03 ft/ft, Unpaved surface Travel Time -- .7 minutes Total Travel Time -- 10.S8 Minutes Rational Formula Hydrotraoh. PDT-IDF Storm Intensity Chart 10 Year Storm in PA. Region 4 at TO EXISTING PIPE END # ~ Time of Concentration: 10.6 min. Drainage Area: 2.090 acres. Weighted 'C' Factor: 0.410 Rainfall Rainfall Time Incr. Total Intensity (min) (inches) (inches) (in/hr) Flow 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 O. 10 O. 10 0.55 0.47 21 0.23 0.32 1.29 1.10 32 0.75 1.08 4.27 3.66 42 0.36 1.44 2.02 1.73 53 0.16 1.60 0.92 0.79 64 0.12 1.72 0.70 0.60 74 0.09 1.82 0.53 0.46 85 0.09 1.90 0.49 0.42 95 0.08 1.98 0.45 0.38 106 0.07 2.05 0.41 0.35 END ~:~1 WATERSHED BOUNDARY (TYP.) iNLET INLET#B2 #A7 L DIRECT TO BASIN INLET #AS OF CONCENTRATION ROUTE (TYP.) MAP #4 ]:NLET & P1'PE END WATERSHEDS 1" = 100 feet 2.O PIPE RUN ^6 TO A4 Worksheet for Circular Channel Proiect Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For c:~haestad~fmw~projectl .fro2 10-YEAR STORM PERFORMANCE Circular Channel Manning'a Formula Channel~ Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.054500 fi/ft Diameter 15.00 in Dischar~le 1.22 cfs Results Depth 0.23 ft Flow Area 0.16 fF Wetted Perimeter 1.11 ft Top Width 0.97 It C~cal Depth 0.44 ff Percent Full 18.49 Critical Slope 0.004468 ft/ff Velocity 7.81 ft/s Velocity Head 0.95 ft Specific Energy 1.1 8 ft Froude Number 3.43 Maximum Discharge 17.57 cfs Full Flow Capac'~y 16.34 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.000304 fi/it Flow is supercrifical. 01/3O/04 11:50:59 AM Heeetad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Wated~ury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page t of I PIPE RUN ^4 TO A3 Worksheet for Circular Channell Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For c:\haesta~fmw~projectl .fm2 10-YEAR STORM PERFORMANCE Circular Channel Manning'a Formula Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Diameter 18.00 in Discharge 6.74 cfs Results Depth 0.87 ff Flow Area 1.07 Wetted Perimeter 2.60 It Top Width 1.48 It Critical Depth 1.00 It Percent Full 58.24 Critical Slope 0.006613 It/ft Velocity 6.31 ft/s Velocity Head 0.62 It Specific Energy 1.49 ff Froude Number 1.31 Maximum Discharge 11.30 cfs Full Flow Capacity 10.50 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.004117 Flow is supercritical. 01/'30/04 12:02:14 PM Haeetad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT06'?08 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page I of I PIPE RUN A7 TO A3 Worksheet for Circular Channel ProJect Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For c:~haestad~fmW~rojectl .fm2 10-YEAR STORM PERFORMANCE Circular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Dep~ In,ut Data Mannings Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.056800 fifl Diameter 15.00 in Discharge 3.20 cfs Results Depth 0.37 It Flow Area 0.31 f~ Wetted Perimeter 1.44 It Top Width 1.14 It Critical Depth 0.72 It Percent Full 29.69 Critical Slope 0.005246 fi/It Velocity 10.49 fi/s Velocity Head 1.71 It Specific Energy 2.08 ff Froude Number 3.58 Maximum Discharge 17.94 cfs Full Flow Capacity 16.68 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.002091 ft/ff Flow is supercritical. 01/30/04 12:03:09 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road VVaterbury, CT 0~708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 PIPE RUN B3 TO B2 Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For c:~haestad~fmw~projectl .fm2 10-YEAR STORM PERFORMANCE Circular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.069700 ff/ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge , 4.28 cfa Results Depth 0.41 ft Flow Area 0.35 Wetted Perimeter 1.52 It Top Width 1.17 tt Critical Depth 0.84 ff Percent Full 32.74 Critical Slope 0.005994 ft/ff Velocity 12.25 ft/s Velocity Head 2.33 ff Specific Energy 2.74 ff Fmude Number 3.96 Maximum Discharge 19.87 cfs Full Flow Capacity 18.47 cfa Full Flow Slope 0.003741 ft/ff Flow is supercriticai. 0 t/30/04 12:03:55 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookald® Road VVaterbury, CT 0,$708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 PIPE RUN B1 TO B Worksheet for Circular Channel ProJect Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For c:~haeCacNmw~,project 1 .fro2 10-YEAR STORM PERFORMANCE Circular Channel Manning's Formula Channel,Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.046000 ft/ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge 5,87 cfa Results Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velooity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capac, ity Full Flow Slope Flow is supercriticei. 0.54 ft 0.51 fF 1.80 ff 1.24 ft 0.98 ft 43.43 0.007665 ft/ft 11.48 ft/a 2.05 ft 2.59 ft 3.15 16.14 cfa 15.01 cfa 0.007037 ft/ff 0 t/30/04 2:05:27 PM Hae~tad M®thoda, Inc. 37 Brooksida Road VVaterbury, CT 0~708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 PIPE RUN Cl TO C Worksheet for Circular Channel 'Project Descdp~ion '" Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For c:~haestad~fmw~projectl .fm2 10-YEAR STORM PERFORMANCE Circular Channel Manning's Formula , Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.017400 fi/ft Diameter 15.00 in Dischar~le 0.97 Results Depth 0.27 ff Flow Area 0.20 fF Wetted Pedmetar 1.22 ft Top Width 1.03 ft Critical Depth 0.39 ff Percent Full 21.89 Critical Slope 0.004441 ft/ff Velocity 4.88 ft/s Velocity Head 0.37 It Specific Energy 0.64 ff Froude Number 1.96 Maximum Discharge 9.93 cfs Full Flow Capacity 9.23 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.000192 fiff Fiow is supercritical. 01/30/04 12:06:15 PM Haesflad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookslde Road VV~terbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 .LANE FABRICATES AND STOCKS A FULL RANGE OF CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE IN A VARIETY OF MATE- RIALS, LININGS AND COATINGS TO MEET SPECIFIC DURABILITY AND HYD.RAULIC REQ UI R EM ENTS. CSP is manufactured in a varietyof thicknesses and coatings .in several corruga- tions to'provide the neces* sary strength and flexibility for ea'ch iobsite require- me'nt. Together with .lower installation costs than are. typical for rigid pipe, CS? is the economical choice. Available in 6" · ..through. 144", :.. round, or arched, GSP is unparalleled in its ability to be fabricated to meet demanding site requirements,, espe* cially in larger diame- ters. La-ne has a pipe to fit your evenly need~ Drain with Lane Unpaved 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.024 0.025 Paved 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.021 0.022 Note: All pipe with smooth interiors has 0.012 'n' value. Consult AISI, Modem Sewer Design [or additional hydraulic design dam. 12 - 42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 48 - 72 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 78 - 120 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 126 - 144 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 ' *Minimum cover may vary, ~iepending on local conditions. The contractor must provide the additional compacted cover required to avoid damage to the pipe. Minimum cover is measured from the top of the pipe to the top o[ the maintained construction roadway surface. AASHTO Standaid Specifications [or Highway Bridges - Division II, Section 26 ASTM Standard Practice for Installing Factory Made Corrugated .qteel Pipe for Sewers and Other Applications - ASTM A798 AREA Section 4.12 Galvanized Steel, 2 oz/ft ~ Coating M-218 Corrugated Steel Pipe M-36 Asphalt Coated or Paved Pipe M-190 Polymer Precoated for CSP M-246 Polymer Coated Pipe M-245 Gaskets - A929 A760 A849 A742 A762 D1056 Standard Specification for Highway Bridges - Division I, Section 12 Standard Practice for Smiccural Design of Corrugated Ste~fl Pipe, Pipe Arches, and Arches for Storm and Sanitm-y Sewers and Other Buried Applications - ASTM A796 Section 4.12 uJ Z 0 ©-- FIGURE 21 Riprap Apron Design, Minimum Tailwater Condition ~ ._c2,.._. 0 n r--, Z © }--© ©0 FIGURE :21 Riprap Apron Design, Minimum Tailwater Condition .deJd!~l ez!s ~ ,,~,aaj 'az!s de.~d~ OSp ~ r,. W ~, ? ? ~J= tko5 © g g ouT/..~'T 'B' r~ Z ©~: ©~ FIGURE 21 Riprap Apron Design, Minimum Tailwater Condition ~,aaj 'az~s deJdl~ OSp ~, .deJd!~I ez!s ~ g OuTL~' T 'C. ' 31 Development Inl'ormat~on: Name o~' Development 117 ~ S~'-~-'~'T ~:~-- 0 J~ C ~ Location o! Development: a. Cou.,y C~m6e_'AZ_~_ ~ C Road or S~reel Coordinates ~.~ ~l~e., O~ USGS Quad Name horn bottom right corner of map. Type of Development Proposed:r-J (check appropriate box) [] Resldenbal J~[ Mulh-Res~denhal Describe 7~ W~I h('o ~/5 E 5 [] Commerctal Desc.be [] Instllutional Oesc.be [] Other (speclly) Size a #ollots ......... Z_ __ #o!EDUs. b # of lois since 5/15/72 ......... ~;~ c Oevelopmenl Acreage .... d Remalmng Acreage Q __ Sewage Flows gpd Proposed Sewage Disposal Method (check appropriate boxes). a. '~ Sewerage System Name of emsting system being extended ~C> Pubhc J~] Private D~(erceptor Name Trealment Facility Name [] Pump Station(s)/Force Main b. [] Conslruction o! Trealmenl'Facimity ..¢;_~ '~lt J~J With :Stream D~scharge \', ', '. ~ With ~and Applicalion (not ~n¢ludmg IRSIS) ,' ~ Other V~, ~ . ..... Name of waler~y where poJnl of d~scharge ~s proposed ti[ stream discharge) c [] On.lot Sewage Disposal Systems (check appropriate box) [] IndiviClual On-Jot system(s) (including IRSIS) [] Comrnunily On-lot system [] Large Volume On-lot system d l--J Retaining Tanks Number DJ' Holding Tanks Number of Pm'ivies Requesl for Planning Exemption a. On. Lot Disposal Systems (1) I certify that Ihe Official Plan shows this area as an on.lo~ se~/ice area. / Oa/e / Title ),) been lesled and and replacement sewage I Date / Cerlificatlon # is al least 1 acre ,n L (Signature of Project Applicant/Agent) Oale Public Sewerage Service ti.e., ownership by municipallly or authority) Based upon written documentation. I ce~lil'y thai Ihe lacd~bes proposed for use have capacity and Ihat no overload emsts of ~s projected within 5 years. (Attach Documents.) (signature o' Mumc~pat Official) Date / Name (Print) Title Mumcipality (must be same as in 2.b } Teleph,',ne # ENGINEERING, PLANNING, SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 15.46 Bridge Street · New Cumberland. PA 17070 717-774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org HAND DELIVERED February 3, 2004 Mr. Edward 3. Knittel, Manager Camp Hill Borough 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Preliminary/FinalLandDevelopment Plan fol'12e 5Yreet Project Dear Mr. Knittel, On behalf of our client, Rhodes Development Group, Inc., we hereby request for the above referenced plan, the following waivers from the Camp Hill Borough Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance: --Section 404, pertaining to preparation and submission of a separate Preliminary Plan. The request is to combine Preliminary and Final Plans into one process. 3usb'lfca~'on for this waiver: Since this project is sma/I, and would be constn~cted in one phase, and there are no public street, a separate prelim/nary plan process seems unnecessary. --Section 607, which pertains to curbing. No curbing is proposed with this project. 3usO'/fcaO'on for this waiver: Curbing /s not physically necessary in this case for stormwater or vehicle control Runnoff enters lawn areas where it is eventually collected into the proposed storm pipe system. Allowing runoff to travel through the /awns perm/ts an opportunity for/nlf/trat/on into the ground, and for cleansing of the runoff from impervious surfaces. This/s/n accordance w/th 8est Management Pracb'ces as required and encouraged now by D. E. P. Section 502.:1.1.c.(1), which pertains to minimum driw.=way width for a multi-family access. A one-way driveway of 12-foot width is proposed, for egress only. .Tu~dlfcatx'on for this waiver: SJnce travel/$ res~ to one-way on/y, 12 feet of paving /s the minimum amount necessary for a traveJ lane. This egress point prov/des a second paved emergency access into the site. A two-way acces's /$ not provided here because sight d/stance for vehicles to turn/ef~/$//m/ted by a hump immediately north/n ~;~ Street. A/so, it is advantageous for stormwater runoff, and for eestheb'cs, to limit the amount o£ unnecessary paving. Fist~er & 4ssociates~ Inc. Thomas C. Scully copy: Rhodes Development Group Cumberland County Planning Commission POST-CONSTRUCTION AUG 2 6 200~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN For 17~ STREET PROJECT located in Camp Hill BOrough, Cumberland County, PA February 3, 2004 Prepared by-- R.J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS Most of the project area is brush, except where swaths were cleared to do recent soil borings. An off-site area of about 2 acres enters the site via a culvert under 17th Street. There are no streams, wetlands or floodplain on the site. This site was used to place fill in the past, probably in the 1970's. At one time, according to older mapping, a Iow point mn through the site to the northeast. With the placement of fill, a Iow point was left in the southeast site comer. Likewise, the adjacent properties to the east were filled, so that no natural Iow point or drainage way remains. All runoff in the vicinity enters storm sewers. PROPOSED DRAINAGE DESIGN CONCEPT One grass-lined detention basin, is the primary control measure for regulation of stormwater runoff from proposed development, in accordance with the Borough ordinance. The basin will discharge to another storm pipe system on an adjacent property. The detention basin has a 6" diameter odfice as the pdmary outlet structure, so runoff leaving the site is well below pre-development flow. 10-year storm discharge from the basin is only 1.80 cubic feet per second. Runoff from proposed roofs and impervioUs surfaces will flow overland to grassy areas. Thus runoff has a chance to infiltrate and be cleansed before entering storm pipe system to the detention basin. Likewise, the basin is grass-lined, so runoff can infiltrate while it is detained. To comply with the 2-year storm regulation of the NPDES permit, a permanent grassy retention area is .provided in the northeast comer of the site. This 2-foot deep area will hold 0.12 acre-feet of runoff, until it either percolates into the ground or evaporates. Calculations follow. Curve Number WeiRhtinR Description: 17TH STREET PRE-DEVELOPMENT Landuse WOODS / BRUSH Weighted Result Soil Group C CN' 70.0 70.0 .Curve Number Weighting Description: 17TH STREET POST-DEVELOPMENT Imnduse Soil Group CN IMPERVIOUS LAWN /LANDSC~ED AREA Ar~.~ (acres) Weighted Result i/It: ~114~ CAMP gill 17TH STREET PROJECT INLET #82 RETENTION AREA 6.8 6.8 (acres) % Total Area 100.0 100.0 I % Total Area C 98.0 0.9 13.5 · C 74.0 5.8 86.5 77.2 6.8 lOfl. O I I CALCULATED 02-06-2004 08:55:39 DISK FILE : C:UAVE3A .VOL Ptanimeter sca[e: 1 {rich - 208.710~25 ft. ELevation Ptanimeter Area AI+A2+sqr(AI*A2) Volume Volume Sum (fl) (sq. in.) (acres) (acres) (acre-ft) (acre-fl) 476.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 ~ 47~.00 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.12 IA = (sq.rt(Areal) + ((EJ-E1)/(E2-E1))*(sq.rt(Ares2)-sq.rt(Areal))) ~here: El, E2 = Closest two elevations w{th plani~eter data Ei = Elevation at ~nich to interpolate area Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for El, E2, respectively IA = Interpolated area for Ei ~o ~u~ ~ Incremental volme computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes. Volume = (1/3) * (ELR-EL1) * (Areal + Area2 + sq.rt.(Areal*Area2)) ~/nere: EL1, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment Areal,Area2 = Areas confuted for EL1, EL2, respectively Volume = Incremental vetu~e between EL1 and EL2 POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (PSCM) PLAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE The storm water volume and quality control Best Management Practices (BMPs) constructed for the 17~ Street Project, located in Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, will be maintained to function as designed, and shall implement the following procedures, and upon conveyance of the land to the condominium association, shall specify that the lot owner shall comply with the procedures described below. This procedure applies to the permanent retention area, permanent stormwater basin, and grass-lined collection areas to drain inlets. Maintenance and operations will include, but not be limited to the following tasks: -removal of sediment, gravel, grit, trash or organic debris deposits in the .retention areas when sediment/debris level reaches 4' in depth. Removal of sediment/debris shall take place when the area has dried, if possible. Man-made trash shall be disposed of preperiy in containers collected by a licensed commercial trash hauler. Grit and gravel can be stockpile and re-used for winter traction, or for other uses such as walks. Organic debris can be spread into edge of woods and brush that remain on the site. Soil sediments can be placed in landscaping beds. -permanent re-stabilization of any erosion within the site caused by concentrated runoff. -mowing or weedwacking to maintain a healthy stand of turfgrass or meadow vegetation in the forebay and swales. -aerate lawn in the retention area every 3 years. -All impervious surfaces shall be maintained clean of oil, fuel or other toxic spills, in accordance with State, Federal or local regulations. OVERSIZED DOCUMENT FROM : TCRPC Plat Titl~ PHONE ND. : 717 234 405:8 Feb. No: Cumberland County Subdivision/Land Development Review Report Camp Hill Surveyor Fisher Engineer 172 S~ec~ Project 12 200~ 02:23PM P2 04-039 Fisher Zoniag District Plat Statue: X # of Lots i Date Received Preliminary Plat Type: Final X PfF Minor # of Hew Dwell~g Units 30 02--06=04 StaffRevicw Proposed Land Use Townhouses Subdivision Regulations: County Land Development X Municipal Combined X S&LD A~eage Subdivided 0 Total Aoreage 6.75 02-11-04 Official Coun~ Review 02-19-04 ( ) (xx) ( ) Plat appe~z to comply with applicable l~ulafions, Plat appears to gencrally comply with applicable regulations; mvisiomi may be required, as hadicated, Plat appears to need substantial revision, aa indicated. Reviewed.by ~IP Checked by · Whop applicabl~,, sUc~-ts, sewer, .water, stprm drain.age, and 9thor infra~smx, c~. ~e elements to b~ verified as adequate by mlmicipal start/engineer. Any improv~ent guarantees shall b~ pos-tea prior to tmai p~it approval. · Registered PA Land Surveyor is required to certi~ all lot/tract boundary der~:fiptioras, · When applicable, zoning compliance to be verified by MuMoipal Zoning Officer. · Appropriam sewage module component should be proces,~cd prior to final plat approval, · Final plata must be recorded w~thln 90 days of lt.~l'oyM, Revb~_ .e~omments with cited ordlnance provlslons are based on munleipctl regtdations on file with the County Planning Commls$1ot~ 1. /3 ~fivc~s ha~(¢ b~-a i'~questcd (ff approved, dam of approval needs to be ~oted o~a plan): ~J.,D Sec. * preliminary plma Sec. ~02.11.~(1) multi-family dri. w~vvay width of 12' ~vh~e 22' n'xhlhnl~rxl width l~qllil-¢d (~ north ¢lld of sJz, orl¢-way ~gtess on~y). ,~. For 102 proposed parking spaces, in site data #12, recomraend break down how many are in 1 or 2 car garages, how many inthe l-story common garage, and how many in open air paring. Add to Zoning Requirement #20 (buffer area) that it shall be planted in accordance with Zoning Section 200-22(B). Add clear-site trianglo at intcrseotion per Zoning Sec. 200-I6. Add note per Zoning Sec. 200-20(D): all public utility lines and similar facilities shall be installed underground. Zoning Sec- 200-23(A)(2) requires for multi-family developments a bond or deposit to cover the cast af improvements, excluaiw o£ buildings of the proposed use. ~. Zoning Sec. 200-23(B) rcquirca for multi-family developments minimuan floor area requirements for the units based on the number o£bcdrooms in thc unit. Provide this information on the plan to indicate both the requirement and compliaaca with it. Provid~ ali hafolTnation required by Zoning Sec. Zoning Code Sec. 200-4~((B)(2)(b) requires "each dwellitlg tlxlk shall be dlstingu/shed fi'om the adjacent dwelling trait in some appropriate maturer such as varying unit width, use o£difi'crcnt color exterior materials, or varying arrangemenl~ of entrances or windows". Evidence of compliance mu.st be indicated on plans. ~. Owner ncexis to sigrl and have signature notarized [S&,LD Sec. 405(1)(A,)(7') and 407(1)(A)(5), FRO~ : 11. TCRPC PHONE NO. : ?17 234 4058 Feb. 12 2004 02:24PM P3 Add tn Borough Council approval statement: "tltld all oon~lllOIlS l~p0Seu v~tn r~sp~ct to suca ~lpp~,v'~, w~c uu,,ipl~t~u uu _- day of __ 20 ", 12. Add primary control point [S&LD Sec. 407(1)(A)(1). 13. Street width for a collector slxe~t p~r Table 1 of S&LD Code ia 60' ROW v0qifi 6' ~ouId~rs, 28' canivay w/o curb or 34' curbs. Exls~ing ROW on 17a Street is 40'-45', with a t9' paved cartway. Shc.t~ld additional ROW be dedloa~ed by ~his plan and/or street pavement widening r~qulrod lo bring up to minimum standards. 14. Has stormwater managc-m¢~t plan boon submitted to th~ Bom.? Cumberland County Conservation District 43 BrDokwood Avenue, Suite 4 ~ Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9172 - Phone (717) 240-71~12 - John Rhodes Rhodes Development Group P.O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0622 February 13, 2004 Fax (717) 240-7813 RE: PROJECT NAME: 17~ Street Project PERMIT NUMBER: PAG2-0021-04-006 MUNICIPALITY: Camp Hill Borough COUNTY: Cumberland County, PA Dear Mr. Rhodes: This is to inform you that the Cumberland County Conservation District has reviewed the above referenced application in order to determine whether it contains the information, maps, fees and other documents 'necessary for administrative c6mpleteness. Please 'be advised that your application has been determined to be administratively complete and will be processed for technical review. During the technical review, your application will be assigned to Brian Jaymes, who will serve as the lead reviewer. The lead reviewer will evaluate the adequacy of the application and its components to determine if sufficient information exists to render a decision on the technical comments from other technical stafl as may be necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of your application. You will be notified, in writing, if additional information is required before a technical decision can be rendered. The District will send only one technical deficiency letter. Upon notification of any technical deficiencies, you will have sixty (60) days from the date you receive the letter to submit the material requested. When you submit a satisfactory response, the District will proceed with its technical evaluation. If, after completing the technical review, the District is inclined to deny the application,, you will be sent a pre-denial letter. The letter will outline the reasons for the denial. You will have one final opportunity to correct the deficiencies in your proposal and meet with staff before the Department makes a final decision. Under normal circumstances, completed General permit applications can be processed within 30 days from the date of acceptance. Obviously, those applications which are complete and require little or no additional information can usually be processed more quickly. CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT- SELF-GOVERNMENT For questions regarding your application, please contact the District at 717-240-7812 and refer to application #PAG2-0021-04-006. Sincerely, Brenda H. Sheaffer District Secretary cc: ,Ed Knittel, Camp Hill Borough Thomas Scully, R.J. Fisher & Assoc., Inc. District File Gannett Fleming February 17, 2004 GANNETT FLEMING, INC. P.O. Box 67100 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7100 Location: 207 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Office: (717) 763-7211 Fax: (717) 763-8150 www.gannetffieming.com Mr. Edward Knittel, Manager Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Rhodes Development Group, North 17th Street - February 3, 2004 Submission Dear Ed: We have reviewed the referenced plan, prepared by R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. for conformance with the Borough's Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances. The existing property consists of one 6.75-acre undeveloped wooded parcel within the R-2B zoning district. The Plan proposes the construction of seven separate multi-dwelling townhouses that will be in condominium ownership. The project proposes a total of 31) dwelling units. The plan meets all applicable Borough ordinance requirements except as noted below. We offer the following review comments for the Borough's consideration: Sheet 1 of the Plans includes a request for waivers from the following sections of the Borough's Subdivision and Land Development (SI,D) Ordinance: · Section 404, pertaining to submission of a separate preliminary plan. · Section 607, pertaining to curbing along both North 17th Street and the private access drives within the project. · Section 502.11.c.(1), pertaining to multi-family access driveway width. The Borough's Ordinance requires a 22-feet wide width. The developer is proposing a one-way egress driveway of 12-feet. The plan does not propose the construction of sidewalks along N. 17th Street as required by Section 608 of the Borough's SLD Ordinance. The developer will rreed to make a formal request for a waiver for the sidewalk requirement. Sidewalks are generally provided on all of the Borough streets in the vicinity of the project, except Myrtle Avenue directly south of the property and North 17th Street from about two properties north of Lincoln Drive north to Cumberland Boulevard. North 17th Street is approximately 30-feet wide (curb to curb) south of Myrtle Avenue and narrows down to approximately 20-feet wide north of Myrtle Avenue. North 17th Street is also equipped with concrete curbs south of Myrtle Avenue, but the curbs terminate just north of Myrtle Avenue (Dighton Street and Cornell Road have both curbs and sidewalks). No improvements to North 17th Street are proposed A Tradition of Excellence N:~[04~39943 Camp Hiil\00ti Plans% t 7th st review_l.doc Gannett Fleming Mr. Edward Knittel, Manager Borough of Camp Hill -2- February 17, 2004 as part of this project. North 17th Street is classified as a Collector Street. Table 1 fi:om Section 502 of the Borough's SLD Ordinance establishes a minimum width for Collector Streets at 28 feet without curbs and 34-feet with curbs. We recommend the Borough require the developer to widen North 17th Street to meet the ordinance provisions. A profile of the proposed private access road sho~fld be shown on the plan. The plan should also call out the proposed minimum and maximum grade of the access road. o The angle of intersection for the proposed 1-way exit road from the project should be noted on the plans. The private access road cross-section on Sheet 7 of 8 does not conform to Section 502, Table 1 of the Borough's SLD Ordinance. The Borough's Ordinance requires at least 8-inches of 2A subbase and 2-inches of ID-2 Binder. The developer is proposing a privately owned and operated low-pressure sewer system to serve Building Nos. 1 and 2 since these structures are at an elevation too low to be served by the proposed gravity sewer extension for the project. The private system will consist of a grinder pump tm/t for each dwelling unit and a 2-inch diameter low-pressure force main that will convey the sewage from Building Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed gravity sewer system for the project. Design calculations should be provided in support of the proposed system. Design details for the proposed private low-pressure sewer system should also be provided including pressure pipe type, grinder pump units, bedding, ten-ninal cleanout, check and shutoff valves, system alarms, and an air release chamber (if needed). 8. A profile drawing of the proposed low-pressure sewer system should be provided. A General Note should be added to the Plans stating that the sewage grinder pumping facilities and low-pressure force main are to be owned and maintained by the condominium association for the property and the association will have full repair service capability on short notice. 10. The developer is proposing installation of a gravity sanitary sewer extension fi:om an existing terminal manhole on Dighton Street to serve the project. The gravity sewer main and manholes will be dedicated to the Borough for ownership and operation once the facilities are constructed. A 30-feet wide sanitary sewer easement is shown on the plan. Plats and a legal description of the easement should be prepared and provided to the Borough. 11. The existing brick manhole on Dighton Street should be replaced with a new pre-cast concrete manhole as part of this project. N4A04k39943 Camp Hill~008 Plans~n 17th st rcvicw_l.doc §eneett Fleming Mr. Edward Knittel, Manager Borough of Camp Hill -3- February 17, 2004 12. A detail for the pavement restoration associated with the sanitary sewer trench along No. 17th Street and Dighton Street should be shown on the plans. 13. The plan should note that at least 10-feet of horizontal separation is provided between the proposed gravity sewer main and potable water main. 14. The sanitary sewer profile drawing for the run between proposed manholes 5 and 6 should be revised to show the location of the proposed potable water line. A vertical separation distance of at least 18-inches between the water main and sewer main should be provided. 15. Detail drawings for the proposed gravity sanitary sewer pipeline, manholes, laterals, and bedding to be used on the project should be shown. 16. A large portion of the proposed sanitary sewer main will be constructed on fill material as shown on sheet 6 of 8. The plans should provide a detailed sequence of construction for the sanitary sewer extension in relation to the site grading, compaction, and other utility line work. The pla~a calls for the fill area under the sanitary sewer to be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor. We understand from the February 13, 2004 meeting with the developer that a large portion of the property was filled with construction debris. Given the potential for several different types of soils on the site and the delay in obtaining proctor results from the lab for each of these soils, we recommend that the fill material under the sanitary sewer be comprised of 2A modified stone rather than on-site fill. 17. The profile drawings of the proposed storm sewer on sheet 5 of 8 should show the location of the proposed water line and low-pressure sanitary sewer line. 18. The developer is proposing an on-site stormwater collection and conveyance system that discharges to a detention basin to be locate,:t in the southeast comer of the property. A piped outfall from the basin is proposed that will connect to the existing storm sewer of the adjacent property (Lemoyne Investment Properties) located within the Borough of Lemoyne. The developer should provide proof that the stormwater calculations and proposed stormwater design have been provided to the Borough of Lemoyne to confirm it has sufficient capacity in its system to convey the stormwater from the project without any negative impacts .on downstream structures. The developer should also provide proof that the adjacent property owner is agreeable to have the proposed stormsewer constructed on his property. 19. Details for the storm sewer trenching and bedding should be provided. 20. A note should be added to the plans indicating that all electric and telephone service lines shall be placed underground in accordance with Section 613 of the borough's SLD Ordinance. N' ~04\39943 Camp Hill\008 Plans\n 17th st review_l.doc Gannett Fleming Mr. Edward Knittel, Manager Borough of Camp Hill -4- February 17, 2004 21. Maintenance Note No.8 on Sheet 8 of 8 of the Plan refers to a Dewatering Facility detail that does not appear on the plans. This detail should be provided. 22. The applicant should provide evidence that the required Erosion and Sedimentation Control approvals have been received from the Cumberland County Conservation District. 23. The applicant should provide evidence that the required NPDES Permit for storm water discharges during construction has been obtained for the project. 24. The application should provide a Permsylvama Department of Environmental Protection Sewage Facility Planning Module for the project. The module should provide sufficient documentation of the anticipated volume of new sewage to be generated as a result of the proposed project. A copy of this letter has been provided to the developer's engineer for his review prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding our comments or the project. Very truly yours, GANNETT FLEMING, INC. Environmental Resources Division MARK A. MALARICH, P.E. Project Manager Planning and Management Section CC: Robert J. Fisher, P.E., R. J. Fisher & Associates Michael K. Lau, R&L Construction Company N.',404539943 Camp HiilX008 Plans~n 17th st review_l.doc '.':''" P,'O, B6X'"622~..~'"" ' '"" ' . .. · "Re:' :L~m~yn~' Inves~ P~op~ti~ -'.'" . ~ "'. · . 'De~r . .' ~ . .' : '" " .' '.'. ' .... ,. · "P.iease'note ~o~ ~o~r'~e.~'o'rds.'t~a't"Bil.l'M~C'all ~nd myseif.'are "the s'o'i~'6wner$:of'Se~6~ne'In~est~en{', ?~Op~t.i'e$,'.{he.~Wner'of 2 Lemoyne. Dri~'e.,:'Ag."y.,~.u~ur~'~do~kespon~e~ce'regar~ng 6ur.proper{y : and youg project ~hould be.addressed 6b.myself .at.'6he 'abov~ .. '~aaress..~ · .. "..."' .'.,: "~'.' .. ,,, .'. : ..... . .~: :. · '. As you 'get"e~o~'r.'t'o',beginni~g;'c6h~t~dt~n'.ifi.,the'right-of-' ......wgy, pl~gse leg'us.kn'6w s'o t~d~ we'can, advlse.our't~hant... , . . Ploas~ '.. mak~"sure tha~..'aBy ~o~k that ygu..do is'within'.the 50''easement 'of,i.~,,. " : · ..an~'.. ,, no~ outside...:...i..,....''' ..... ,, ..."'.".'.'..!.':"':".:ii~'.'.",.,"....._-.:.:.:~.'..'.' '...'."~::.'.'.'"' "" ... "' ..... ~h'a~k you'vo~y"mucg..' "..'.:. '".":'...,.'"'~. "..'.. .'"' .. '" "' :.' :. :'""" 9~y ~rdiy'.~Suts,'. ESF-/ksh.' .... : cc: "William· .T.. McCaLl' '"'" · ' '. ." ".' Edward.'S'. Fihkels.tein John Rhodes Rhodes Development Group P.O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0622 Cumberland County Conservation District 43 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 4 - Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9172 - Phone (717) 240-7812 - Fax (717) 240-7813 RE: Technical Deficiencies - 17= Street Project NPDES PERMIT #PAG2-0021-04-006 Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, PA Dear Mr. Rhodes: The Cumberland County Conservation District has reviewed your erosion and sedimentation control plan and has determined that the following significant deficiencies exist. Please see attached sheet for comments. Should you have any questions regarding the identified deficiencies, please contact this office to schedule a meeting. The meeting must be scheduled within the 30-day period allotted for your reply, unless otherwise extended by the District. If you believe the stated deficiencies are not significant, you have the option of declining and asking the District to make a decision based on the information you have already made available. Additional information and/or corrections must be provided in order to continue processing your permit application. Only full plan re-submissions that address all of the items will be reviewed. Re-submissions must include one set of all plans and an accompanying narrative and specifications. CC: Si~ncerely,- Brian K. Ja~/me~// District Techhr~[~ ~d Kni~el, Camp Hill Borough Thomas Scully, R. J. Fisher & Assoc., Inc. District File CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT 17TM STREET PROJECT CAMP HILL BOROUGH NPDES PERMIT #PAG2-0021-04-006 1. Show the proposed NPDES Permit boundary on the plans. 2. The emergency spillway in the sediment basin should have a permanent lining installed to ensure stabilization. 3. Provide more specific instructions for the conversion of the sediment basin to the permanent SWM Basin. 4. Appears that site in void of topsoil. Where will topsoil come from? When will it be brought to the site? 16:32 FAX 717 763 1808 PLANNING & MGMT ~002 Gannett Fleming March 15, 2004 GANNETT FLEMING, INC. P.O. Box 87100 Hanisbur~, FA 17t06-7100 207 Serrate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 w,~w.g~nnetifleming.com lV~'. Edw~d Knittol, Managc, r Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Strict Camp I-T~ll~ PA 17011 P,~: Prelimin~ Land Developm~t Plan fo~ Rhod~ D~vclopmtmt 6roup, North 17th Street - March 9, 2004 Submission Wc have z~,i~ed the second submission of the r~fcr~c~d, plan, prepared by R.. L Fisher & Associates, Inc. for conf~ with the Borough's Zoning and Subdivision and I. and Dcveloi~i~imt Ordinance. Thc existing property consists of one 6.75-acre undeveloped wooded parccl withi~ the R-2B zoniag district. The Plan proposes the construction of seven s~arat~ multi-dwelling townhouses that will be in condominium owm~rship. The project plopos~ a total of 30 dwelling Thc Borough Planning Commission reviewed the first submission of the projeot plan at its February 2004 m~-tin~. This second submission includes an updated plan, updat~ stormwat~ rn.~nag~m~-'nt cal~dations, a P_cmnsylvania Departmeat oflSnv/roma~ntal Protection (DtiP) Sewage Facilities Plarming Module a~licafion form, aplat and l~gal d~scdpfion for a 30-flint sanitary sawe~ ear~a~t fo~ th~ pro~s~l gravity sanitary s~wr ~xt~sion to serve the developm~t, md a cover Ic'tt~ addressing o~r February 9, 2004 reviow comments and t~ Ounberland County plsrml,tg Commission's comments on the ii~t submission. Bagd on our r~d~v~ of the se~nd submission, th= proposed plan now addresses all of th~ comm~mts raised in our February 9, 2004 letter ~"xc~pt as noted below. We offs' th~ following for the Bomugh's considcr~iion: As previously nottxt, Shoa 1 of thc Plans i~lu&:s a request for waiv~.'s from the following sections of the Borough's Subdividon lffld Land Development (SLD) Orcli~nce: * Section 404, pertaining to submission ora separate prelimia~r plan. Section 607, p~r~siai,~ to curbin~ alon~ both North 17th Sh'~t and th~ private access drives within the proj~-t. · 8~tion 502.11.c.(1), pcrtainm' ~ to muki-family access driveway width. Tho Borough's Ordinance r~uir~ a 22-feet wid~ width. The d~velop~ is proposin~ a one-way ¢~ess driveway of 12-feet. The second submission includes requests for two r~cw waivers as noted i~ comments 2 and 5 below. A Tradition of Excellence 93,/15/.200.4 I/0N 16:32 FAX 717 763 1808 PLANNING & MGliT ~003 Mr. Edward K~ittol, Manager Borough of Camp Hill -2- March 15, 2004 The second submission now proposes construction of a sidewalk along N. 17th Street between Myrtle Avenue and thc access dr/ye into the development. Sidewalk~ are not proposed along N. 17th Slre~t north oft. he acceas &ive as r~luired'by $oc~ion 608 ofth~ Borough's SLD Ordinance. The developer is requesting a waiver fi~om the sidewalk mquir~nent for thi~ ~ The second submission proposes widening North 17th Street dong the site frontage in accordance with the Planning Commission's r~lU~st and consistent with the Borough's SLD Ordinance provision establishing a minimllm width for ColleCtor Streets at 28 feet without curbs. A detail fo~ the strut widening is pmvi&d on Sheet 11 of 13 that presents two pavin§ options, We request thc developer eliminate the first option from the plans and list a paving requirement with 6-inches of2A subbase, 7-inches of BCBC, and 1.5-inches of ID-2 Weagn.__g Course. The plan md profile for the proposed private !ow-pressure sewer ~ should include a terminal clesnou~ at tl~ low point in the 2-inch line to fi~ilim~ futura ~e. Attached is a ~udm~ &~ail for a cle~out that should be included ~n thc plans. The plans should also state tlmt the 2-inch ,iiam~tcr low-pressu~ ~ will be constructed of SDR 21 PVC pipe. The Bowugh's SLD ~e requires that the post4evelopment stormwater nmoff r-ate for the 10-year storm event be no gr~atm, than fl~.~ Nm-development sto,~uwat~ runoff me. The developer is Irroposin~ ~n on-site stormwater collection and conv~Tance system that. disnh~gCs to a detmtion basin to be located in the,. southeast comm' of thc property. Apiped ouffall from the basin is proposedtbat will conncot to the existing storm sewer of the adjacent property 0.a, moyne Investment Ih'opm.ties) located within the Borough ofl. amoyne. The proposed post-development mnoffrate for the design storm is greater than the pm-development rate. The developer is requesting a waiver from the Borough's Ordinance requirement due to uniqtm site conditions. The post-development nmoffrate was calculated without accounting for any infiltration withh~ the retelltioll basin. We reeormnend the Borough ~equest the developer provide infiltration cflculations and co~usider additional infiltration capabilities to reduce the projected post-devdopment peak runoff rat,:, such as expauding the proposed stone trench at the bottom of the retention basin and removing the uuderdmin di.scharge. We also recommend the Borough have the developer provide proof that the stonnwater calculations and proposed stomaw~tvr design have been provided to the Borough of Lemoyne to confirm it has sufficient capacity in its system to convey the stormwater from the project without anynegative impacts on downstream structures. The developer should al~o provide proof that the adjacent property owner is agreeable to have the proposed storm_ ~m, er com,~'ueted on his property. The applicant should provido evidence that the requir~t Erosion and Sed/rnentafion Control approvals and the NPDES Perm/t for stem water d/scharggs during construction has been obtain~l from the Cumberland County Consentat/on District. liON 16:33 FAX 717 75S 1808 PLANNING & liGhT [~004 Mr. Bdward Knittel, Manag~ Borough of Camp Hill -3- March 15, 2004 The second submission includes a Pennsylvania DBP Sewage Facility Planning Module application mailer for the projeot. The form is mcant to address both wast~watcr conveyance capacity (addressed by th~ Bowugh of Camp Hill) and wastcwat~r treatment capacity (addressed by thc Bm~ugh of Lemoync). Camp Hill Borough should sign and date Seclion To oflt~c form indicating that its sa~.tary sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the projected wastewater flow.'; from the project once the developer provide writteri documcntalion from Lcmoyne thai adequate wastewater trcatmcnt capacity is a~ailablc to serve the project (DEP rcquire~ that tho owner or opcrator of the wastewatcr treatment plant provide a letter attcsting to the adequacy of ~.atment capacity wheat the municipality in which the development is located is not the owner or operator of the wastewater treatment A copy ofthis lcttcr has been pwvided to the dcvcloper's eng/nec~ for Ms review prior to the Pla~ming Commission meeting. Pleasc give me a call if you havc any questions rc~arding our contra cms or the project Ve.~/truly yours, GANNETT FLBlVlINO, INC. En~ronmcotal l~esou~ces Di~on ~ A. ~~, P.B. Pmj~t M~g~ Pl~nlng ~ ~~t S~on Robert L Fisher, P.E., IL L Fisher & Associates Michael I~ Lau, I~L Construction Company t_~!SHER~ ENGINEERING, PLANNING, SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bridge Street · New Cumberland, PA 17070 717-774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org April 7, 2004 Hr. Edward 3. Knittel, Manager Camp Hill Borough 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Preliminary / Final Land Development Plan for ,17u' $treet Project Dear Mr. Knittel, On behalf of our client, Rhodes Development Group, we hereby request that the Camp Hill Borough Council NOT take action on the above referenced plan at their meeting this month. We request that the plan be considered at their May, 2004 meeting. The reason for this request is that we have not resolved the stormwater discharge point within Lemoyne Borough, and would like to do so before Borough Council considers this plan. With this request, we hereby grant Camp Hill Borough a 60-day time extension to act on this plan. This time extension is to be added to the timetable established with the original submission of this plan. Sincerely, Thomas C. Scully copy: Rhodes Development Group ENGINEERING, PLANNING, SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bridge Street · New Cumberland, PA 17070 717-774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org April 26, 2004 Mr. Edward 3. Knittel, Manager Camp Hill Borough 2].45 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 APR 1 9 Re: Preliminary/FinalLandDeve/opment P/an for.f.~ b'treet Project Dear Mr. Knittel, Enclosed for your use are 2 copies of an "attachment to sewage facilities planning exemption module application mailer" signed by Lemoyne Borough, for the above referenced project. Would you please attach one of these copies to the exemption mailer form previously provided to you, have the appropriate Camp Hill Borough official sign the form ! provided to you, and then send both to D.E.P. for processing. !t would be helpful if this could be done as soon as possible, just in case D.E.P. will not process an exemption. Would you please call or e-mail me when this is done so that ! can track it at D.E.P. Since~ RJ. Fisher & Associate~/ Thomas C. Scully " WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ATTACHMENT TO SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING EXEMPTION MODULE APPLICATION MAILER Ladie~ and Gentlemen: Considert~is as ourwrit~en certification to ~, ~/o HILL (City/TownshiNBotough) we, as the ?ermitrec of thc~. ~, and ?_r¢;atment facilities propose fbr (cm~ out imn/~ not. apgli(:abl¢) use by the [7 '~ STUffiT' {°R. 0~E' cT' ha~e certific-d that capacity [s available to (N~c o£Sub~vfsion/Laad Devde,pm~c) g~eive . ./ Treat sewage flows from the proposed project; aad that thc additional Wasteload of (o~ r/50 will not creme a hydraulic or an organic overload or a 5 year projected overload in the facilities. Anx'il 13_ 2006 Rn*r'ou~b n~: T.emn*v-~e ,,, - -~' Date N.~mc of P~'n'~ittCe CPd~t) John P. O'Neill-WWTP Manager Name an~ Title oir Off. al Aumorize~ to ~ign (l~6nl) WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ATTACHMENT TO SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING EXEMPTION MODULE APPLICATION MAILER Ladies and Gcatlcmcn: Consider this ~ our wrivten certification to we, as kc Permiucc of th¢~. ~, ~nd Treatment facilities propose fbr (c,m~ out itc~ ,,o_! appllc~bla) use by the I~ ~ 5~r ~A off[? cq- ha~e certificdthat capacity is availablc to t'Nam~ of S~bdiv{si~ R~eive .../ Tr**t sewage flows from the proposed project; and that thc additional out item not ~ppli~abt~) Wastcload of ~ ~ 50 will not create a hydraulic or an organic overload or a 5 ye.~ (pmpo~p~[ projected overload in thc facilities. Dale ~" Name of ?c~'~htee (Print) John P. O'Neill-WWTP Manager Name and TiUe Of O~ficia! Author~ec~ to .~ign (Print) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110 April 28, 2004 717-705-4783 FAX 705-4760 Southcentral Regional Office Rhodes Development Group PO Box 622 Lemoyne Pa 17043 Re: Planning Module for New Land Development t 7t~ Street Subd~.vision Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County DEP Code No. A3-21802-018-3 Ladies and Gentlemen: In response to your postcard application, enclosed are the module forms required for the proposed development. Please submit the modules to the municipality(les) in which the project is located. The Department must receive two (2) copies. A copy of this letter must be attached to the planning module when resubmitted through the municipality to the Department. This letter is to be used as a checklist. Tlae municipality must submit a complete module package. (See end of letter for certification statement.) DEP Use Only Municipal Materials Required Completeness Checklist For This Submission Review Transmittal Letter, completed and signed by Secretary Resolution of Adoption, completed and signed by the Municipal Secretary and containing the municipal seal Component 4a and 4b Component 3 with comments and responses from publication notice, if applicable (See 3-P) A narrative description of the project including ownership of sewage facihties, references to any existing Chapter 94 Coanection Restriction Plan, and alternatives analysis (See 3-F & 3-H) U.S.G.S. quad with project outline (8 1/2 x 11") Completion of Section 3-J of Component 3 Plot plan of the project with proposed lot lines An Equal Opportunity Employer www. dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled Paper 21802-018-3 - 2 - April 28, 2004 Municipal Checklist Materials Required Show the proposed sewer facilities, sewer extension and/or point of connection to existing sewer or point of discharge Copies of agreements with appropriate public sewer authority and/or public water supplier, or a letter from them indicating they have capacity and are willing to serve the project or as required by Component3E or 3J DEP Use Only Completeness Review The proposed development must be consistent with any applicable Corrective Action Plans for the receiving sewerage facilities. Please attach the relevant documentation as requested in Section 34 Resolution of thc attachcd pot~.fial Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index conflicts. Attach all response letters from the responsible agencies. In all cases, address the immediate and long range sewage disposal needs of the proposal and comply with 25 PA Code, Chapter 71, Subchapter C relating to New Land Development Plan Revisions. If additional copies of the enclosed modules are needed, or if you have any questions concerning the information required, please contact me at the aforementioned number. Please note that the Department will return this letter if an incomplete revision is submitted. If it is stamped incomplete, the required items will be circled and a copy of the module attached. The Department must receive two (2) copies of the COMPLETE module package in any resubmittal. Failure to submit the complete planning modules within sixty (60) days will result in disapproval. Remember to adopt all materials submitted. Sincerely, _f~. David W. Gates Sewage Planning Specialist Water Management Program CERTIFICATION STATEMBNT I certify that this submittal is complete and includes all requested items. Failmre to submit a complete module package will result in remm of package. Signed: , Municipal Secretary List below any individuals that should be copied if the planning module is retm-ned to the municipality: 3800rFM-WSWM0356 Rev. 112002 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULE DEP USE ONLY DEP CODE # / APS ID # CLIENT ID # SITE ID # AUTH. ID # TO: Approving Agency (DEP or delegated local agency) Date Dear Sir: Attached please find a completed Sewage Facilities Planning Module' prepared by a ~;...~,~ ...... , ..... ~,~ ...... ,-..2.~.;._. :~:::~y IOcaTe~ i~ .. (Name) for /'7'''/Z'I ,~7'"~-E,E"F ~c~ (Name) ~m ~L.~ Count. (City, Borough, Township) Check one [] (i) [] (ii) The Planning Module, as prepared and submitted by the applicant, is approved by the municipality as a proposed [] revision [] supplement for new land development to its "Official Sewage Facilities Plan", and is [] adopted for submission to the Department of Environmental Protection'[] transmitted to the delegated local agency for approval in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 71 and the Sewage Facilities Act, OR The Planning Module will not be approved by the municipaliity as a proposed revision or supplement for new land development to its "Official Sewage Facilities Plan" because the project described therein is unacceptable for the reason(s) checked below. Check Boxes [] Municipal Secretary: Approving Agency. Additional studies are being performed by or on behalf of this municipality which may have an effect on the Planning Module as prepared and submitted by the applicant. Attached hereto is the scope of services to be performed and the time schedule for completion of said studies. The Planning Module as submitted by the applicant fails to meet limitations imposed by other laws or ordinances, officially adopted comprehensive plans and/or environmental plans (e.g., zoning, land use, Chapter71). Specific reference or applicable segments of such laws or plans are attached hereto. Other (attach additional sheet giving specifics) Indicate below by checking appropriate boxes which components are being transmitted to the [] 2. Individual Onlot Disposal [] Adoption Resolution [] 3. Sewage Collection/Treatment [] 3s .Small Flow Treatment Facility [] 4.A. Municipal Planning Agency Review [] 4.B. County Planning Agency Review [] 4.C. Health Department Review Municipal Secretary (p#nt) Signature Date Note: Please remove and recycle the Instructions portion of the Sewage Facilities Planning Module pdor to mailing the appropriate completed components and supporting documents to the approving agency. 3800-FM-WSWM0356 2/2002 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION *BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT RESO .UTION FOR PLAN REVISION FOR NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT DEP Code No. RESOLUTION OF 'r,,= ,~ ~c=='.::--~..=--; :.-.".;..'..'..'.:-'-=:.-.;-:=--~-~ (COUNCILMEN) of CP~'n? {'J'IL.L. ~ (BOROUGH) (~3~"~), C.~J~ ~ET4.L./¥~J D .... COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (hereinafter "the municipality"). WHEREAS Section 5 of the Act Of January 24, 1966, P.L. 1535, No. 537, known as the "Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act", as Amended, and the rules and Regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Department) adopted thereunder, Chapter 71 of Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code, require the municipality to adopt an Official Sewage Facilities Plan providing for sewage services adequate to prevent contamination of waters of the Commonwealth.and/or environmental health hazards from sewage wastes, and to revise said plan whenever it is necessary to determine whether a proposed method, of sewage disposal for a new land development conforms to a comprehensive program of pollution control and water quality management, and WHEREAS /~tt~/;~"5 ~vEI-~/~,~',~ 6~-~V/~has proposed the development of a parcel of land identified as land developer J7~ 511[&'~-T f'~,T~cT , and described in the attached Sewage Facilities Planning Module, and name of subdivision proposes that such subdivision be ser{/ed by: (check all that apply), ~ sewer tap-ins~ [] sewer extension, [] new treatment facility, [] individual onlot systems, [] community onlot systems, [] spray irrigation, [] retaining tanks, [] other, (please specify). WHEREAS, ~P,'~f~ /JILL. ~p/~ OVd~ finds that the subdivision described in the attached ~ municipality Sewage Facilities Planning Module conforms to applicable sewage related zoning and other sewage related municipal ordinances and plans, and to a comprehensive program of pollution control and water quality management. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the (E. ui~u~ ........ --~?~- ;-;~;~;; ~ ~;;;.-;;;~.;~;; =: =~ (Councilmen) of the (Borough) (:¢ttF) of C.,~m/o h}l L.L. · hereby adopt and submit to the Department of Environmental Protection for its approval as a revision to the "Official Sewage Facilities Plan" of the municipality the above referenced Sewage Facilities Planning Module which is attached hereto. , Secretary,. (Signature) T~,.,,o;,;,. ~.. -J ;f ~:T.z:'~!?z:~(Borough Council) (~/~), hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the ~ (Borough) (¢tt~') Resolution # , adopted, 20 Municipal Address: ?..{ ~-t~ ~U ~ 5~~ Governing Body / ? / / Telephone (: ~)rj) q ~--~5~ 3800-FM.-WSWM0362A Rev. 3/2001 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT I D~E~P Code # SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULE COMPONENT 4A - MUNICIPAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW MUNICIPAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW Note to Project Sponsor: To expedite the review of your proposal, one copy of your completed planning module package and one copy of this Planning Agency Review Component should be sent to the existing local municipal planning agency for their comments. SECTION A. PROJECT NAME (See Section A of instructions) Project Name SECTION B. REVIEW SCHEDULE (See Section B of instructions) 1. Date plan received by municipal planning agency. 2. Date review completed by agency. SECTION C. AGENCY REVIEW (See Section C of instructions) Yes No 1. Is there a municipal comprehensive plan adopted under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. 10101, etseq.)? 2. Is this proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan for land use? If no, describe the inconsistencies 3. Is this Proposal consistent with the use, development, and protection of water reso.urces? If no, describe the inconsistencies 4. Is this proposal consistent with municipal land use planning relative to Pdme Agricultural Land Preservation? 5. Does this project propose encroachments, obstructions, or dams that will affect wetlands? If yes, describe impacts 6. Will any known historical or archaeological resources be impacted by this project? If yes, describe impacts 7. Will any known endangered or threatened species of plant or animal be impacted by this project? If yes, describe impacts 8. Is there a municipal zoning ordinance? 9. Is this proposal consistent with the ordinance? If no, describe the inconsistencies 10. Does the proposal require a change or variance to an existing comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance? 11. Are any zoning ordinances that are applicable to this project currently subject to any type of legal proceeding? 12. Have all applicable zoning approvals been obtained? 13. Is there a municipal subdivision and land development ordinance? -1- 3800-FM-WSWM0362A Rev. 3/200t SECTION C. AGENCY REVIEW (continued) Yes No [] [] [] [] 14. Is this proposal consistent with the ordinance? If no, describe the inconsistencies 15. Will the project involve any of the following: 15.1 a site under DEP's land Recycling Program? 15.2 reclamation or remining of a previously mined site? 15.3 a Keystone Opportunity Zone, Select Site, or En~Ierpdse Development Area? 15.4 a Designated Growth Area? 16. Is this plan consistent with the municipal Act 537 Official Sewage Facilities Plan? .If no, descdbe the inconsistencies 17. Are there any wastewater disposal needs in the area adjacent to this proposal that should be considered by the municipality? If yes, descdbe 18. Has a waiver of the sewage facilities planning requirements been requested for the residual tract of this subdivision? If yes, is the proposed waiver consistent with applicable ordinances? 19. Name, title and signature of planning agency staff member completing this 'section: Name: Title: Signature: Date: Name of Municipal Planning Agency: Address Telephone Number: SECTION D. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (See Section D of instructions) This Component does not limit municipal planning agencies from making additional comments c0nceming the relevancy of the proposed plan to other plans or ordinances. If additional comments are desired, attach additional sheets. The planning agency must complete this Component within 60 days. This component and any additional comments are to be returned to the project sponsor. -2- 3800-FM-WSWM0362B Rev. 312001 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECllON BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IDEP Code # I SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULE COMPONENT 4B - COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW (or Planning Agency with Areawide Jurisdiction) Note to Project SponsOr: To expedite the review of your proposal, one copy of your completed planning package and one copy of this Planning Agency Review Component should be sent to the existing county planning agency or planning agency with areawide jurisdiction for their comments. SECTION A. PROJECT NAME (See Section A of instructions) .. Project Name ~ 7 7~ S~7~c-~ /d/~ CT SECTION B. REVIEW SCHEDULE (See Section B of instructions) ~Date plan received by county planning agency. Date plan received by planning agency with areawide jurisdiction Agency name 3. Date review completed by agency SECTION C. AGENCY REVIEW (See Section C of instructions) Yes No [] [] 1. Is there a county or areawide comprehensive plan adopl:ed under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. 10101 etseq.)? [] 2. Is this proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan for land use? [] 3. Does this proposal meet the goals and objectives of the plan? If no, describe goals and objectives that are not met [] 4. Is this proposal consistent with the use, development, and protection of water resources? If no, descdbe inconsistency [] 5. Is this proposal consistent with the county or areawide comprehensive land use planning relative to Pdme Agricultural Land Preservation? If no, descdbe inconsistencies: [] 6. Does this project propose encroachments, obstructions, or dams that will affect wetlands? If yes, describe impact [] [] 7. [] [] 8. [] [] 9. [] [] lO. Will any known historical or archeological resources be impacted by this project? If yes, describe impacts Will any known endangered or threatened species of plant or animal be impacted by the development project? Is there a county or areawide zoning ordinance? Does this proposal meet the zoning requirements of the ordinance? If no, describe inconsistencies [] 11. Are any county or areawide zoning ordinances that are applicable to this project currently subject to any type of legal proceeding? -1- 3800-FM-WSWM0362B Rev. 3/2001 Yes' No SECTION C. AGENCY REVIEW (continued) [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 12. Have all applicable zoning approvals been obtained? [] 13. Is there a county or areawide subdivision and land development ordinance? [] 14. Does this proposal meet the requirements of the ordinance? If no, describe which requirements are not met 15. Will the project involve any of the following: [] 15.1 a site under DEP's land Recycling Program? [] 15.2 reclamation or remining of a previously mined site? [] 15.3 a Keystone Opportunity Zone, Select Site, or Enterprise Development Area? [] 15.4 a Designated Growth Area? [] 16. Is this proposal consistent with the municipal Act 537 Official Sewage Facilities Plan? . If no, describe inconsistency [] 17. Are there any wastewater disposal needs in the area adjacent to this proposal that should be considered by the municipality? If yes, describe [] 18. Has a waiver of the sewage facilities planning requirements been requested for the residual tract of this subdivision? [] If yes, is the proposed waiver consistent with applicable ordinances. If no, describe the inconsistencies []. 19. Does the county have a stormwater management plan as required by the Stormwater Management Act? [] If yes, will this project plan require the implementation of storm water management measures? 20. Name, Title and signature of person completing this section: Name: Title: Signature: Date: Name of County or Areawide Planning Agency: Address: Telephone Number: SECTION D. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (See Section D of instructions) This Component does not limit county planning agencies from making additional comments concerning the relevancy of the proposed plan to other plans or ordinances. If additional comments are needed, attach additional sheets. The county planning agency must complete this Component within 60 days. This Component and any additional comments are to be returned to the applicant. -2- 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Code No. SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING-MODULE Component 3; Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities (Return completed module package to approl)riate municipa#ty) DEP USE ONLY DEP CODE # CLIENT ID #' SITE ID # APS ID # AUTH ID # This planning module component is used to fulfill the planning requirements of Act' 537 for the following types of projects: (1) a subdivision to be served by sewage collection, conveyance or treatment facilities, (2) a tap-in to an existing collection system with flows on a lot of 2 .EDU's or more, or (3) the construction of, or modification to, wastewater collection, conveyance or treatment facilities that will. requireDEP to issue, or. modify~.a Clean Streams Law permit. Planning for. any project that will.require DEP to issue or modify a permit cannot be processed by a delegated agency. Delegated agencies must send their projects to DEP for final planning approval. This component, along with any other documents specified in the cover letter, must be completed and submitted to the municipality with jurisdiction over the project site for review and approval. All required documentation must be attached for the Sewage Facilities Planning Module-to be complete. Refer to the instructions for help in completing this component. REVIEW FEES: Amendments.to-.the Sewage Facilities Act established fees to be paid by the developer for review of' planning modules for land development. These fees may vary depending on. the-approving agency-for the project (DEP or delegated local agency). Please see section R and the instructions for more information on these fees. NOTE: All projects must complete Sections A through H, and Sections O through R. Complete Sections I, J, K, L, M an~or N if applicable or marked INFORMA~ON" See Secti0n !A ~f inst~i~§¥ PROJECT '"' . · - . ..:- .. 1. Project Name /~ ~~ 2. BriefProjectDescription /P~Z0?o.qeb bEVELoI~/'h/~/v7'' /~, ~o 7"Ou/~Hou,-~E c~bo~//,//t~/~S o,d ~" /.-oT oF: ~,"/'5 /~'q.~.~ I~T~ ~0{~blC VTIClT'/£5, Municipality Name County City Boro Twp Municipality Contact Individual - Last Name First Name MI Suffix Title Additional Individual Last Name First Name MI Suffix Title Municipality Mailing Address Line 1 Mailing Address Line 2 Address Last Line -- City State ZIP+4 Phone + Ext. F{~A~ (o[~tional) )'1) '730- 3'}61 Email (optional) -1- 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 Site (Land Development or Project) Name Site Location Last Line -- City Detailed Wdtten Directions to Site Si~ Location Line 2 State ZIP+4 I . Latitude ,,~ Longitude . ?A ..... %° I't' Description 'of Site Site Contact (Developer/Owner) Last Name Site Contact Title FirSt Name MI Suffix Phone. Site Contact Firm (ii: none. leave blank) FAX Email Mailing Address Une I Mailing Address Line 2 Mailing Address Last Line -- City State ZIP+4 m op,/e- ?b 17 oq3-obz, z. ·.~ ~..t ~' ' .:'" .' :: ' ' :" ~;:~':~'" '!~ ~:' :" :;;~.r~: :'~,~. ;¢'~;,~' '--::i)~a~N~iNT'INFORMA~iON (See section D.0f '::..: ..'..:' ¢;¢~-t. ~,~'.¢;%~.: m_.ru_Jons, ........-:,,;:,::,.....: ......,~, :.,..~.- Last Name First Name MI Suffix Title ?.E, Mailing Address Line I Consulti,ng Firm Name Mailing Address Line 2 Address Last Line - City ' State ZIP+4 Country Email ~. Phone - Em. F~ The project will ~ provided with drinking water from the following source: (Check appropriate box) ~ IndMdual wells or ~isterns. ~ A proposed public water supply. ~ An existing public water supply. If existing public water supply is to ~ used, provide the name of the water company and a~ch documentation from the water company stating that it will se~e the proje~. Name of water ~mpany:, ~ Am lc4p -2- 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 ~ A narrative h~ ~en prepared as described in Se~ion F of the instructions and is a~ached. The applicant may choose to include additional information. ~yon~that. required-by Section F of the instructions. Check all ~xes that apply, and provide information on collection~ conveyance andtreatment facilities and EDU's se~. This information will be used to determine consistency with Chapter 93 (relating'~o"wastewater treatment requirements). 1. COLLECTION SYSTEM a. Check appropriate box concerning collection system [] New collection system [] PumpStation [-1. Grinder pump(s). ~_E-xtension to existing collection system Clean. Streams. Law. Permit. Number ..... b. Answer questionsbelQW.on collection system ~ t-orce Main [] Expansion of existing facility Number of EDU's and proposed connections to be served by collection system: EDU's Connections Name:of: existing collection or conveyance system owner existing interceptor owner WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Check appropriate box and provide requested information concerning the treatment facility [] New facility ]~ Existing facility. [] Upgrade of existing facility [] Expansion of existing facility Name of existing facility LE/fl~y~/~- ~o~,.o~/~/J (,v~- L~,~,TEp. -i-~_E-/,,-r/m~,T )o~:,~x~/T NPDES Permit Number for existing facility Clean Streams Law Permit Number Location of discharge point for a new facility. SOCIAL ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION Yes No Latitude Longitude Will the proposed project result in a new or increased discharge into Special protection waters as identified in Title 25, Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 93? If yes, attach the Social or Economic Justification (SE J) required by Section 93.4c. -3- 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 4. PLOT PLAN The following information is to be submitted on a plot plan of the proposed subdivision. a. Existing and proposed buildings. b. Lot lines and lot sizes. c. Adjacent lots. d. Remainder_of-.tract.._ e. Existing and proposed sewerage facilities. Pict location of discharge point, land application field, spray field, COLDS, or LVCOLDS if a .new facility is proposed. f. Show tap-.in or extension to the point of connectior: to existing collection system (if applicable). g.. Existing and proposed water supplies and sudace water (wells, springs, ponds, streams, etc:) h. Existing and proposed rights-of-way. i. Existing and proposed buildings, streets, roadways, access roads, etc. j. Any designated recreational or open space area. k. Wetlands - from National Wetland.Inventory Mapping and USGS Hydric Soils Mapping. I. Flood-. plains or- Floodprone- areas, floodways, (Federal Flood Insurance Mapping): m. Prime Agricultural Land. n. Any other facilities (pipelines, power lines, etc.) o. Orientation to north. p. Locations of-all sitetestingactivities(soil profile test Pits, slope measurements, permeability test sites, background sampling, etc. (i_f applicable). q. Soils types and boundaries when a land based system is proposed. r. Topographic lines with elevatiOns when a land based =system is proposed 5. WETLAND PROTECTION YES NO a. [] [] Are there wetlands in the project area? If yes, ensure these areas appear on the plot plan as shown in the mapping or through on-site delineation. b. i-1· ~ .Are there any construction activities (encroachments, or obstructions) proposed in, along, or through the wetlands? If yes, Identify any proposed encroachments on wetlands and identify whether a General Permit or a full encroachment permit will be required. If a full permit is required, address time and cost impacts on the project. Note that wetland encroachments ................................. ~sh~d~be-av~tde7~wh~re-fe~ib~.~A~d-~t.e-th~f~-~e-~t~i~M~sTBE~EEE~~ to an identified encroachment on an exceptional value wetland as defined in Chapter 105. Identify any project impacts on streams classified as HQ or EV and address impacts of the permitting requirements of said encroachments on the project. 6. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL LAND PROTECTION YES NO Will the project involve the disturbance of pdme agricultural lands? If yes, coordinate with local officials to resolve any conflicts with the local prime agricultural land protection program. The project must be consistent with such municipal programs before the sewage facilities planning module package may be submitted to DEP. If no, prime agricultural land protection is not a factor to this project. Have pdme agricultural land protection issues been settled? 7. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT YES NO Sufficient documentation is attached to confirm that 'this project is consistent with DEP Technical Guidance 012-0700-001 Imp/ernentation of the PA State History Code (available online at the. DEP website at www.dep.state.pa.us, select "subject" then select "technical guidance"). As a minimum this includes copies of the completed Cultural Resources Notice (CRN), a return receipt for its submission to the PHMC and the PHMC review letter. -4- 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 An alternative sewage facilities analysis has been prepared as described in Section H of the attached instructions and is attached to this component. · The applicant may choose to include additional information beyond that required by Section H of the attached .instructions. THe Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) has identified a protected plant or animal species in the vicinity of the project area.- Contact the appropriate protective agency for-this specie(s) to determine what options are available to resolve the cohflict. Documentation supporting contact with the appropriateagencyhavingjurisdiction over the rare, threatened,, or endangered species of concern and resolution of all potential conflicts isattached. Projects that propose the use of existing municipal collection, conveyance or wastewater treatment facilities, or-the construction.of collection and conveyance facilities to be served by existing municipal wastewatertreatment facilities must be .consistent with the requirements ·of Title 25, Chapter. 94 (relating-to-Municipal *WaSteload 'Management): If not*previously included in Section F, include a* general mapshowing·the path-Of*the*.sewage to the treatment facility: -If- more* than one municipality or authority will be affected by the project, please obtain, the. information, required .in .this. section for each. Additional sheets may be attached for this purpose. 1. Project Flows ~o) q'~O gpd 2.. Total Sewage Flows to Facilities (pathway from point of origin through treatment plant) When providing ~treatment facilties" sewage flows, use Annual Average Flow for ~average" and Maximum Monthly Average Flow for "peak" in all cases. *For "peak flows" in "collection" and "conveyance" facilities, indicate* whether these flows are "peak hourly flow" or '.'peak instantaneous flow" and how this figure was derived (i.e., metered, measured, estimated, etc.). a. Enter average and peak sewage flows for each proposed or existing facility as designed or permitted. b. Enter the average and peak sewage flows for the most restrictive sections of the existing sewage facilities. c. Enter the average and peak sewage flows, projected for 5 years (2 years for pump stations) through the most restrictive sections of'the existing sewage facilities. Include existing, proposed (this project) and future project (other approved projects) flows. To complete the table, refer to the instructions, Section J. c. Projected Flows in a. Design and/or Permitted 5 years (gpd) Capacity (gpd) b. Present 'Flows (gpd) (2 years, for P.S.) Average Peak Average Peak Average Peak collection Conveyance Treatment Collection and Conveyance Facilities The questions below are to be answered by the sewer authority, municipality, or agency responsible for completing the Chapter 94 report for the collection and conveyance facilities. These questions should be answered in coordination with the latest Chapter 94 annual report and the above table. The individual(s) signing below must be legally authorized to make representation for the organization. YES NO a. [] [] This project proposes sewer extensions or tap-ins. Will these actions create a hydraulic overload within five years on any existing collection or conveyance facilities that are part of the system? -5- ~%~3_mFM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 ' ~ ........... If yes, this sewage facilities planning module will not be accepted for review by the .municipality, delegated local agency and/or DEP until all inconsistencies with Chapter 94 are resolved or unless there is an approved Corrective Action Plan (CAP) granting an allocation for this project. A letter granting allocations to this project under the CAP must be attached to the module package. If no, a representative of the sewer authority, municipality, or agency responsible for completing the Chapter 94 report for the collection and conveyance facilities mustsign below to indicate.that, the collection and conveyance facilities have adequate capacity and are able to provide service-"to the proposed development in accordance withboth {}71 ;53(d)(3) and Chapter 94 requirements and that this proposal will not affect that status. Collection System Name of_ Agency,. AuthQrity~ Municipality Name of' Responsible Agent' Agent Signature' Date Conveyance System Name of Agency, Authority, Municipality Name of Responsible Agent Agent Signature Date Treatment_Eacility. The questions below are to be answered by a representative of the facility permittee in coordination with the information in the table and the latest Chapter 94 report. The individual signing below must be legally authorized to make representation for the organization. Yes No [] [] This project proposes the use of an existing wastewater treatment plant for the disposal of sewage. Will this action create a hydraulic or organic overload within 5 years at that facility? If yes', this planning module for sewage facili{ie~ Will 'n'~{be-~:evi~-~ved--~y--the~municipality, delegated local agency and/or DEP until this inconsistency with Chapter 94 is resolved or unless there is an approved CAP granting an allocation for this project. A letter granting allocations to this project under the CAP must be attached to the planning module. If no, the treatment facility permittee must sign below to indicate that this facility has adequate treatment capacity and is able to provide wastewater treatment services for the proposed development in accordance with both §71.53(d)(3) and Chapter 94 requirements and that this proposal will not impact that status. ' b. Name of Agency, Authority, Municipality . Name of Responsible Agent Agent Signature Date This se~ion is for land development projects that propose construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Please note that, since these proje~s require ~rmits issued by DEP, these projects may NOT receive final planning approval from a delegated local agency. Delegated local agencies must send these projects to DEP for final planning ~proval. 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 . Check the appropriate box indicating the selected treatment and disposal option. [] 1. Spray irrigation or other land application is proposed, and the information requested in Section K. 1. of the planning module instructions are attached. [] 2. A discharge tO a dry stream channel is proposed, and the information requested in Section K.2. of the planning module instructions are attached. [] 3. A discharge to a perennial surface water body is proposed,_and.the_infQrmation requested in:Section K.3: of' the planning module instructions are attached. [~] L?ERMEABILITY TESTING (See Section :L of instructions) [] .The information required in. section L of the instructions is-attached. ~ . ' ..... ' '" · ". ~:~,.,.' ' ~':~'.~,i;~'~!i:~ ;i;:iii.~:,:,;,?,i;i~:iF!i::!!;~:~i~i''~*.i/.i`:~:::.i.,;??:'i:!!ii:,;,.?¢.,:;?::i:.'.~, [] The information required in Section M of the instructions is attached. ~.. The detailed hydrogeologic information required in Section N. of the instru~ions is a~ached. (1-2 for completion by the developer, 3-4 for completion by the non-municipal facility agent and 5 for completion by the municipality) Yes No 1. [] [] Connection to, or construction of, a DEP permitted, non-municipal sewage facility or a local agency permitted, community onlot sewage facility is Proposed. If Yes, respOnd to the following questions, attach the supporting analysis, and an evaluation of the options available to assure long-term proper operation and maintenance of the proposed non-municipal facilities. If No, skip the remainder of Section O. 2. Project Flows gpd (For completion by non-municipal facility agent) 3. Collection and Conveyance Facilities The questions below are to be answered by the organization/individual responsible for the non-municipal collection and conveyance facilities. The individual(s) signing below must be legally authorized to make representation for the organization. Yes No a. [] [] If this project proposes sewer extensions or tap-ins, will these actions create a hydraulic overload on any existing collection or conveyance facilities that are part of the system? If yes, this sewage facilities planning module will not be accepted for review by the municipality, delegated local agency and/or DEP until this issue is resolved. If no, a representative of the organization responsible for the collection and conveyance facilities must sign below to indicate that the collection and conveyance facilities have adequate capacity and are able to provide service to the proposed development in accordance with Chapter 71 §71.53(d)(3) and that this proposal will not affect that status. b. Collection System Name of Responsible Organization Name of Responsible Agent Agent Signature ... -7- 3800-t=M-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 C. Conveyance System Name of Responsible Organization Name of Responsible Agent , ',,, Agent Signature. Date Treatment Facility The-questions beloware to;be answered by a representative of-the-facility-permittee. must be legally authorized to make representation for the organization. Yes No The-individual signing'below If this project proposes the use of an existing non-municiPal wastewater treatment plant for the disposal of sewage, will-this-action create a-h:ydraulic or organic overload at that facility? If yes..this planning module tot sewage facilities will not be reviewed bythe municipality, delegated Iocalagency and/or. DEP until this. issue i,~ resolved. ' If no; the-treatment-facility permittee must-sign-below 'to indicate that this facility has adequate treatment capacity and is able to provide wastewater treatment services-for the proposed development in accordance with §71.53(d)(3) and that this proposal will not impactthat stat~.s, b. Name of-Facility Name of Responsible Agent Agent:Signature Date (For completion by the municipality) 5. . [] The SELECTED OPTION necessary.to assure IoP~i,,term proper operation and maintenance of the proposed non-municipal facilities is clearly identified with documentation attached in the planning module package, ~~ ,P~UI.~~.:.:..(See .Se~n:~P:..:: ,~)[.lnstruct ons),: This section must be completed to determine if the applicant will be required to publish facts about the project in a newspaper of general circulation to provide a chance for the general public to comment on proposed new land development projects. This notice may be provided by the applicant or the applicant's agent, the municipality or the local agency by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipality affected. Where an applicant or an applicant's agent provides the required notice for publication, the applicant o;' applicant's agent shall notify the municipality or local agency and the municipality and local agency will be relieved of the obligation to publish. The required content of the publication notice is found in Section P of the instructions. To complete this section, each of the following questions must be answered with a "yes" or "no". publication is required if any of the following are answered "yes". Yes No 1. [] 2. [] 3. D 4.1-1 5.1-1 6. D Newspaper Does the project propose the construction of a sewage treatment facility ? Will the project change the flow at an existing sewage treatment facility by more than 50,000 gallons per day? Will the project result in a public .expenditure for the sewage fac!lities portion of the project in excess of $100,0007 Will the project lead to a major modification of the existing municipal administrative organizations within the municipal government? Will the project require the establishment of new municipal administrative organizations within the municipal government? Will the project result in a subdivision of 50 lots or more? (onlot sewage disposal only) -8- 7. [] j~ Does the project involve a major change in established growth projections? 8. E~ ~ Does the project involve a different land use pattern' than that established in the municipality's Official Sewage Plan? 9. [] [] Does the project involve the use of large volume onlot sewage disposal, systems-(Flow-> 10,000 gpd)? 10. [] [] Does the project require resolution of.a conflict between the proposed alternative and consistency requirements contained in §71.21 (a)(5)(i), (ii), (iii)? 11. [] J~ Will sewage facilities.discharge into.highquality or-exceptional value waters? [] Attached is a copy of: f, lJA [] the public notice, [] all comments received as a. resultofthe-notic~ [] the municipal response to these comments. [] No comments were received; A'copy-of th'e-public notice is attached.' I verify that the statements made in .this component are true and correct to the ~st of my knowledge, information and. ~lief. I understand that false statements in this component are made s~ect, to ~e penalties of 18 PA C.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to-authorities. ~,~J ) Name (Print) ~ ~ V Signature . ,5-~a._Title=~,~_ ' ' Date Address Telephone Numar The Sewage Facilities Act establishes a fee for the DEP planning module review. DEP will calculate the review fee for the project and invoice the project sponsor OR the project sponsor may attach a self-calculated fee payment to the planning module prior to submission of the planning package to DEP. (Since the fee ,and fee collection procedures may vary if a "delegated local agency" is conducting the review, the project sponsor should contact the "delegated local agency" to determine these details.) Check the appropriate box. [] I request DEP calculate the review fee for my project and send me an invoice for the correct amount. I understand DEP's review of my project will not begin until DEP receives the correct review fee from me for the project. I have calculated the review fee for my project using the formula found below and the review fee guidance in the instructions. I have attached a check or money order in the amount of $.__1: .~x~' ~-~- payable to "Commonwealth of PA, DEP". Include DEP code number on check. I understand DEP will not begin review of my project unless it receives the fee and determines the fee is correct. If the fee is incorrect, DEP will return my check or money order, send me an invoice for the correct amount. I understand DEP review will NOT begin until I have submitted the correct fee. I request to be exempt from the DEP planning module review fee because, this planning module creates only one new lot and is the only lot subdivided from a parcel of land as that land existed on December 14, 1995. t realize that subdivision of a second lot from this parcel of land shall disqualify me from this review fee exemption. I am furnishing the following deed reference information in support of my fee exemption.. County Recorder of Deeds for County, Pennsylvania Deed Volume Book Number Page Number Date Recorded -9- 3800-FM-WSWM0353 Rev. 3/2002 · - ..... ~ -.~ - ,-~ · ~*-- ~ -**-~=*~,.,. Formula: 1. For a new oolle~ion system (with or without ~ Olefln Streams L~w Permit), ~ oollection ~y~tem extension, or individufll t~p-ms to fin existing ~olle~fion ~y~/em use this formula. # ~)O Lots (or EDUs) X $50.00 .' The re,? ts based'upon: , ":3e number of lots created or number of EDUs whichever is higher, ,* ;or community sewer-system projects, one EDU is equal to a sewageflow of 400 gallons per day. For a .surface or subsurface discharge system, use the appropriate one of these formulae. A. /~. ;,,ew surface discharge greater that, 2000 gpd will-use a-fiat fee: $1-,500 per submittal (non-municipal) $ 500 per submittal. (municipal) -- An increase in an existing surface discharge will use: # Lots(or EDUs) X $35.00 =- $ to a maximum of $1,500 per submittal (non-munici.Dal)'or $ 500 per submittal (municipal). The fee is based upon: · The number of lots created or number o~ EDUs whichever is hi~gher. · For community sewage system projects one EDU is equal to a sewage flow of 400 gallons per day. · For non-single family residential projects,. EDUs are calculated using projected population figures A sub-surface discharge system that requires a permit under The Clean Streams Law will use a flat fee: $1,500 per submittal (non-municipal)' $ 500 per submittal (municipal) -10- PROJECT NARRATIVE & ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE FACILITIES ANALYSIS FOR 174 Street Project Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, PA D.E.P. Code No. A3-21802-0'18-3 Proposed development consists of 30 new townhouse units on one parcel of land zoned "R-2B Retirement Village" on 6.75 acres. The number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) is 30, which equates to 6,750 gallons per day (gpd) sewage flow using the Camp Hill Borough standard of 225 gpd/EDU. Proposed residential development is projected to house a population of approximately 80 persons. Sewage shall be disposed from the site via gravity sewers. Camp Hill Borough shall own, operate and maintain the gravity sewer mains after they are turned over to the Authority. A private force main will serve 9 units, and will discharge into the public gravity system within the site. Sewage shall be conveyed to be treated at the Lemoyne Borough Wastewater Treatment Plant. Public sewage disposal shall be the ultimate disposal method. Public water supply is present and proposed. Adjacent land use and zoning to this site is as follows: -North: land is zoned "R-2B Retirement Village", and contains an existing post office facility, with public water and sewer service. -West: few single family detached dwellings, zoned 'R-2 Limited Multiple Family'. Public water and sewer serves the area. -South: land zoned 'R-2 Limited Multiple Family', with existing single family development served by public water and sewer. -East: in Lemoyne Borough, are office buildings with parking, zoned "Apartment - Office". This site is proposed to be served by public sewer in the Borough planning documents. No other sewage alternatives were considered since this area is planned and already served with public sewer. The density of the development would not permit on-site sewage disposal. 3930-PM-WMO041 2/2001 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF WATERWAYS ENGINEERING SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PNDI Screening Reviewer ~ ~l Date 71 l z. Phone No. ~ PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INVENTORY SI--ARCH FORM This form provides site information necessary to perform a computer screening for species of special concern listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Wild Resource Conservation Act, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Code or the PA Game and Wildlife Code. Records regarding species of special concern are maintained by PA DCNR in a computer data base called the "Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory" (PNDI). Results from this search are not intended to be a conclusive compilation of all potential special concern resources located within a proposed project site. On-site biological surveys may be recommended to provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence, or degree of natural integrity of any project site. Results of this PNDI search are valid for one year. Please complete the information below, attach an 8W' x 11" photocopy (DO NOT REDUCE) of the portion of the U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Map that identifies the project location and outlines the approximate boundaries of the project and mail to the appropriate DEP regional office or delegated County Conservation District prior to completing a Chapter 105 environmental assessment or any other DEP permit application, iSEE REVERSE SIDE FOR LIST OF OFFICES AND ADDRESSES). NAME: 7"/'~/'~,,~ ADDRESS: PHONE: (.. ?/~ COUNTY: TWP./MUNICIPALlY: C~f ~/~. U.S.G.S. 7% Minute Quadrangle PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SIZE (Briefly describe entire area relevant to your project, including acreage.) 7-0 I AN'tqOWN, PA · North (Up) '/' inches West (to the left) ~ ? inches INDICATE PROJECT LOCATION TO THE NEAREST ONE TENTH INCH MEASURING FROM THE EDGE OF THE MAP IMAGE FROM THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER. FOR OFFICIAL USE! ONLY SCREENING RESULTS - Follow the directions of the checked block. No potential conflicts were encountered during the PNDI inquiry. Include this form and the PNDl~:eceip~wth your Chapter 105 environmental assessment or other DEP permit application submissions. Potential conflicts must be resolved by contacting the natural resource agencies listed on the ND[~_~'-?ec~[t~t. provide a copy of this form and the PNDI receipt along with a ~rief descdption o[ your project to rt'~e for consultation and recommendations, lnclude this Form, the printed PNDI search results and th~'~att~l re~S'.~urce agency's written recommendation with your Chapter ~05 environmental assessment or other DE~ :p'ermit application submissions. PNDI Internet Database Search Results Page 1 of 2 PNDI Internet Database Search Results PNDI Search Number: N101933 Search Results For ezimmer@state.pa.us Search Performed By: Eric Zimmer On 7/3/02 9:51:08 AM Agency/Organization: DEP Phone Number: 717-705-4820 Search Parameters: Quad - 407628; North Offset - 22.4; West Offset - 5.7; Acres - 50 Project location center (Latitude): 40.24798 Project location center (Longitude): 76.91581 Project Type: DEP Permits/105 General Permits Print this page using your Znternet browser's print function and keep it as a record of your search. Instructions for DCNR Bureau of Forestry personnel only: When instructed below to contact the PA Fish and Boat Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the PA Game Commission, Bureau of Forestry personnel should instead contact Merlin Benner, who will coordinate resolution with those agencies. When instructed to contact Jeanne Harris, they should do so. DEP and Conservation Districts should follow the instructions, below when potential conflicts are indicated. When details are displayed as part of the search result, the element's Scientific Name, Common Name, State Status, Proposed State Status and Number of Occurrences within the Search Area are listed. Due to the sensitive nature of certain endangered species, species names are not displayed for species under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. PNDI records indicate the following potential conflicts with ecological resources of special concern within the specified search area: 2 potential conflicts The Applicant should FAX a cover letter including a project narrative, acreage to be impacted, how construction/maintenance activity is to be accomplished, townshiip/municipality where project resides, USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle with project boundary marked, and quad name on the map to; Non-Game and Endangered Species Unit PA Fish and Boat Commission 450 Robinson Lane Bellefontef PA 16823 FAX number: (814) 359-5153 PNDI is a site specific information system, which describes significant natural resources of Pennsylvania. This system includes data descriptive of plant and animal species of special concern, exemplary natural communities and unique geological features. PNDI is a cooperative project of http ://pndi. state.pa.us/PNDI/S cripts/Do Search. asp 7/3/2002 PNDI Internet Database Search Results Page 2 of 2 Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. This response represents the most up-to-date summary of the PNDI data files and is valid for 1 year. An absence of recorded information does not necessarily imply actual conditions on-site. A field site survey may reveal previously unreported populations. Legal authority for Pennsylvania's biological resources resides with three administrative agencies. The handout entitled Pennsylvania Bioloqical Resource Manaqement Aclencies, outlines which species groups are managed by these agencies. Feel free to contact our office if you have concerning this response or the PNDI system, and please refer to the PNDI Search Number at the top of this page in future correspondence concerning this project. http://pndi.state.pa.us/PNDI/Scripts/DoSearch, asp 7/3/2002 ~ BUREAU OFIqSi~lt~S Rickalon L. Hoopes, Director (814) 359-5154 FAX: (814) 359-5153 IN REPLY REFER TO SIR # 9814 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FISH & BOAT COMMISSION 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823-9620 July 23, 2002 DIVISION OF FL.qlU~,H~ MANAi;EnU~qT Richard A. Snyder, Chief (814) 359-5110 FAX: (814) 359-5153 RJ. FISHER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas C. Scully 1546 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Dear Mr. Scully Species Impact Review (SIR) - Rare, Candidate, Threatened and Endangered Species PNDI Potential Conflict Number: N101933 Site Proposed To Be Developed for Multi-Family Housing Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania I have reviewed the map accompanying your recent correspondence which concerns the above referenced project. Based on records maintained in the Pennsylvania Nattmal Diversity Inventory (PNDI) database and our own files, a rare or protected species under Pennsylvania. Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) jurisdiction is known from the vicinity of the proposed project site. However, given the nature of the proposed project, no adverse impacts are expected from the proposed project to the species of special concern. To allow for faster processing of Species Impact Reviews (SIRs) in the furore, we are requesting that the attached SIR processing form be completed and returned to this office with other relevant project information. Please make copies of the attached form and use with all future project reviews. If you have received, and in fact are using the new form, please disregard the above request. Please note that the PFBC conducts Species Impact Reviews only for reptiles, amphibians, fishes and aquatic invertebrates. Reviews concerning other natural resources must be submitted to other a~ropriate agencies. In any future correspondence with us regarding this specific project, please refer to the SIR tracking number listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, and attention to this matter ofnongame species conservation and habitat protection. Please call me at (814) 359-5113 if you have any questions regarding my response. Sincerely, Andrew L. Shiels, Lead6g,-~ Nongame and Endangered Species Unit ALS/kjg Enclosure (1) cc: R. Snyder, PFBC Executive Office * P.O. Box 67000 · Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 · 717-705-7801 · FAX 717-705-7802 MENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [PHIC AND GEOLOGIC SURVEY ~6~ IV SW MAR¥'SVlLLE e Mh LEMOYNE ~ PENN~c MINUTE SERI NWl4 NI~W CUI,~BER 2 240 000 FI <:5> OVERSIZED DOCUMENT ............................... Cumberland County Conservation.District 43 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 4 - Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9172 - Phone (717) 240-7812 - Fax (717) 240-7813 John Rhodes Rhodes Development Group P.O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0622 May17,2004 ACTIVITY NAME: 17th Street Project PERMIT NUMBER: PAG2-0021.04-006 MUNICIPALITY: Camp Hill Borough COUNTY: Cumberland County, PA Dear Mr. Rhodes: Enclosed is the above referenced permit which authorizes the discharge of stormwater from the construction activity described in theflnal erosion and sedimentation control plan and the permit application. Please ensure that the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan is fully implemented and available at the construction site. The Cumberland County Conservation District reviewed the erosion and sedimentation control plan to determine whether it is'adequate to satisfy the requirements of the Chapter 102, Erosion Control Rules and Regulations. The Conservation District assumes no responsibility for the implementation of the plan or the proper construction and operation of the facilities contained in the plan. ~lease read carefully, Parts A, B and C of the permit which details the terms and conditions of this authorization. Conservation District staff and/or representatives of the Department of Environmental Protection .(DEP) may inspect this earthmoving activity to determine compliance with applicable permit requirements, Chapter 92, 101 and 102 Rules and Regulations and "The Clean Streams Lav~'. Permit requirements and federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. ss122.21 (b) require that "when a facility or activity is owned by one person but is oCerated by another person, it is the operator's duty to obtain a permit". Please be advised that once a contractor has been selected for the project, the contractor must either be added on as a co-permittee or have the permit responsibility transferred to them. The co-permittee/transferee form must be received by this office at least 30 days prior to the co~permittee/transferee action taking place. The enclosed form must be used to add a co- permittee/transferee. Enclosed, also is a Notice of Termination (NOT) form to be completed and filed with the District/DEP once construction activities have ceased and final stal3ilization has been achieved. The County Conservation District must be notified by telephone or certified mail at least seven (7) days prior to the start of construction. A pre-construction conference is requested. CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT This authorization does not relieve the applicant from applying for and obtaining any and all additional permits or approvals-from local, state or Federal agencies for the construction activity described in the permit application. Siocerely, Brian K. District Technician Enclosure CC: Ed Knittel, Camp Hill Borough Jeff Kelly, Cumberland County Planning Commission ...,'Thomas Scully, R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. Ray Zomok, Southcentral Regional Office District File ~ ENGINEERING' PLANNING'SUI~' NG & LANDSCAPE ARCHII'ECTURE 3uly 2, 2004 Mr. ]ohn W Clark, III, P.E., P.L.S. Hartman & Associates, Inc. 2101 Orchard Road Camp Hill, PA 1701:[ R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bridge Street · New Cumberland, PA 17070 717-774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org Stormwater review of the Preliminary / Final Land Development Plan for 17th Street Project Camp Hill Borough Dear Mr. Clark, We have considered the comments of your review letter of the above referenced project, dated May 5, 2004, and provide responses and additional information as listed below. The following numbered responses correspond to your comment number; the comments are.not repeated here. 1. Enclosed is documentation of the easement, consisting of 18 pages in a flue report. 2.. Attached is language :from the ~developer, which will be partof the condominium documents for.this project,... :~ ,~: .... ~..:..:.,:-~ .... :'~: ........ ' 3. Available h~d calculations for the proposed pipe system and point of tie-in areon. pages 67 and 68 of the Stormwater Narrative. The outfall from the proposed detention facility is 1.08 cfs in a 2-year storm, 1.34 ds in a 10-year storm~ 3.46 cfs in a 2S-year storm, and 8.26 cfs in a ZOO-year storm. The inlets in .Lemoyne Drive are over 10 feet deep, so available head capacity is over 28 cfi. Note that a significant drainage way existed in this area prior 1:o the current suburban development. The development in Lemoyne Borough blocked off and piped the natural drainage ravine. The proposed runoff from our project and another small portion of Camp Hill Borough will be very restricted by the proposed 6-inch orifice, so the proposed peak runoff amounts listed above are not out of character or context with the historical drainage pattern for this area. Note that easements are provided along the downstream drain pipes to where they enter the public street ~ight-of-way, and that the pipes travel through parking areas. So, if surcharging did occur in a drastic storm, overflow would follow the pipe system in the existing drainage easement. 4. No modificaUons are proposed to the existing concrete retaining wall, which is on [he adjacent property. Its location is shown on the plan; existing wall elevations are on sheet #3. A detail of.the wall is not necessary. The proposed emergency spillway will not affect the wall; calculations for.the basin with'the odfice blocked in the 100-year storm do not indicate that water would flow over the spillway. 5, Page 4 of the enclosed Narrative has a summary of peak flows for pre- and post- development conditions, The basin.routings in the NarrativE.' provides the maximum water storage elevation, A graphic portrayal of the maximum water elevations is on sheet #5 of the drawings, 6. Pages 48 to 53 of the enclosed Narrafiveprovide routing information for_the 100- year Storm, assuming the outlet orifice is blocked. A total of 8.63 cfs will leave the site via the proposed pipe system, assuming the odfice is non-functional. Water level does not reach the emergency spillway. The outlet pipe has sufficient capacity, for the 100- year overflow. 7. Sheet #9 of the enclosed drawings has a detail of the out:let structure. 8. Sheet #5 of the enclosed drawings depicts anti-seep collars along the outlet pipe. A collar detail also on sheet #5. 9. A pipe.trench detail, and a separate paving restoration detail is on sheet #:I.L of the drawings, f 10. Enclosed maps of previously approved and recorded plans depict the existing storm system below Lemoyne Drive. This condudes responses. In light of this.letter and addiUonal information enclosed; please review and let us know what if any addiUonal information may be required to obtain the Lemoyn_e_ BoKough's. aplS'tb~l-dFO-d~'de~igh~" ' Sincerely, -~.~ ~. I../1 ............ . R.7. FiSher & ~t~$ociate~ Inc, Robe~ 3, Fisher, P.E., P.L.S. Pr~ident attachments: Stormwater responsibility and maintenance language from the applicant (1 page) Stormwater nan-ative, with a revision date of 7/1/04 recorded plan of Lemoyne Square (1 sheet) recorded plan of Lemoyne Square lots #4 & 5 (1 sheet) I copy of site .plan, with a revision date of 7/1/04 (13 sheets) copy of title report regarding right to use easement in Le~oyne (18 pages) copy: Howard Dou~e~r~, Lernoyne Borough Manager (w/o enclosures) ~E~I~i 't~~i~Borough Manager (w/o enclosures) Mike Lau, ~Rhodes Development Group (w/o enclosures) 17th STREET ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Re: 30Unit Townhouse'projeet North 17*'Street, Storm Water Responsibility and Maintenance To Whom It May Con, em: The developer of 17* Street Associates will be responsible for the following until the Condominium Association is turned over to the unit owners. At that time the Condominium Association will be responsible; maintenance, repair, and reconstruction all drainage facilities not designated above as the responsibility of Camp Hill Borough. Facilities shall be maintained to the dimonsions and elevations indicated on the approved drawings, and such facilities shall be permanent unless a revised storm water management plan is approved by Camp Hill borough. Camp }Jill Borough has the right to the following for all privately own~ drainage facilities if the Condominium Association or developer fails to maintain storm water facilities in a timely rnannc-r. 1. Inspect the facilities at any time. 2. Require the developer or Condominium Association (as appropriate) to tak~ corrective measures and assign reasonable time periods for any necessary action. 17* STREET ASSOCIATES, a Pennsylvania limited' partnership By: CAPITOL VIEW DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., General Partner Michael K. Lath President MKL/sln Gannett Fleming Mr. Edward Knittel, Manager Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dear Ed: GAi~iNE~-F FLEMING, INC. RO.".Box 67100 Lo~tion: 207~Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Office~ (717) 763-7211 Fax: (717) 763-8150 ~.ganne~eming.com Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Rhodes Development Group, North 17th Street Discharge of Stormwater to the Lemoyne System The March 9, 2004 development plans for the referenced project called for discharge of stromwater from the project into the storm sewer system of the Borough of Lemoyne. Comment No. 5 from our March 15, 2004 review letter to the Borough of Camp Hill stated that the developer should provide proof that the stormwater calculations and design for the project have been provided to the Borough of Lemoyne and Lemoyne confirms it has sufficient capacity in its system to convey the stormwater from the project. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter we received today from R.J. Fisher, engineer for the referenced development project. You previously provided us with a copy of the July 2 letter from R.J. Fisher to John Clark, the Borough of Lemoyne's engineer. The July 2 letter was responding to comments Lemoyne Borough had on the proposed stormwater discharge from the site into the Lemoyne storm sewer system. The enclosed July 6, 2004 letter indicates that all of Lemoyne's previous review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Therefore, that portion of Comment No. 5 from our March 15, 2004 letter regarding the Borough of Lemoyne has been adequately addressed by the developer. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding our comments or the project. Very truly yours, GANNETT FLEMING, INC. Environm~'on M~~. MALARICH, P.E. Project Manager Water and Wastewater Practice Enclosure cc: Robert J. Fisher, P.E., R. J. Fisher & Associates A Tradition of Excellence N:'ut04x39943 Camp Hflh014 N 17 StUn 17th st revicw_3.doc 07/16/2004 09:50 FAX 7177747190 R J FISHER JUL-OT-2O04 WED 09:58 Ali HARTII~ ~ ~$00. FAX NO. 7]77372083 ~002/002 P, 02 Yuiy 6, 2004 Mr. ~ay St~ ~ LF. MOYNE BOROUOH PLANNING COMMISSION 665 Marke~ ~ Lemoyne, PA 17043 Dcm- Mr. Stark: ALL PI~VIOUS REVIEW COMMENTS ADDIt~SSED. ~ . C]a~ ~ PLS ~C/db ~ ~ ~ Cod~ E~~ ~ Ro~ ]. Fi~ P~ PLS 1 I I SATISFACTORILY JI~-07-2004 ~ 09:58 ~q~l H,qR1TI~ & ,qSSO0, NO. 7177372083 HART~ & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2101 O~e,~ Ro~ · ~ H~L~, PA 17011. T~l,e~O~l: (7171 737-3495 * F~ (7171 7~7-2068 2OO4 I.~OYNE BOROU~H PLANNING COMMISSION 665 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Doar Mr, $1ar~: SUBJECT: PrelimiaaryfFinal La~d Development ~.~ Strut 1~o, rough of Camp 1-ffil S~cormwator Management I,~ Dase~: F~ 3, ~.o04 1 The ~ubjeot plan depi~ ~ propo~ towuhome dovelopmc~ along lqo~ll the Borough of C~mp 1~11. Stormw~ter runoff from the development is t~ bo controlled ~ rcloar~l to e~i~ti.f~ ~mwater systems ~lj~en~ to Lemoyne Borough of l_~moyn¢{ As a result, ~is plan and in premolar, tl~ stormw~er nnm~eme~ plan, i~ ~ be reviowed by the Borough of Lemo~me. We bay, compl~ our review of the design.' of ~e proposad stormwat, r mtmagermmt facilities ~nd we offer the following common: ALL PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMLmtqTs HAVE BF~lq SATISFACTORILY Since'ely, i lohn W. Clark, I117~, PLS lWC/db cc: Ron Frank, Cod Howard Dough~ ; Enforc~mont Offi~r ny, Manager PE, PLS R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Briidge Street · New Cumberland, PA 17070 717- 774-7534 · FAX: 717-774-7190 www. rjfisher, org SITE ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING Selingsgrove: 570-259-1577 August: 27, 2004 Mr. Edward 3. Knittel, Manager Camp Hill Borough 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Preliminary / Final I. an# Development Plan for 12~ Street Project Dear Mr. Knittel, Enclosed are 2 full sets of plans for the above referenced project. These are for action by the Borough Council at their meeting on September 8, 2004. Nso enclosed are 15 partial sets, consisting of the cover sheet, land development plan, and landscape plan (which also depicts the proposed grading), for distribution to others for review and information before the meeting. Please transmit a copy of enclosed materials to your Engineer. Please note that Borough Council must act on 5 waiver requests aSsodated with this plan. ! presume a condition of any approval will be the sewage planning module approval by D.E.P. ! believe all other issues have been satisfactorily addressed. You should have a copy of the erosion control plan approval from the Conservation District; however, a copy is attached. Attached is an approval letter from the Lemoyne Borough Engineer. Also enclosed is a draf~ sewage planning module for this project. Please have the appropriate Borough official complete Component 4a, and return a completed copy to me for inclusion in the final module packet. Please have the appropriate official complete the applicable portions of Component 3 (page,,; 3 and 5), and retum a completed copy to me for inclusion in the final module packet. A letter from the Borough to be attached with the module might be useful, describing the Corrective Action Plan or other mitigation measures for the Chapter 94 issues. The enclosed plans are revised to address some comments raised by your Engineer in his last project review letter dated March 15, 200~. Following are the revisions that were made, or responses to the Engineer's comments: --The pavement section for the :L7t~ street widening is revised as requested to eliminate the one pavement structure option. --a terminal flushing connection is added to the Iow point end of the private sewer force main, as requested. It is placed in grass area so no vehicles drive over it. The cleanout is depicted on plan views, and the profile sheet #7. A deta]il of the cleanout is also on sheet #7. --In response to the Engineer's comment #S, please note that an NPDES permit has been issued for this site; a copy of the approval cover letter is attached, For your informaUon, enclosed is a copy of the post-construction stormwater management plan that is part of the permit. This site design utilizes grass-lined swales as much as practical for stormwater collection, which allows cleansing and infiltration of runoff. No curbing is proposed, so much of the runoff from paved areas will flow over lawn at some point. Over-detention in the proposed basin will also allow some infiltration into the ground. A shallow, depressed lawn area beside buildings #5 and 6 will act as a retention area for storage and infiltration, as part of compliance with the NPDES regulations. This location is near original ground so the soils should be better than elsewhere on the site for infiltration. Due to the inexact nature of calculating infiltration, we chose not to include it in the post-development calculations for the Borough's stormwater requirements. Since this site has been dramatically altered and filled in the past, and since there are some dramatic grading changes proposed, especially in the IocaUon of the proposed storm basin, soil percolation tests seem useless. --Attached is an approval letter from the Lemoyne Borough Engineer. --Attached is a letter from the adjacent landowner, Lemoyne Investment Properties, indicating acceptance of the proposed storm pipe condition to cross their property. --a draft copy of the sewage planning module is enclosed for your review. Please call me or Bob Fisher if you need any additional information or copies. copy: Mike Lau, Rhodes Development Mark Maladch, Gannett-Fleming .................................................. ~ ..... Cumberland C_oun[yConservation..Dis]:rJct 43 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 4 - Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9172 - Phone (717) 240-7812 - Fax (717) 240-7813 John Rhodes Rhodes Development Group P.O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0622 May17,2004 ACTIVITY NAME: 17th Street Project PERMIT NUMBER: PAG2-0021-04-006 MUNICIPALITY: Camp Hill Borough COUNTY: Cumberland County, PA Dear Mr. Rhodes: Enclosed is the above referenced permit which authorizes the discharge of stormwater from the construction activity described in thefinal erosion and sedimentation control plan and the permit ~,pplication. Please ensure that the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan is fully implemented and available at the construction site. .- -' The Cumberland County Conservation District reviewed .the erosion and sedimentation control plan to determine whether it is'adequate to satisfy the requirements o1' the Chapter 102, Erosion Control Rules and Regulations. The Conservation District assumes no responsibility for-'the. implementation of the plan or the proper construction and operation of the facilities contained in the plan. ~lease read carefully, Parts A, B and C of the permit which details the terms and conditions of this authorization. Conservation District staff and/or representatives of the Department of Environmental Protection .(DEP) may inspect this earthmoving activity to determine compliance with applicable permit requirements, Chapter 92, 101 and 102 Rules and Regulations and "The Clean Streams Law". Permit requirements and federal regulations at 40 C.F.R. ss122.21 (b) require that "when a facility or activity is owned by one person but is operated by another person, it is the operator's duty to obtain a permit". Please be advised that once a contractor has been selected for the project, the contractor must either be added on as a co-permit'tee or have the permit responsibility transferred to them. The co-permittee/transferee form must be received by this office at least 30 days prior to the co-permittee/transferee action taking place. The enclosed form must be used to add a co- permittee/transferee. Enclosed, also is a Notice of Termination (NOT) form to be completed and filed with the District./DEP once'construction activities have ceased and final stabili:~ation has been achieved. The County Conservation District must be notified by telephone or certified mail at least seven (7) days prior to the start of construction. A pre-construction conference is requested. CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMFNT This authorization does not relieve the applicant from applying for and obtaining any and all additional permits or approvals-~'rom local, state or Federal agencies for the construction activity described in the permit application. S_.jqcerely, r. 1'71 District Technician Enclosure CC: Ed Knittel, Camp Hill Borough Jeff Kelly, Cumberland County Planning Commission ../Thomas Sculiy, R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. Ray Zomok, Southcentral Regional Office District File . In es:tm'en..t .p.,.rop:ertiesC " ..! . "" .'""",'."" "'"" >. ' '::, '. '.....'. · . . i " ' :i::':' '. .... ", 'i "." '.'.' '.' ' ' ' 700ORBEN.STP,,EET, . '.' ; . :'..'.'.''.;;" · ." .. - '. ' "...'. · ....,., .... ',...:.:.,:. '..' '.. "~lz~is~.~; ~m~mr~v~ f.~6~_~'~.ls .:'" ..". ';' .'.~ .".. '.( .... ,.";'::. . ,' ...."' '." "" u'"..'.;.. '>'" ':' ", '" ;."; .' "'7i~-~f667,.':":.. ; .' ',. ' ': ' .." ' . ...... ' ",i ' ." : ~.... ' .': '.'. ' · . .' . .' · ' ..' -.,' .... ,'.. .' :. '.. '...."."... '" ...: ".."..: .. :...:... '.'..:... :'...:. :" ~.~[~.~.~.i':~'~:;,. ~.6~4'.:'.".:..,. :.!.::.';..'.:'::.'..'":' '.>' '., ... · -.'.'.':. . .... ...'..". ... "' '. john'H..'."Rhod&s,. '?'~sid'~t ' '... i """ '".'. ".""" .'.. "' .'..' .' "' ' " : · ' '. .~od~'i.~*~,.e~.~p~t~t".'~ofi~,,'..'i~..~:..'" . :. '~..." ..:'.'. · · ' . " : '." ; : P,'O, Box. ·622 ..'"' . '":' '.. '.. '.':".'i'.'.. "'.' · ":" .." .' '.' ... "" '."'.T',~m6yne',.. PA "1~643 ':..'. '.<",: '..: :.:'. , . '..,:.. · .' ; .... : ' .".' .. .": ~r~'f~. ': '" ' .... . ':". '"" Dea. r · .' .' '" " .' ..'. : · "P'i&ise'~ote'f..dr. y,o'~r' ,~'eb'o'r. ds.'t'h~'t'. Bi~l:l'McCall. ~d myae]'f. 'ara ,,, '.. ." Lemoyn'.e. D,ri.~'e....'kn."y..'~.u.~u~": do~re§pond:e.~ce' re~a.r~ng 6ur .proper?y. : ... and you.r' p~oj.ect ~hould be .~d~resse~ .%,"o ·myself .at. '~he.' 'abov'~ · 'a~ldress.. ' ' ' ' ' '.. . : .. . '~ . ..,'. . . . .' .. . : . . ,', 'As you '.get "~l.o~.~'r ,'t'o', ~,~inni.' .~g:' c~h~t~dt~'~h, i~., th~' right-of-' '" .way, pl.~gs~ le.t 'us' know so that we 'can. advzse, our't.en~nt'. Please '.. 'm~k~"sur, e tha~..'.ah.y wo~k that yqu..do is' within'.the 50' ',easement · ..and,' r~ot outside. 'of i.t~... · "'": ' ' ' ""' , -.>-.. :: :' "- ..~i: '" ' ' :' ' ":':" ,.' '" .... Th~:nk ' you' v~.y "much.." ""' '"' .'!'.' , .'"' ' ' ' :·''''' '".. -, ..'', ', ..... '"' %'~-y '.t ~2~y ~u~s,'. ' .. . . .' ... .,...._.._.......:._..~.~,~ ~ __.:..___" ... .... . · ' ' '" ':" " ' ', : ES~/ :: :, ... .v, ': ......... ' . " · c~: "William"T · McCaLl' ., ' .':"" · · . . · · .'.' .,. <. "'":'""".". · ..' 3 .. .. .~ :'.," , · , . ', .. . ." .. ...< . . .'.' : : ., JUL-07-2004 ~ 09:56 ~ I-It~RTt]RN & ~SOO, FAX HO. 7177372063 HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2101 O~m],RD l~ . ~MP H~L~ PA 17011 T~I.~PH0~'. [717] 7A7-5495 * F~ ~717) 7S7-2063 P, 02 ,luly 6, 2004 I I~{OYNE BOB.OUC~ PLA,NN~G COMMISSION 665 Market Street l,~moyne, PA 17043 Dear Mr, Smdc SUBIECT: Preliminary/Final Laud Development Plan ~orou~ ~ C~p ~1 ~ U~: F~ 3. 2~ ~ mbje~ pl~ d~ s ~~ m~ d~elopm~ alo~ ~o~ 17~ S~ in md rel~ m ~ ~~ sy~ ~j~ m ~m~e ~e ~ ~ Bomu~ ~~~ ~ a ~ ~ pl~ and in ~1~, ~e ~~ ~r ~ ~ d~ of ~ ~sod mo~ m~em~ ~i[~os ~d we ALL PRBVIOUS I~VIEW lohn W. ~l~rlq CO~S HAVE BE2.N IWCtdb Ron Frank, Cod Howard Dough~ Robert J. Fish~ ~En~r~m©~Offioor PE, PLS SATISFACTORILY MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 3/16/04 Planning: Class, Devlin, Robelen, Gulden Borough: Kuittel Engineer: Malarich TriCounty: Park February minutes approved with the correction that Tom Devlin was not recused from the action on ~he Good Shepherd plans. Reorganization was postponed 'due to absence of'two Planning commission members. It was announced that the .public meeting for the proposed new zoning ordinance has been rescheduled for Tuesday, March 30. Bob Fisher of R.J.Fisher Associates presented the Preliminary/ Final Land Development Plans for the Rhodes North 17th Street project.. Considerations: 1. 30 condo type units are to be'built on the site. 2. North. 17th Street will be widened through the area. 3. Sidewalk will be constructed from the main entrance traversing south. 4. Several residents of the area expressed concern for sidewalks the length of the project along 17th Street. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the 5 waivers indicated on.the plans. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of these plans contingent on compliance with the reports submitted by the Borough Engineer and the County Planning Commission. These reports are to be considered part of the minutes. The Count~ Planning Commission requests 15 minutes at a near future Borough Planning Commission meeting. MTNUTES ~-/17/04 Planning: Gulden, Class, Waldner, Landis, Devlin Borough: Knittel Engineer: Malarich Tri-County: Park New Commission member Tom Devlin was introduced. January minutes approved. Reorganization [selection of new chairman and secretary] was postponed until March.. GOOD SHEPHERD: Steve Quigle¥ of Black Associates presented the Preliminary/Final Land Development plan for the Good Shepherd Church Parish Center. We heard comments and questions from the commission, borough engineer, Tri-County, and the public. A motion was approved un&nimouslF that we recommend Borough Council approval of the ~reliminar~/Final Land Development Plan for Good Shepherd Church subject to the satisfaction of the minor housekeeping ~omment~ made by the *Borough Engineer and the ~Tri-County Planning Commission. Tom berlin requested tO be recused from this vote. *These reports are to be considered part of these minutes. NORTH q7TH STREET: Tom Scully of Fisher Associates presented the Preliminary/Final. Land Development Plan for the project of Rhodes Development Corporation. The requested[ waivers [curbing, sidewalk, and access driveway were discussed at length and it was decided to allow the developer adklitional time to review and get more detailed information to see if there is a way to facilitate foot traffic on North 17th Street. The reports of the Borough Engineer and Tri-Cpo=mt~ Planning Commission are to be considered part of these minutes. ,, ~3'/15/~0~ H0N 16:32 FAX 717 763 1808 PLANNING & MGIfF ~002 Gannett Fleming March 15, 2004 GANNETT FLEMING, lNG. P-O. BOX 67100 Hat.burg, FA t7t0~-7100 207 Senate Avenue C~mp Hgl, PA 17O11 Fax: (717) 763-8150 www.gannettfleming.corn Mr. Bdward Enittcl, Mmager Borou/h of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Strcet Csmp R'ill~ PA 17011 RE: Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for. Rhodes Development Group, North 17th S~reet - Mamh 9, 2004 Submiasion Wc have ~eviewed the second submission of thc rcfercncciL plan, prepsmd by R.. L Fisher & Associatcs, Inc. for confoimance with theBorou~h's Zoning and SUbdivision and LaudD~elopment Ordinances. The existing prop~ consists of one 6.75-acre undeveloped wooded parcel wi~i,~ the R-2B zoning district. The Plan proposes the construction of seven s~parate multi-dwelling townhouses that will be in condominium .ownership. The projecll proposes a total of-2.0 dwelling Th~ Borouga pl~ni,~2 Commission mviewe, d thc first submission of the project plan at its Fehuary 2004 me~in~. This second submission includes an updated plan, updated ~ormwater ~cut calculations, a Pe~m~ylwmi,. Depaxtmeut of~cnlal Protection (DBP) Sewage Facilities Planning Module application form, a plat and legal dcscripfion for a 30-fe~t sanitary sewer ~-~nent for the proposed gravity sanitary sewer extension to sewe the development, and a cover l~er addrcssin~ our Febmsry 9, 2004 review comments and the Cumberland County Commission's commm~ on the first submission. Based ca our review ofthe s~cond subfnission, the proposcd plan now Mdmsses all of thc comments raised in our February 9, 200~ letter except as noted below. We offm' th~ following for the Borough's consideration: As previously noted, Sheet 1 of the ph.~ iaclu&:s a request for waiv~.'s from the following sections of the Borough's Subdivision and Land Developm~ut (SLD) · Section 404, pcrminm' g to submission ora scparale preliminary, plan. · Section 607, pcrt~,i,~i~i to curbing along both North 1?th Street and the. private access drives withi, the project. · Sccfion $02.11.c.(1), pertaining to multi-family access ddveWay width. Thc Borough's Ordinance requires a 22-feet wide width. The d~veloper is propo~g a one-way egress driveway of' 12-fc~'t. The second submission includes request~ for two new waivers as noted i~ commauts 2 and ~ below, A Tradition of Excellence '0~'/15/20'04 il0N 1,6:S2 FAX 717 753 1808 PLANNING & I/Gh'T ~00~ Mr. F. Award IQ~itt~l, Manager Boro~ of Camp Hill -2- Match 15, 2004 The second submission now proposes co~on of a sidewalk alon§N. 17th Street belxvem Myrtle Avenue and the access drive into the development. Sidewalks are not proposed along N. 17th Street no~h of the acc~;ss drive as rexluix~'by Section 608 of the Borou/h's SLD Ordinance. The developer is requesting a waiver from the ~alk r~luircment for this area. Thc s~,ond submission proposes widening North 17th Street along the site frontage in accora~ce with thc Planning Commission's ~[uest and consistent with the Bomugh's SLD Ordinance provision establisblng a minimum width for Coll~r Strew'ts at 28 f~-t without curbs. A detail for the str~,'t widening is provided on Sheet 11 of 13 that presents two paving options. We r~l~st the devdoper ~ 'luninate the fi~t option from the plans ~md list a paving r~XlUirentent with 6-inches of2A, subbase, 7-inches Of BCBC, and 1.5-inches of H)-2 Weat'ing Course. 'Poe plan and profile for the proposed privat~ 10w-pressure sewer sys~m should include a terminal cleanout at the Iow point in the 2-inch line to fadlitate fuhn~ maintcmn~¢e. Attached is a standard detail for a cle.anout that should be included in the plans. The plans should also state that the 2-ind~ diameter low-lrtessurc ~ will be constructed of SDP,. 21 PVC pipe. The Borough's SLD Ordi~s~ce reqtfires that the post-development stormwater nmoff rate for the 1 O-year storm event be no l/rearer than 1/he pie-development stom~water nmoff rat~. The developer is proposing an on-site stormwa~ collection and conv~fimcc system that discharges to a detention b;~sin to bc located in the southeast corner of thc propeliy. A piped ouffall from the basiu is proposed that will ~ to the existing storm sewer of the adjacent property ~(.emoyne hvcslment Properties) located withi~ the Borough of Lemoyne. The proposed post-development nmoff~te for the design storm is greater than the pr~-dev¢lopment rate. The developer is requesting it waiver from the Borough's Ordinance. requirement due to uniqu~ site conditions. The post-development nmoffraZe was ~culated without accouniin~ for any infiltration witl~i- lite retention basin. We reccnnmend the Borou~ ~equest the developer provide int~tration calculations and consider additional infiltration capabilities to reduce the proje,,-ted post-development peak runoff ra~, such as expanding the proposed stone trench at the bottom of the retention basin and removing the unde~&-~i,~ discharge. We also r~comm~d the Borough have ~ devdoper provide proof that thc stormwaler calculations and proposed stormwat~ design have been provided to the Borough of Lemoy~e to con6rm it has ~fficient capacity in its system to convey the stonnwater frozn the project without anynegative imp. acts ou downstream struchn~. The developer should also provide proof that the adj aeon! property owner is agre~able ~o have the proposed stormsewer com,~ru~ on his property. Th~ applieam should provido evidance that thc roquired E~sion and Sedimentation Control approvals and the HPDES Permit for storm water discharges during construction has been obtain~l from the Cumberl~ad County Conservatio:a District. N~104139943 Camp IEb~Ot4 1417 ~,r~ tT~ st np&'w_~,~x~ 0~/1~/2004 ~0N ~6:35 FAX 717 768 1808 PLA_TqNING & ~G}~I' ~004 I~mmml~ Ivfr. Edward K~nitt.1, Manager Borou~ of Camp HiU -3- lViarch 1:5, 20O4 The second submission includes a Pennsylvmia r.)BP Sewage Facility Planning Module spplication mailer for the project. The tbrm is mcaut to addrcss both wastowater conveyance capacity (addressed by thc Borough of Camp Hill) w~stcwater treatment capacity (addressed by thc Borough ofLemoync). C~mp HiU Borough should si~ md date Section 7b oflhc form indicatin~ ~ its ~!.tary sewer system has suSici~ capacity to handle the project~ wastewaler flows from the project once the developer provide wiitteu docmncntation fi'om Lomoyne that adequate w~tewatcr trcatmcnt capacity is avaflablc to serve th~ project ('D~P rcquir~ that the owner or opcrator of the wastewatcr treatment plant provide a letter attesting to the adequ~ of tmaUnmt ~pacity whc~ the m~midpality in which the development is located is not the owner or operator of the wastewater treatment A COpy of this lcttcr has been provided to thc dcvcloper's engineer for Ms review [~'ior to the Planning Commi,~sio~ meetiug. ?leas8 ~ive me a call if you have any questions rc§ardi~ our commcms or the project. GANNETT ~LF.2Vl]tNO, INC. Bnvironmcnml ]~somces Dividon MARK A. MALARICH, P.B. Proj~:t ~ Planning md M'ana~cnt Section Robert ~I, Fisher, P.E., IL ~L Fisher &Associatcs Michael lC ~ R&L CemsUucticm Company N:~4o4~:1 Gm~, ~14 ~' l? S~ t'Mt ~ rc. vk.w_2.d~c · 02/17)J004 TUE 11:20 F.~T 717 763 1808 PZ~TING & MG~'T ~002 Gannett Fleming Febnmry 17, 2004 GANNETT ~l_~.aal~, INC. P,O. B~x 67100 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7100 ~on: 207 Serm~ Avenue G~amp Hill, P.& 17'011 oflian: (717) 76~-72t ~ Fax: (717) 76D-8150 w~nv.gnnnet~tleming.oom Mr. Edward Knittcl, Manager Borough of Camp Hill 21a,5 Walnut Street Camp Frill, PA 17011 Prel;mlnavy/Final Land Development Plan for Rhodes Development Group, North 17th Street - Fcbmaz:y 3, 2004 Submission Dear Ed: We have reviewed the referenced plan, prepared by 1~ ~. Fisher & Associates, Inc. for conforms-ce with the Borough's Zon;,~g and Subdivision and Land Development C~ai~,~nc~$. The existing property consists of one 6.75-aero undeveloped woodeA parcel within the R-.2B zouing district. The Plan proposes the construction of seven separate multi-dweHin, g townhouses that will be in condomi,ium ownm~hip. The project proposes a total o£30 dwelling units. The plan meets all applicable Borough ordinance requirements except as noted below. We offer the following revi~v comments for the Borough's consideration: Sheet 1 of the Pleas includes a request for waivers from the following sections of the Bomugh's Subdivision and Land Development (SLD) Oraiuance: · Section 404, perta;ning to subm~sion ora separate preliro~ary plan. · Section 607, pertaining to curbing along both North 17th Street and the private access drivos within the project. · Section 502.11.c.(1), pert~in;,g to mz/lfi-fami~y access dr/veway width. The Borough's Ordinauce requires ~ 22..feet wide width. The d~,weloper is proposing a one-way egress driveway of 12-feet. The plan docs not propose the construction of sidewalks along N. 17fl~ Street ~ required by Section 608 of the Borough'$ SLD Ordinance. The develop~ will need to make a £omaal request for a waiver for the side, walk requirement. Sid,,=walks are §onerally provided on ~fl] of the Borough streets/n tho vioinity of the projoat, except Myrtle Avemm dirootly south of the property and Norfla 17th Street from about two prop~'fios ncrrth ofr.lncoln Drive north to Curab,~land Boulevard. North 17th Street is approximately 30-£eet wide (curb to curb) south of Myrtle Avenue and narrows down to approximately 20<~eet wide north, of Myrtle Avenue. North 17th Street is also equipped with concrete curbs south of Myrtle Avenue, but the curbs term/nato just north of Myrtle Avenue (Dighton Street and Comell Road have both curbs and sidewalks). No improvemen~ to North 17th Street are proposed A Tradition of Excellence Camp [4iltocm Plam'~ tT~ ~t r~4a,/_Ldo~ *02/17/20.04 ~ 11:20 FAX 717 ?$3 1808 PLANNING & ~IGMT Mr. Edward Knittel, Mauager Borough of Camp Hill -2- February 17, 2004 as part of this project. North 17th Street is classified as a Collector Street. Table 1 fi-om Se~ion 502 of thc Borough's SLD Ordinan~ establishes a minimmn width for Collector Streets at 28 feet without curbs and 34-feet with curbs. We recommend the Borough require the developer to widen North 17th Street to meet the: ordinance provisions. A profile of the proposed private access road should be shown on the plan. The plan- should also call out the proposed minimum and maximum grade of the access road. The angle of intersection for the proposed 1-way e.'rdt road from the projex,'t should be noted on the plans. The private access road cross-section ou Sheet 7 of 8 does not conform to Section 502, Table 1 of the Borough's SLD Ord/nance. The Borough's Ord~-a,~ce requires at least 8-inches of2A subbase and 1-inches of ID-2 Binder. The developer is proposing a privately owned and operated low-pres.-an'e sewer syst~nn to serve Buildi-g Nos. 1 and :2 since these; structures are at an elevation too low to be served by the proposed gravity sewer ex~nsion for the project. The private system will consist of a grinder pump unit for each dwelling trait and a 2-inch diameter low-pressure force main that will convey the sewage from Build/rig Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed gravity sewer system for the project. Design calculations should be provided in support of the proposed system. Design details for the proposed private low~trmssure sewer system should also be provided including pressure pipe type, grinder pump traits, be~ling, t¢.,~i~al cleanout, check and shutoff valves, system alamas, and an air release chamber (if needed). A profile drawing of the proposed low-pressure sewer system should be provided. A C~-n~raI Note should be added to the Plans stating tl~t the sewage grinder pumping facilities and low-pr~ssurc force main are to be owned and maint~,ed by the condominium association for the property and thc association will have full repair service capability on short notice. 10. The developer is proposing installation ora gravity sanitary sewer extension from m exist[ag terminal manhole on Dighton Street to serve the projec~ Thc gravity sewer main and manholes will be dedicated to the Borough for own~$hip and operation once the facilities are constructed. A 30-feet wide smaitm~y sewer easement is shown on the plan. Pia/s and a legal description of the easement should be pre.10ared and provided to the Borough. il. The existing brick manhole on Dighton Street should be replaced wi~a a new pre-cast concrete manhole as part of this project. '~2/177Z004 TUB 11:21 FAX 717 75~ 1808 PLANNING & MCAT ~004 Mr. Edward Knittel, Mmager Borough of Camp Hill. -3- Februm3r 17, 2004 12. A detail for thc pavement restoration associated with the sanitary sewer trench along No. 17th Street and Dighton Street should be shown on the plans. 13. The plan should note that at least 10-feet of horizontal separation is provided between the proposcd gravity sewer main and potable water main. 14. The sanitary sewer profile drawing for the nm b~een proposed manholes 5 and 6 should he revised to show the looation of the proposed potable water linc. A vertioat separ~ion distance of at least 18-ine. bes between the water m.ql. and ~ewer main should be provide~ 15. Detail drawings for the proposed twavity sanitary sewer pipeline, manholes, laterals, and bedding to be used on the project should be shown. 16. A large portion of thc proposed sanitary sewer main will be constructed on till material as shown on sheet 6 orS. The pla~ should provide a detailed sequence of construction for the sanitary sewer extension in mlatio~ to the site grading, compaction, and other utih'ty line work. The phm calls for thc fill area under thc sanitary sewer to be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor. We understand from the February 1 ~, 2004 meeting w/th the developer th~ s large portion o f the property was fried w/th con~tmct/on debris. Given thc potent/.'fl for several cliffercnt t~pes of soils on the site and the delay in obtaining proctor rc~alts from the lab for each of these soils, we recommami that thc fill material under thc sanitary sewer bc comprised of 2A mo,*led stone rather than on-site Full. 17. The profile drawings of the proposed stoma sew,~ on sh~t $ of 8 should show the location of the proposed water line and low-pressur~ sanitary sewer tine. The developer is proposing au. on-site stormwater ~ollection and conveyance system th~ disoharg~ to a d~tenfion basin to be located in the southeast comer of the property. A piped outfall 1~om the basin is proposed that will connect tn the existing storm sewer of the adjacent property (Lemoyne Investment Properties) located with~. the Borough of Lemoyne. The developer should, provide proof that the ~tormwater calculations and proposed stormwater design have been provided to the Borough of Lemoyne to co.~i-- it has sufficient capacity in its system to couveythe stormwater from the project without any negative impam on downstream structures. The developer should also provid~ proof that the adjacent property owner is agreeable to have the proposed stormsewer constructed on his property. Details for the storm sewer trenching and beddiag should be provided. A note should be added to the plans indicating that all electric and telephone s~rYi' 'ce lines shall be placed aud~rground in aooordanoe with Section 613 of the borough's SLD Ordinance. .f N:MiM~g043 C.,~a H #~ll plul~n I 'hh st r~isw t.d~e 11:21 F.~ 717 ?1~3 1808 ?LA~ING & / Edward/Knittel, Manager -~- February I7, 2004 Bom/~Camp I-~ ' M~intenanee Note No.8 on Sheet 8 of 8 offiae Plan refm to a Dewatering Facility detail that does not appear on the plans. This detail, should be provided. Thc applicant should provide evidence that the required Erosion and Sedimentation Control approvals have been reeeived from the Cumberland County Conservation District.' The ~pplic~at should provide ~¢idence that thc re~tuired lqPDES Permi'£ for storm water discharges during construction h~ boe~a obtained for the project. 24. The ~pplicafion should provide a Pcm~lvauia D~artment of Environmental Protection Scwag~ Facility Plmuing Module for the project. The module should provide s~cient doaunmtation of the anticipated volnme of new selvage to be generated as a result of the proposed l~ject. A copy of this l~r l~s b~x provided to ~e developer's engineer for his review .prior to the Planning Commi~io~ meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding our ~ommcnts or the p~oject. Very WaIy yours, GANNETT FI.BMING, INC. Enviro, wnentnl l~sources Division MARK A. lVIALAR~C~ P.E. Project Manager phn~i~g and Ms~agement Section Robert I. Fisher, P.E., R. L Fisher & Associates Michael Ii. I_au, ttSZ Construction Company FROM : TCRPC Plat Title PHDNE NO. : ?:1,? 234 4858 No: Cumberland County Subdivisioa/Lm~d Development Review Report Camp Hill S~tveyor Fish~ Euginc~ 17~ Street Proj~t Feb. :1.2 201~, 02: 23PM P2 04-039 Fisher Zoning District Pht Statm: ~ of Lo~ Date Rece/ved X Prelim/nary Plat Type: Final X P/F Minor # o/New Dwelliog Units 30 02=0-6=04 StaffReview Proposed L~md Use Towahouses ' gubclivision Regulations: County Land Development X Municipal Combined X Zoning X S&LD Acreage Subdivided 0 Total A~r~ge 6.75 02-11-04 Official County ILevJ~ 02-19-04 ( ) (xx) ( ) Plat appears to comply with apptieabk regulation. Plat appea~ to gmcrally comply with applicable regulations; rovisiom m~y lg required, as/~dicated. Plat appears to ne~l sub~tanfiaI revision, as indi~atod. Reviewed.by JMP Checked by · ~ applicabl~,, s .tz!~ts, s~'~, w~, s~ d~e, ~d 0~ ~~ el~m~ ~ s~~. ~y ~v~ent ~s sh~ ~ ~ pn~ to ~m p~ a~ro~ * Regis~ PA ~d S~or h ~u~ W c~ ~ lo~t b~ d~pfio~, . F~g pl~ ~t ~ ~o~ ~ 90 days of a~m~L ~.~m~n~' ~ cR~ or~ ~~ ~ b~ed on mun~d re~d~o~ on file g~. 502.11.~1) m~g-~mny ~v~ ~ of 12' w~ 22' mlnlm~ ~d~ ~ (~ ,~, For 102 pwposed parkin~ ~aace~, ~ si~ ~ ~12, ~e~d ~ de~ how m~ ~ in I o~ 2 ~ ~g~, ~w m~ ~ ~e I-~ co~ ~g~, ~d how ~y ~ ~ ~ p~g. A~ to ~ ~u~t ~20 ~ ~) ~t it sh~l be pl~ in accor~m~ wi~ ~ng S~gon ~22~). A~ cl~-site ~glc at ~t~co~ p~ ~g S~. 2~ 16. A~ ~om per ~n~g S~. 200-20~): ~ pubho u~ ~s ~d s~ ~Q,~ sh~l ~ ~s~led und~o~ ' Y~ni~g S~. 200-23(A)(2) ~s ~r mulfi-~ily d~l~m~g a ~nd ~ &~osit to cov~ ~e cn~ ofim~eng, ~lmi~ of ~d;~gs of~ pr~osed ~mg S~. 200-23~) ~ for ~6-~Ry develo~ ~, fl~r ~ ~ui~ for ~e u~ig b~ ~ ~e m~ of b~o~ h ~ ~ P~ ~ hfo~on on the pl~ w indicam ~ ~e re~t ~d ~mpl~ce wi~ iL ~ ~ ~f~ r~u~ed by ~g S~. 200-24A(1-8), ~ing Co~ Se~. 200~5(~)(2)~) ~ "~ dwe~ ~t shall be ~s~a~ ~om ~e adja~t dw~g ~t h s~e ~ro~a~ ~ s~h ~ ~g ~t ~ m~ ofdiff~nt ~lor ex.or :~als, or ~ng ~g~mg of en~c~ or ~do~". Evi~ of~mpli~ce ~t be ~di~ ~ ~ O~~ to si~ ~d~ve gi~a~ no~ IS&ID S~. 405(1)(A)(7) tad 407(1)(A)(5). FROM : ll. TCRPC PHONE NO. : 717 234 4058 Feb. 12 2004 1~2.:24PM P3 A.&d to ~o~ugh ~o~cd a~v~ s~t: "~8 ~U ~1~0~ ~eu ~m T~p~t ~ SU~II ~pplL)V~i WC~C uumpmt~ uu ~ ~7of~ 20 ". 12. A~ pam~ ~n~l ~t [S~ S~. ~bs. ~g ROW on 1~ S~t ~ 40'~5', ~& a 19' paved ~y, Should ad~fional RO~ bo d~t~ by ~ pl~ ~ ~t pav~t ~ning ~qu~ ~ b~g ~ ~ mi~im~ S~. 14, Hm s~wa~ ~nag~ent pl~ b~ su~d W ~ Bom.? OVERSIZED DOCUMENT Pennsylvania American Water August 31, 2004 Mr. Thomas C. Scully R.J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. 1546 Bddge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 RE: Water service Inquiry, 17m Street, Camp Hill, Cumbedand County, PA. Dear Mr. Scully: This correspondence is in response to your request for public water service to the above referenced project site. The proposed project is within the franchise territo~j of Pefin~lva, nia ~ American Water (PAW). PAW has the capacity and will provide public water service, i~n. accordance with our tariff rules and regulations, as filed with the Pennsylvania Public'~Utility~'.': ' ..:'. ~.:,; '~.~ Commission. Please forward the final land development plan to this office when it becomes available. A time frame for the commencement of construction activities at this site would be appreciated and would assist us in coordinating our installation schedule. If you should have any further questions, please contact thi.:s.~ice directly. Thank you. Ronald N. Felker ~ ~/ Operations Supervisor 852 Wesley Drive ~005/005 3gOO-F&I.~A/M~I~ I~JW. 3~01 CJ:H~IMONWEA~TH OF ~NNS~V~A  B~ ~ WAT~ ~U~Y ~ WA~A~ MA~~ INSTRU~IONS FOR COMPL~NG COMPONENT MUNICIP~ P~NNING AGENCY R~I~ Remove and recycle ~ instructions prior to m~iling comtxment ~o the al:~roving agency (DEP or delega~d lO~ll agency). Background This component, Component 4, is used to ot~tain Lhe ¢ommenl= of planning agencte~ and/or health clepartments having jurisdicUon over the project ama. It is used in conjunction with other planning mo;lule components appropriate to the characteristics of the project IXOposed. Who Should Complete the Component? The component should I)e completecl by any existing municipal planning agency, county planning agency, planning agency with ereawide jurisdi~on, and/or health department having jurisdiction over the ~je~t site. It is dlvidecl into seotiofl= to allow for convenient use by the appropriate agencies. The project sponsor must forward copies of this componenL along with supporting components and data, to the appropriate planning agency or agencies and health department(a) ('# any) having ]urisclicUon over the development si[e. These agencies am responsible for responding to/he qua, arians in their rt~a~: sections of Component 4, as well as pmvicling whatever add'~ional comments they may wish to provide on the project plan. After the agencies have completed their review, the component will be returned to the applicant. The agencies have 60 days in whir. II to pmvicle comments to the applioanL If the agencies fail to comment within thi~ 60 day period, the applicant may proceed to the next stage of the review without the comments. The use of rag~emcl mail or certified mall (return receipt requested) by the applicant when fmwarding the module package 1o the agencies will document a date of recai;~_ After receipt of the completed Component 4 from the planning agenr. Jes, or following expiration of t~e 60 day period wfUtout gammerS, the applicant must suDmit the entire campone _nt package to the municipality having jurisdiction over the project area for review and action. If approved ~ the municipality, the pmposmJ plan, along with the muntdpal action, will be forwarded to the approving agency (oep or ;Jmegated local agency). The approving agency, tn turn, will either apl:~ve the proposed plan, return E as incomplete, or disapprove the plan, based u~on the information provided. Instructions for Completing Planning Agency and/or Hea/~h Depertmerrt Review Component Section A. Pmje~ Name Enter the project name as It appears on the accompanying sewage fadlttles planning module component (Component 2. 3, ~s or 3~n). Section B. Review Schedule Enter the date the pm~age was receivecl by the reviewtng agency, and the elate tl~ the review was completed. Section C. Agency Review q. Answer the yes/no quesUons and pfovlc~e any descriptive information necessary on the lines provided. additional sheets, if necet~,~y. 2. Complete the name, trde, and ~jnature bloor. Aflach Seb-tJan D. Addrdoltal Comment~ The Agency may provide whatever aciditional comment It deems necessary, as described in the form, Attach additional sheets, if necessary, OB/16/20§& 09:67 Y/dj 7177747190 ~00~/005 ~.F~4NSINM~2A Rim/, ~/2eOl COMMONWEALTH OF PENNaYI.VANIA DEPARTMEt~ OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRGTEC~I'ION BI. JRE~MJ OF WA'I'~R eUPPLY AND WA,~I'~NA~ MAM,e,I~I~INT SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULE COMPONENT 4A ~ MUNICIPAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW MUNICIPAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW INoteto Project 6ponm~c To expedite the review of proposal, one copy your completed planning module your package and one oopy of this Plannix,~l Agen~ Review Component shoulcl be ,sent to the existing Ioaal municipal _pl_~nnlng agency for theh' comments, , .... . 61=OTION A. P~.OJECT NAME (8e~ 8,Clion A of instmu--tions) ........ ETLON B. REVIEW SCHEDULE (See aeotion B of instructions) 2. Date review completed by agency. SECTION C. AGENCY' REVIEW (See Seotion C of Irt~tructlons) ¥~ No 1. Is there a municipal comprehensive plan adopted under' tho Munioipalities Planning Code (63 P.S. t01D1, etseq.)? 2. Is this proposal consistent with the c, ompceher~ive plan fo~ Isn~ use? If no, ctescrlbe the Inconsistent. les Is this proposal.consistent with the use, development, and p~tection of water msoymes? I~ no, desczibe the inconsistencies 4. is this proposal consistent with municipal ]an~l use planning relative to Prime Agricultural Land Prese~vstion? Does this project propose encroachments, obstructions, or dame t~at will affect weaands9 If yes. desoribe impa~ ~ any known htstork:ml or amhaeologledll resoumes be imp~ed by this project? yes, describe Impacts Will any known em:langered or threatened .~ecles of plant or animal be impacted by this project? If yes, de~crite impacts 8. ts ~ere a municipal zoning ordinance? 9. IS tJIli$ proposal consistent w[th the orciinanoe? If no, describe the inconsistencies 10. Does the proposal require a ohange or Yafianoe to an e~L~'ting comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance? 11. Are any zoning ordinances that are applicable tO ~is project currently subject to any type of legal pro~secling? ~2. Have ali applioable zoning approvals t~en obtained? t3. Is there a municipal subdivision end land development on:[inance? -1- 1~]004/005 SEC'rIoN ,e~ No AGENCY REVIEW '14. Is t~is pmp,~s~l censistent with the ordinance? If no, describe the Incon$1stenclee 16. Will the project involve any of the following: t5.t 8 eite under DEP'~ land Recydl~l Pro, ram? 15.?- reciama~on Or remlnl~ ora previoUSly mined cite? [] ,~ 15.3 a Keystone Opportunity Zone, ~elect S.~e, or Enterprise. Development Ama? ,, [] 15.4 a I::~]gn~ted Growth Ama? [] 16. le thie plan consL~umt with the municipal Act 537 Official Sew'ago Faoilifies Plan? ff no, de,~flge the inconsistencies [] 17. Are them any wastewater disposal neede in the ama adjacent to this proposal that should be considered by tile munioipality? If yes, des~be [] ~ lB, Has a waiver o~ the sewage facilities planning requirements been requeste~l for the resi~lual tract of this subdivision? [] [] If yes, is tike proposed waiver consistent with applicable ordi~ulces? 19. Name, title end signature of planning agency staff member ¢ompleflttg this section: Name: Telephone Number. SBCllON D, ADDITIONAL C'OMMEN1~ (~ee Section D of i c, ions) This Cmnponent does not limit municipal planning agencies from making additjona,I comments concerning the relevancy of the proposed plan to other plane or ordinanoes. If additional comments am desired, attach additional sheets. The planni~i agency must COmldete ~his Compmlent within 60 days, Thl~; co~. portent en~l any. addaional cerements are to be returned to the project -2- 3800-FM-WSWMO362B Rev. 3/2001 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT IDEP Code >oz SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULE COMPONENT 4B - COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW (or Planning Agency with Areawide Jurisdiction) Note to Project Sponsor: To expedite the review of your proposal, one copy of your completed planning package and one copy of this Planning Agency Review Component should be sent to the existing county planning agency or planning agency with areawide jurisdiction for their comments. SECTION A. PROJECT NAME (See Section A of instructions) .. Project Name ~/? ~ .--~'/ZEE~ ,/)~--AJ~"~ C7" SECTION B. REVIEW SCHEDULE (See Section B of/nstructions) Date plan received by county planning agency. Date plan received by planning, agency with areawide jurisdiction Agency name (--- ~ ~.~3 c.,, [ O,--~.~ Date review completed by agency .SECTION C. AGENCY REVIEW'(See Section C of instructions) Yes No [] lB,,' ~ 1.. Is there a county 'or areaw!d..e comprehensive plan ~dopted ·under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. 10101 et seq.)? 2. Is thi. s proposal"consistent with the comprehensive plan for land use? 3. Does this proposal meet the goals and objectives of the plan? If no., describe goals and objectives .that are not met 4. Is this proposal consistent with the use, development, and protection of water resources? If no, describe inconsistency 5. Is this Proposal consistent with the county or areawide comprehensive land use planning relative to Prime Agricultural Land Preservation? If no, describe inconsistencies: Does this project propose encroachments, obstructions, or dams that will affect wetlands? If yes, describe impact [] [~7. [] [] lO. 11. Will any known historical or archeological resources be impacted by this project? If yes, describe impacts Will any known endangered or threatened species of plant ·or animal be impacted by the development project? Is there a county 0~ areawide zoning 0n:linance? D~es this proposal meet th..e..zoning requirements, of the ordinance? If no, describe inconsistencies Are any county or areawide zoning ordinances that are applicable to this project currently subject to any type of legal proceeding? -1- 800"FM-W~WM0362B Rev. $12001 Yes' .No SECTION C. AGENCY REVIEW (continued) [~" [] 12. Have all applicable zoning approvals been obtained? [] 13. [] [] 14. 15. [] O [] [;~ 17. Is there a county or areawide 'subdivision and land development ordinance? C(~ ~ I-i.~' I,( Does this proposal meet the requirements of the ordinance? ~I If no, describe which requirements are not met Will the project involve any of the following: 15.1 a site under DEP's land Recycling Pregram? 15.2 reclamation or retaining of a previously mined site? 15.3 a Keystone Opportunity Zone, Select Site, or Enterprise Development Area? 15.4 a Designated Growth Area? Is this preposal consistent with the municipal Act 537 Official.Sewage Facilities Plan? If no, descdbe inconsistency Are there any wastewater disposal needs in the area adjacent to this proposal that should considered by the municipality? If yes, descdbe be Has a waiver of the sewage facilities planning requirements been requested for the residual tract of this subdivision? If yes, is the prep•sad waiver consistent with applicable ordinances. If no, descdbe the inconsistencies ~JO ~ C~ ~,.~.,~.~. ~¥a. Zt' Does the county have a stormwater management plan as; required by the Stormwater Management ACt? If yes, will this project plan require the implementation of storm water management measures? Name, Title and signature of pereon completing this section: Name: ~'Pr~l ,,uN" /~, Title: g It. ~ Date: Name of County or Areawide Planning Agency: Address: ! ~ A J, ~ ~W~-[L ~i Telephone Number:. ('/,'3.) ~/-/0 - (,,~ ? ? Signature: SECTION D. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (See Section D of instructions) This Component does not limit county planning agencies from making additional comments concerning the relevancy of the prep•sad plan to other plans or ordinances. If additional comments are needed, attach additional sheets. The county planning agency must complete this Component within 60 days. This Component and-any additional comments are to be retumed to the applicant. 3930-PM-WMO041 212001 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF WATERWAYS ENGINEERING SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PNDI Screening /d Jcl cl ~.,.~ Reviewer ~',~) ~ Date 71 1,, Phone No, PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INVENTORY SI=ARCH FORM This form provides site information necessary to perform a computer screening for species of special concern listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Wild Resource Conservation Act, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Code or the PA Game and Wildlife Code. Records regarding species of special concern are maintained by PA DCNR in a computer data base called the "Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory" (PNDI). Results from this search are not intended to be a conclusive compilation of all potential special concern resources located within a proposed project site. On-site biological surveys may be recommended to provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence, or degree of natural integrity of any project site. Results of this PNDI search are valid for one year. Please complete the information below, attach an 8%' x 11" pllotocopy (r)o NOT REDUCE) of the portion of the U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Map that identifies the. project location and outlines the approximate boundaries of the project and mail to the appropriate DEP regional office or delegated County C.3nservation District prior to completing a Chapter 105 environmental assessment or any other DEP permit application. (SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR LIST OF OFFICES AND ADDRESSES). NAME: ADDRESS: ~'.,'T. ,/~'/S,~,~ ~ ~. /~C. PHONE: ( COUNTY: TWP./MUNICIPALlY: U.S.G.S. 7% Minute Quadrangle PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SIZE (Briefly describe entire ar.aa relevant to your project, including acreage.) AN'~OWN. PA North (Up) ~Z. ~ inches West (to the left) ~ r~ inches INDICATE PROJECT LOCATION TO THE NEAREST ONE TENTH INCH MEASURING FROM THE EDGE OF THE MAP IMAGE FROM THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SCREENING RESULTS - Follow the directions of the checked block. No potential conflicts were encountered during the PNDI inquiry. Inclu,de this form and the PND ~;cei~w th your Chapter 105 environmental assessment or other DEP permit application submissions. --> ~-' .... by contacting the natural resource ,agencies listed on the PN~{~'ec~t. PlEase Potential conflicts must be resolved provide a copy of this form and the PNDI receipt along with a brief description of your project to_r~l~..e listed a~ncy for consultation and recommendations. Include this form, the printed PNDI search results and th~at~l re_~urce agency's written recommendation with your Chapter 105 environmental assessment or other DEP LCermit application submissions. 1'~. OF .PENNSYLVANIA MENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS iPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SURVEY 7.5 MINUTE 8ER] NWl4 NEW CUMBER MARY~VILLE 8 ML t.~ ~. ~:~.~R~BU~ . ~t 2240000 Fi Oisposal i September 17, 2004 John Rhodes Rhodes Development Group P. O. Box 622 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0622 Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for North 17~ Street Project Deax.Mr. Rhodes: The Camp Hill Borough Council, at its meeting held Wednesday, September 8, 2004, took action to approve the above-referenced Preliminary/Final Laud Development Plan ("Plan") with the approval of certain waiver requests and subject to the conditions enumerated on the attached Plan Condition Form. The conditions were orally accepted by you at the meeting. Please sign the Plan Condition Form and return it to the Borough Office on or before September 30, 2004. If you have any questions regarding this action please contact me. Very tmly yom's, James Bennett Codes Compliance Officer Jeffrey Smith, Council President Thomas.C. Scully, P.E., P,..J. Fisher & Associates, Inc. Mark Malarieh, P.E., Gannett Fleming 2145 Walnut Street, Camp ~li, Pennsylvania 17011 · Phone: (717) 737-3456 · Fax (717) 730.3K1 E-Mail camphill@ezonline.¢om · www. camphill-pa.orll CAMP HILL BOROUGH PLAN CONDITION FORM Plan Name/Title: Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for 17~h Street Proiect Plan Type: Preliminary/Final Land Development Date of Action Taken: Wednesday, September 8, 2004 Action Taken: Approved, subiect to condition Waiver(s) Approved: (1) § 404, pertaining to submission of separate Preliminary Plan. '(2) §'607, pertaining to curbing along North 17t~ Street and private access drives within the proiect 3~ § 502.11.c.(1), pertaining to multi-family access drivewa,? width (4) § 608, pertaining to sidewalks. The waiver of sidewal[r requirement is granted for the frontage along North 17~ Street north of the northern lhae of the northern private access drive. (5) § 507.2, pertaining to storm water nmoffrate. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (1) (2) (3) satisfaction of all Engineer comments as listed in the attached September 1, 2004 review letter; approval of the Sewer Facility_ Planning Module by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP); installation of sidewalks for the frontage along North 17* Street from the proposed southern private access drive into the development to the proposed 'northern private access drive; and famishing of appropriate financial security for all proposed improvements in accordance with Camp Hill Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO). Attached Comments of Engineer: Letter dated September 1, 2004, reviewing Plan Submission No. 4. Post Approval Items: Reduced plans are required for recording; electronic copy required for Borough's files Date Codes Compliance Officer The undersigned, being duly authorized, hereby accepts the condition(s) that the Borough Council has placed on the action of the above-referenced Plan. Dat~ ~ ,/0~ , .~. j,c j FA~,/.._..'II ( er or X~uthorized Representative Rhodes Development Group, Inc. September 21, 2004 Mr. James Bennett Codes Compliance Officer Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for North 17th Street Project Dear Mr. Bennett: Per your request, enclosed is the executed Camp Hill Borough Plan Condition Form for our North 17 Street project. For clarification purposes, please be' aware that Rhodes Development Group has transferred the property to North 17 Street Associates of which I am a partner. When R.J. Fisher and Associates revises the final plan to reflect the commems of Borough Council with their approval of September 8th, the actual title owner will be reflected in the revised plans. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, JHR~c EnclosUre Cc: Robert J. Fisher RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. odes ~ . 1300 Market Street · P.O. Box 622 ° Lemoyne, Pennsylvania * 17043-0625: ° (717) 730-7055 * fax (717) 730-7056 MINUTES PLANNING COMMI S S ION 2/17/04 Planning: Gulden, Class, Waldner, Landis, Devlin Borough: Knittel Engineer: Malarich Tri-County: Park New Commission member Tom Devlin was introduced. January minutes approved. Reorganization [selection of new chairman and secretary] was postponed until March. GOOD SHEPHERD: Steve Quigley of Black Associates presented the Preliminary/Final Land Development plan for the Good Shepherd Church Parish Center. We heard comments and questions from the commission, borough engineer, Tri-County, and f~e public. A motion was approved unanimously that we recommend Borough Council approval of the preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Good Shepherd Church subject to the satisfaction of the minor housekeeping comments made by the *Borough Engineer and the *Tri-County Planning Commission. Tom Devlin requested to be recused from this vote. *These reports are to be considered part of these minutes. NORTH 17TH STREET: Tom Scully of Fisher Associates presented the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for the project of Rhodes Development Corporation. The requested waivers [curbing, sidewalk, and access driveway were discussed at length and it was decided to allow the developer additional time to review and get more detailed information to see if there is a way to facilitate foot traffic on North 17th Street. The reports of the Borough Engineer and Tri-Cp!ounty Planning Commission are to be considered part of these minutes. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 3/16/04 Planning: Class, Devlin, Robelen, Gulden Borough: Knittel Engineer: Malarich TriCounty: Park February minutes approved with the correction that Tom Devlin was not recused from the action on the GoOd Shepherd plans. Reorganization was postponed due to absence of two Planning Commission members. It was announced that the public meeting for the proposed new zoning ordinance has been rescheduled for Tuesday, March 30. Bob Fisher of R.J.Fisher Associates presented the Preliminary/ Final Land Development Plans for the Rhodes North 17th Street project. Considerations: 1. 30 condo type units are to be built on the site. 2. North 17th Street wiil be widened through the area. 3. Sidewalk will be constructed from the main entrance traversing south. 4. Several residents of the area expressed concern for sidewalks the length of the project along 17th Street. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the 5 waivers indicated on.the plans. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of these plans contingent on compliance with the reports submitted by the Borough Engineer and the County Planning Commission. These reports are to be considered part of the minutes. The County Planning Commission requests 15 minutes at a near future Borough Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES 'CAMP H~L PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Waklner. In attendance were the following: · planning Commission Members: Devlin, Robelen, and Waldner;, · Borough Staff.' Jim Bennett · Cumberland County Planning Commission (Tri ComBO: Janine Parle The minutes of the April 13, 2004 regular meeting were corrected as follows and approved: "(check PGR copy of minutes) Old Business It was noted by Chairman Waldner that the Borough has no or--ce concerning holding tanks and in the absenta of an ordinance, no approval for a holding tank cai1 be given. New Business Receipt of a letter from 1LJ. Fisher responding to Lemoyne Borough comments in connectionwith stormwater rmmgement atthe Rhodes Development onNorth 17~ Street was acknowledged. This letter was provided to the Planning Commi.~sion for information purposes. Public Comment Severalmembers ofthe public rose to speak regarding the proposed Itilltop Townes Development. These comments are outlined below and are unedited: Kathy Sellers Hookup to sewage. Five years ago she was told she could not hook up to sewer and could not repair septic system if it failed. She questioned whether current property owners wotdd be required to install sidewalks Are there plans to widen roads?? What plans does the developer have to protect privacy of existing residents? Comments regarding traffic issues MINUTES CAMP ¥iILL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 2004 2 Ruth Ann Crosley Sidewalks-Hilltop would need variance Should not grant a variance for Hilltop if Camp Hill is, going to seek money from outside sources to install sidewalks Sewer-no new connections Rules on holding tan~ Gary Rhoads He provided a brief history of the l'/th Street area. He stated that Camp Hiilis named for Hill at 17~ street (Civil War encampment) He asked if any consideration was made for preservation of artifacts (artifacts have been dug up by UGr) or for investigation by Historical Commission. Why would tax payers have to pay for infrastructure? Does Lemoyne have to increase rotes because of new developments in Camp I-tin? Don Brown Lemoyne sewer system is currently unde~ized Upgrade needed Cook Comments regarded increased costs to Camp Hill ~.~sidents due to sewer system for Jack Sellers Question as to when Rhoads can hook up to sewer system Can't build unlil moratorium is lifted Question regarding which zoning ordinance is to be re;ed for review (was told that the old ordinance applies) Melinda Slud~mki Questionregardingtimingofwhenapplications must be submitted and still qmlify for grand fathering under the old zoning ordinance General public discussion Does public have right to review plans before decisk)ns are made? Ms Park explained that when plans are recei[ved they become part of the public record and are available for review MINUTES CAMP Ym.L PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 2004 A reeommendationwas made that infomaafion such as plan notifications, notices, mutes ofthe Planning Commission, and other notificalions ofinterest to the public should be put on the website. Does a zoning permit have an expiration ? Molly Robertson Lemoyne residents not as aware as Camp Hill residents regarding sewage concerns Unideafified Male Plan.~ not made available to public when public asked Any menti°n of appeal of zoning permit? Carolyn Mazely Can we request additional information from a developer (infonmtion not specified in ordinan~)? What provisions are there for revising of Camp Hill's comprehensive plan? Should Borough Council cause the plan to be updated? Ginny (Spring?) Where are sketches now? (She was informed that the ball is back in developers lap) A second unidentified male Business which used to be at the site may have used pesticides and industrial chemicals Will the developer be required to resolve ismes relating to potential presence of pesticides and industrial waste at the ,,site? Has the question of pesticides been asked? The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 pm_ BOROUGH COUNCIL OF CAMP HILL MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 8, 2004 2145 Walnut Street, Prosser Hall Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Council President Smith called the public meeting to order at 7:130 p.m. Present were: Liesl Beckley Debbie Keys Jeffrey Smith Dave Buell Richard McBride Brim Musselman Absent: Burke McLemore Also present were Mayor Douglas Morrow, Tim Maro, Acting Borough Manager; Jan Ammons, Police Chief; J. Stephen Feinour, Borough Solicitor, James Bennett, Codes Officer. JeffSmith presented the minutes from the July 14, 2004 Council Meeting. Corrections were noted on page 4, "Camp Hill Safety Committee" and page 6 the Adopt a Project program should read "Linus Feniele." Debbie Keys motioned for approval of the minutes and Liesl Becldey seconded the motion. The minutes, with corrections noted, were unanimously approved. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Morrow presented recommendations regarding temporary sierra.q, and Mr. Smith referred these to Planning and Zoning for review and recommendations to Council. MANAGER'S REPORT Tim Maro distributed copies of the manager's reports for July 2004 and August 2004. They were made part of the minutes. Tim Maro reported Ed Knittel's surgery went well. Jeff Smith. presented Edward J. Knittel's resignation effective October 18, 2004. Ed Knittel's last day at the borough office will be September 17, 2004. It was motioned by Liesl Beckley (with regret) and seconded by Deb Keys to accept Mr. Knittel's resignation and approved unanimously. Jeff Smith suggested Council appoint Tim Maro Acting Borough Manager and Secretary. Liesl Becldey motioned to do so and David Buell seconded. Ail unanimously approved. C:~Documents and SettingsXReceptionistx~.ncal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK~Comacil Minutes for September 8 2004.doc Council President Smith announced at the beginning of the visitor section that visitors wishing to address Council should do so now, in the visitors portion because, at the request of Council and in conformance with standard practice in other municipalities, visitors would not be reco~tmized £or comment once the Council entered its regular business session of the meeting. President Smith introduced Mr. Leslie Bishop. Mr. Bishop, on behalf of the Lions Foundation, presented a gift of new visitors' bleachers for the football field at Siebert Park. Mr. Smith thanked Mr. Bishop for the Lion Foundations generous girl to the Borough and School District and indicated that acceptance of the gif~ would be acted upon later in Council's business session. Ms. Helen Sarraf of 430 Appletree Road presented her concerns of runoff water going into her yard from her neighbor's due to recent construction. Jeff Smith referred this issue to the Planning and Zoning Committee to investigate and to report back to council next month. Mr. Keith Yorks, 234 South 15t~ Street, inquired about update ibr Schaeffer Alley storm water issues. Brian Mussehnan will notify Mr. York's of a meeting with the Public Works Committee to be-held within the next few weeks to address these issues. Mr. Aubrey Sledzinski of 400 N. 17th Street asked why the August meeting was cancelled and asked if meeting would be rescheduled. Jeff Smith responded, that meeting was canceiled due to the unavailability of council members and would not be rescheduled. Mr. Sledzinski also asked whether or not.his appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board would stay any ftu'ther action on the Conner's development. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Sled~.in.qki to seek legal advice from his own attorney on that issue. Ms. Jackie Magaro of 3416 Bedford Drive brought her objections to council.regarding the "No Right Hand Turn" action taken along SR 11/15, stating tinct businesses in the area were not considered. Ms. Magaro also raised the issue of recent Council minutes not being available on the web page. Jeff Smith was unaware of the minutes not being available and will make inquiry before next Council meeting: Discussion followed Mr. Steve Knaub of 120 S. 30th Street expressed his objection ]regarding the ''No Right Hand Turn" action and stated that he received a warning from borough police. Discussion followed Mr. John Shavinsky of 2800 Fairview Road expressed his tha~/ks to the police for helping with the traffic on Fairview Road and Creek Road, where speed has been reduced. Mr. Bill Joachin of 3101 Yale Avenue, expressed his support and thanks for the ''No Right Hand Turn' signs. Neighbors who could not be present also expressed their gratitude for the signs. George .Geisler also spoke in favor, of the No Right Turn restriction and reported a noticeable decrease in through traffic. CSDocuments and SettingskKeceptionist~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OI_,K~Council Minutes for September 8 20tM.doc Mr. Dave Moyer of 1605 Myrtle Avenue expressed concern for the overgrown property on N. 17t~ street. Mr. James Bennett stated the issue is being worked on. Ms. Susan Fickes - Mayfred Lane expressed her concern regarding the soccer club's failure to follow roles for use of the Farm Bureau field previously agreed upon. Parks and Recreation will see that the Club President, Mr. Fonte, conveys these rules down to coaches. Liesl Beckley will follow-up on this issue. Mr. Floyd Focht of 237 S. 16th St. expressed is opinion that p015ce citations for people parking on the wrong side of the street and vehicles not licensed were issued inconsistently. Discussion followed There being no further comments from the audience, Council proceeded to its regular business session. BID OPENING: Sale of Surplus Bleachers PLANNING & ZONING- Mr. Bob Fisher- civil engineer for Rhodes Construction-- presented the Final Subdivision and Land Development Plan for the Rhodes N. 17th Development (the '~daodes Development") to Council for review and approval. Sheet 1 of the Plan includes a request for five waivers from provisions of the Borough's Subdivision and Land Development (SLD) Ordinance. The Camp Hill Planning Commission recommends approval of the Plan and waivers. The Borough's engineer has reviewed the Plan presented and confirmed that the Plan complies in all respects with the Borough's SLD except for the five waivers sought.. Waiver 1 -Section 404, pertaining to submission of a separate preliminary plan. The developer is proposing to combine his preliminary and final plans. Mr. Malarieh indicated this to be a common waiver. Liesl Beckley motioned to approve this waiver, Deb Keys seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved. Waiver 2 - Section 607 - Curbing along N. 17th access drives - pertaining to curbing. Mr. Malarich indicated that he felt the drainage for water runoff from the street would be improved by the absence of curbing. Liesl Becldey motioned to approve and Ms. Keys seconded. Discussion followed. The waiver was unanimously approved. Waiver 3 - 502.11 c (1) - pertaining to submission of a multi-family access driveway width. · The Borough's Ordinance requires a 22 feet wide width for a two way drive. The developer is proposing a one-way egress driveway of 12 feet. NO access is being provided at this point to discourage cars heading south from stopping or slowing to trwn in here on the down slope C:~Doeuments and Settings~Reeeptionist~Local Settings\Temporary lntemet Ffles\OLICl~Counefl Minutes for September 8 2004.doc of a hill. Liesl Beckley motioned to approve the waiver, Deb Keys seconded, and the waiver was unanimously approved. Waiver 5 - 507.2 - storm water runoffrate. The developer has installed storm water retention facilities to keep the post-development, 10-year storm runoffralle to 1.3 cubic feet per second and has made the changes requested in our March 15th review letter to allow for increased on- site infiltration. The storm wator runofffrom the site will discharge into the Borough of Lemoyne's storm sewer system. Lemoyne has agreed to accept this discharge..Deb Keys motioned to approve storm water runoffrate waiver, Liesl Beckley seconded, and the waiver was unanimously approved. Waiver 4 - 608 -Developer is proposing sidewalks only for the first 200 feet of frontage and is requesting a waiver of this requirement for the remaining frontage along N. 17t~ Street. Considerable discussion ensued as to the advisability of waiving or requiring sidewalks along all or various portions of the Rhodes property along N. 17t~. Waiver of the sidewalks would allow for a wider area in which to mound the earth and place more plants to screen the development from view from N. 17th Street. On the other hand,., concern was expressed that sidewalks should at least be extended to the northernmost egress drive so that persons walking out of the development from there would have sidewalk instead, of road to walk on when heading south toward schools and town center. It was also discussed whether or not the sidewalks should be extended all the way to the northernmost reach of the property, even though there were no sidewalks further north to connect to. Liesl Beckley motioned to deny the waiver as requested under section 608 for the sidewalk, but to grant the waiver of the sidewalk requirements north of the northernmost egress drive. This motion was seconded by Deb Keys and approved by vote of 5 to 1, with Mr. Buell voting no. At this point of the meeting, several residents expressed frustration at not being allowed to speak during this portion of the meeting. Council President Smith opened the meeting for public comment. Several residents expressed objection to waiver of the full sidewalk requirement, and some expressed opposition to the development and its layout. After further discussion among residents, applicant and Council regarding these issues, Council President Smith asked Council members if there was anyone who wished to offer a motion to modify any of the waiver decisions made to that point. No one offered any such motions. Mr. Smith asked if there was a motion to approve the Plan with. the waivers just acted upon. Ms. Keys moved to approve the Final Subdivision and Land Development Plan for the Rhodes Development along N. 17th Street, with the waivers as granted, conditioned Upon Rhodes compliance with the DEP Sewer Module Requirements noted in said plan. The motion was seconded by Ms. Beckley and approved by vote of 5 to 1 with Mr. Buell voting no. Mr. Rhodes indicated acceptance of the conditions of the plan approval C:~Documents and SettingsSl~eceptionist~Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Ffles\OLICl~Coun:il Minutes for September 8 2004.doc I:Hr~ALTH AND SANITATION Mr. David Buell presenting the monthly reports, which were made part of the minutes. Engineer's Report - Jeff Smith requested Mark Malarich to review the lifting of the sewer moratorium- PA-DEP correspondence dated August 19, 2004. Lemoyne was able to revise its hydraulic volume numbers from prior Chapter 94 reports and persuade DEP that the facility was not hydraulically overloaded under DEP regulatio~,s. Accordingly, the moratorium has been lifted. Mr. Smith, however cautioned that the sewer facility is aging, that hard rain episodes push the plants capacity, and that DEP is coming out with new, stricter effluent standards for various elements so that the facility will needed to upgraded in the near future. Lemoyne, Camp I-Ii11, and Wormleysburg have: and will continue to meet to plan how to meet these needs. Mr. Smith asked for a motion to direct the Borough Engineer to prepare an Act 537 scope of study to in order to apply for an Act 537 needs study grant that will continue the planning effort to determine Camp Hill Borough's needs and the expan.~ion of the treatment plant. Dave Buell motioned for a preliminary scope of study in preparation of grants, seconded by Deb Keys. Motion was unanimously approved. Health and Sanitation will meet as a committee to go over draft and make a recommendation at next council meeting. Final payment South 34t~ Project--this was referred to legal counsel and will be discussed in executive. Lemoyne Municipal Authority meetings July 7, 2004 and August 11, 2004, were presented--LWTP Annual Report and September Monthly Report and minutes were also submitted for the record. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Deb Keys distributed the monthly report and it was made part of the minutes Deb Keys presented the monthly schedule of meetings (1) WSCOG: September 20, ~7:00 pm. (2) announced the Planning Commission: 14 September ~ 7:00 pm (3) Market Street Design Review September 16 ~ 8:30 am (4) Camp Hill Safety Committee meeting: September 23 ~ at noon (5) Great Road Arts and Craft Festival: September 18,: 9:00 - 4:00 pm (6) Council Budget Workshop meeting: September 29, ~ 7:00 pm Health & Sanitation Comm. Meeting w/health board: September 13, 2004 ~4:30 p:m Deb Keys reported that the General Government Committee interviewed several excellent candidates for the vacancy on the Borough Civil Service Conmfission, and recommended the vacancy be filled by Mr. David Wemer for a six year tenn. Motion was presented to council to approve this appointment by Ms. Keys, seconded by Ms. Beckley and unaJnimously approved. Deb Keys presented the Maintenance, Indemnification & Easement Agreement with Talpier Associates for Talbots - Pier One for a bridge between the 2 buildings. Stephen Feinour stated it had been reviewed by himself and'by Mark Maim-ich and was satisfactory to both. C:X. Documents and Settings~,eceptionist~Local Settings\Temporary Imernet Files\OLKF~Counc:fl Minutes for September 8 2004.doc Debbie Keys motioned to approve the agreement. This was seconded by Liesl Beckley and approved unanimously. Debbie Keys presented the notice of a $10, 000 DCED grant award for computer related improvements acquired with help from Senator Mowery. Council will send a letter of appreciation. Penn DOT requested any changes for its Betterment Program Candidate: August 14 2004. Tim Maro reviewed last year's list and stated[ nothing in the works for this year. Deb Keys presented the Cumberland County Funding for Community Development and Housing Project correspondence. No action was needed. Ms. Keys presented Resolution 2004-4, a resolution of the Borough of Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Penn.~ylvania, approving the removal and sale of surplus bleachers. Two amendments were proposed: revise 3~ paragraph- insert dispose of by sale or otherwise if no bids and add that if there is no such bidder the property shrill be disposed of properly; revise paragraph 4th-add dispose of by sale or otherwise. Mayor Doug Morrow clarified that his company would be donating man-hours to remove the bleachers and that the bleachers would be disposed of properly. Upon motion by Debbie Keys and second by Liesl Beckley to approve and adopt the resolution, as amended, Council voted unanimously to approve.. Debbie Keys presented vouchers for August of $166,433.79 and September of $78,756.30 and motioned to approve payment of both. Liesl Beckley seconded and the Council voted unanimously to approve. Ms. Keys noted the absence of check registers for August, 2004 and September 2004 in Council's packet and asked she be provided with them. PUBLIC SAFETY Rick McBride submitted the monthly reports of the Camp Hill Fire Company and Police Department and they were made part of the minutes. Mr. MCBride commented that progress that was being made on Fairview and Creek Roads regarding sp~;eding and that he will keep Council posted on this matter. He also noted that the Public Sat~ty Committee will be meeting within the next couple of weeks, and will have a recornraendation for Council in October as to whether or not fmther action or modification should be taken on the No Right Turn issue. PARKS & RECREATION Liesl Becldey presented the monthly report and it was made part of the minutes. Liesl Beckley acknowledged receipt of a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Camp HilI' Swim Club. Ms. Beckley will send a letter of thanks to the club. Ms. Beckley presented a request to hold the Relay for Life event in the Borough (as was done last year). The date requested is June 24-25, 2005, from noon to noon. Liesl Beoldey motioned for approval subject to same terms as previous year, including standard insurance requirements. Dave Buell seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. CADocumcnts and Scttings'u~ccptionist~Local Settings\Temporary Intcmct Files\OLK~Coun,il Minutes for September 8 2004.doc MS.. Beckley presented the offer ora conservation easement from Dr. Allyn of 495 N. 25th St. to give the borough a porti°n 0fhis land bordering Siebert Park. Discussion occurred. Liesl Becldey reviewed the offer with Borough staff and concluded that, given the extreme slope of the land offered maintenance would be difficult and there would be no benefit to the park. Motion was made by Liesl Beckley and seconded by Ms. Keys to reject the offer. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Becldey will respond to Dr. Allyn's lawyer ttmnking him for presenting the land, but advising that the Borough will decline acceptance. Liesl Becldey informed Council that the recreational Deparmaent has received deposits from all community groups ming the Prosser Hall except one group. She did not wish to identify the group in public, but will send a reminder letter and giving the; group a cut off date for use of the facility if a deposit is not received. Deb Keys motioned to approve, Dave Buell' seconded and all .approved. Liesl Beckley presented the gift from the Lion Foundation of the new visitors' bleachers for Seibert Park.. Motion was made by Liesl Beckley and Deb Keys seconded to accept the gift and allow the' installation. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC WORKS Brian Musselman submitted a monthly report, and it was made part of the minutes. Mr. Musselman noted that Penn~lvania American Water planned to install a bigger water service line between 15t~ and High street and will pave the alley as a result.. Tim Maro presented the perm Dot Winter Maintenance Agreemem -for 2004. This is the stan~d agreement utiliT, ed every year to allocate mow-plowing duties. Brian Musselman motioned to approve, Debbie Keys seconded, and the motion was approved unaaimomly. 'Council went into executive session at 9:45 pm. To discuss legal and personnel matters. Council returned from executive session at 10:50 pm mad the me,~g was adjourned. / . Secretary ' · CADoottments and SettingskReeeptionistkLoeal Setlings\Temporary Interact Ffles\O/_/C~Counefl Minutes for September 8 2004.doc REAGER & ADLER, P.C. BY: DAVID W. REAGER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 20868 LINUS E. FENICLE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 20944 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-1383 Facsimile: (717) 730-7366 Email: DReager @ReagerAdlerPC.com LFenicle@ReagerAdlerPC.com Attorneys for Intervenor AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee IN THE COURT O F COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AND NOW, this NOTICE OF INTERVENTION __ day of November, 2004, comes the undersigned on behalf of Rhodes Development Group, Inc., and files this Notice of Intervention in connection with the above-captioned matter. Rhodes Development Group, Inc. is the owner of the subject property and as such, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 11004-A, is permitted to intervene as a matter of course. DATED: BY: Respectfully submitted, REAGER_& ADLER,~P~' David W. Reager, Esquire I.D. No. 20868 Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire I.D. No. 20944 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the following individuals via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Steven A. Stine, Esquire 23 Waverly Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Appellant Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Appellee John Stephen Feinour, Esquire 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Camp Hill Borough Municipal Solicitor Dated: REAGER & ADLER, P.C. BY: DAVID W. REAGER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 20868 LINUS E. FENICLE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 20944 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-1383 Facsimile: (717) 730-7366 Email: DReager @ ReagerAdlerPC.com LFenicle @ ReagerAdlerPC. com Attorneys for Intervenor AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant Vo BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee IN THE COURT O F COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY AMENDED NOTICE OF INTERVENTION AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2004, comes the undersigned on behalf of Rhodes Development Group, Inc., former equitable owner of the subject property and North 17th Street Associates, present owner of the subject property, and files this Amended Notice of Intervention in connection with the above-captioned matter. North 17th Street Associates is the owner of the subject property and as such, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 11004-A, is permitted to intervene as a matter of course. BY: Respectfully submitted, David W. Reager, Esquire I.D. No. 20868 Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire I.D. No. 20944 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the following individuals via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Steven A. Stine, Esquire 23 Waverly Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Appellant Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Appellee John Stephen Feinour, Esquire 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Camp Hill Borough Municipal Solicitor REAGER & ADLER, P.C. LINUS E. FENICLE, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 20944 DAVID W. REAGER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 20868 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-1383 Facsimile: (717) 730-7366 Email: DReager @ReagerAdlerPC.com LFenicle @ReagerAdlerPC.com Attorneys for Intervenor AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, 'Appellant BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee and NORTH 17TmSTREET ASSOCIATES, Intervenor IN THE COURT O F COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ; NO. 04-5220 CIVIL TERM PETITION TO POST BOND ON BEHALF OF INTERVENOR NORTH 17TM STREET ASSOCIATES AND NOW, comes Intervenor, North 17th Street Associates ("Intervenor"), by and through its attorneys Reager and Adler, PC, and fries this Petition to Post Bond pursuant to Section 1003-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247, as amended, 53 P.S. § 11003-A(d), and in support avers as follows: 1. Intervenor is the legal owner of a 6.75 acre parcel located on the eastern side of North Seventeenth Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania (the "Property"). 2. The Property is located in the R-2B zoning district under the Camp Hill Borough ("Borough") Zoning Ordinance. 3. Intervenor filed an application for Subdivision and Land Development approval ("Application") with the Borough Council of Camp Hill ("Borough Council") seeking approval to develop the Property as a 30-unit multi-family development. 4. The Borough's Zoning Ordinance permits multi-family uses by right in the R-2B District. Said Section 200-45B states in part as follows: B. Multi-family Permitted Use. A development for two-family or multiple- family buildings (defined as three (3) or more dwelling units per building) in which two or more structures are proposed as permitted by right, provided that the development complies with the following: (1) Access a. Major Collector Street. The tract directly abuts and the use will access a major collector street as delineated in the Borough of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan. 5. The Application was considered by Borough Council at public meetings in accordance with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. 6. At the public meetings, the public was given a full and fair opportunity to comment on the application. 7. Aubrey Sledzinski, Appellant herein, appeared at the public meetings and voiced objection to the Application. However, Appellant never raised the objection that he has raised in the within appeal to the approval of the land development by Borough Council. 8. On or about September 17, 2004, the Borough Council approved the Application. A copy of the approval is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A." 9. On or about October 18, 2004, Appellant fried a Notice of Land Use Appeal with this Court, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B." 10. In said Appeal, Appellant raises one issue, that being that the development does not directly abut and access a major collector street as delineated in the Borough of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan. 11. The Camp Hill Borough Comprehensive Plan, which plan is dated December, 1973, states as follows on page 30: "Circulation. In general, the circulation system of Camp Hill is adequate for both existing and proposed land uses. Several streets have been designated as major collectors in order to establish highway priorities for future decision making. These major collector roadways include Market Street, Thirty-Second Street, Cumberland Boulevard, Twenty- First Street, Nineteenth Street, Twenty-Fourth Street, Walnut Street, Chestnut Street, and Thirty-Fourth and Thirtieth Streets between Market and Trindle Road - Chestnut Street." (Emphasis added) 12. The map, as attached to the Comprehensive Plan, is titled Future Land Use- Borough of Camp Hill and is identified in the Table of Contents under the list of maps as Item No. 3, FUture Land Use and Circulation, shows North Seventeenth Street to be a Major Collector Street. Exhibit "C" hereto. 13. Appellant takes the position that the Comprehensive Plan does not delineate Seventeenth Street as a major collector roadway. 3 14. That argument is without merit since the Comprehensive Plan does delineate Seventeenth Street to be a major collector roadway. The future land use map, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, stated such. 15. Furthermore, the section of the Comprehensive Plan cited herein names major collector roadways but does not limit major collector roadways to only those named. 16. Appellant never raised the issue set forth in his Appeal at any of the public meetings held to address the Intervenor's land development and subdivision plan. 17. Sectiofi 11003-A(d) of the Municipalities Planning Code provides: "If the appellants are persons who are seeking to prevent a use or development of the land of another...the landowner whose use or development is in question may petition the court to order the appellants to post bond as a condition to proceeding with the appeal." 53 P.S. § 11003-A(d). A bond will be required where an appeal is deemed "frivolous." Id. 18. An appeal is "frivolous" if it presents no justifiable questions and the appeal is readily recognizable as devoid of merit in that there is little prospect that it can ever succeed. Collis v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Wilkes-Barre, 465 A.2d 53, 57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). 19. The instant appeal is frivolous on the basis that the Comprehensive Plan does delineate Seventeenth Street as a major collector roadway as set forth in this Petition. 20. The instant appeal is frivolous since Appellant waived the sole objection presented in the Notice of Appeal by never raising it at any of the public meetings when the land development and subdivision plan was considered by Borough Council. 4 21. The instant appeal was filed solely for purposes of delay. Because of this delay, Intervenor has or will incur damages in the amount of approximately $44,000.00 for carrying costs and delay costs. 22. Pursuant to 53 P.S. § 11003-A(d), a hearing is requested on this Petition and an Order requiring a bond should be entered by this Court for an amount deemed appropriate by the Court. DATED: /~//ffh~ BY: Respectfully submitted, Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire I.D. No. 20944 David W. Reager, Esquire I.D. No. 20868 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 VERIFICATION I, John H. Rhodes, of North 17th Street Associates, verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: I~J"l/ a/ John H. Rhodes EXHIBIT"k" C.~¢IP HILL BOROUGH PL,MN CONDITION FORM Plan Name/Title: Prelimfl~a_w/Final Land Develor>ment Plan for 17t~' Street Project Plan Type: .Prelimi.na .rT/'Final [,and Dev.el. opment Date of Action Taken: Wednes.day, September 8, 2004 Aciion Taken: Approved, subiect to condition Waiver(s) Approved: (1__) ~ 404, pertg~nin~ to submission_ ofscpm'ate Prelimin. ary Pla-,A ~ ~ 607, pertainin~ to curbing, alonz North_ ] 7'" S.t, reet and. privaie access drive, s within the project . (3_) [ 502.11, c.(l ), pertaining, to multi-fan-ill,,, access driveway width (4) § 608, pertaining ~o sidewalks. The waiver of sidewalk'requir.ement is .re'anted for the _fif. onta~e alone North 17m Street north of the northern l_ine of the nort. hern private access drive. ~ § 507.2, permininc2 to storm water runoff rate. .. CONDITIONS OP A.PPROVAL: satisfaction of a_!l Enaineer comrnen.t,s as list.e.d in .t.he attached Septemb'er 1~ 2004 revi..exE approval of the S.e. wer Facility Planning. Mo_dule bv the Pennsylvania .D. epamnent of Enviro~une:ntal Protection .,CPA installation of sidewaLks for the frontaee alono, North 17t~ Street fi'pin the pro~pose, d. southern. crivate.access dhve into the development to the proooaed no_rthern private ap. cess (.h'-ive: and fu__mishint~ of appropriate financial sccD.'r-iry for alt proposed imr)rove:.n, ents in accord_a33c~e with Cmnp Hill Subd.iyision ~.ynd Land Develppmcnt_Ordinmuce (SALDO). Attached Cor:m~enrs of }Sngineer: Letter dated S.eptember ), 2.004, reviewin~Plam Submi%~ion N'o. 4. Pokt Approval liems: ~, Rc_duced p_lans are req,,?ed for. recording: electronic c0pv rpquired for Borpugh's file. s · ' Date The tmdersigned, being duly authorized, hereby acceots the condition(s) that tine Borougi~ Council has pla~ccd on the action 5f thc above-referenced Plan. ~er or Authorized Representative TOTAL P. 96 ALiBREY SLEDZ1NSKI, Appellant BOROUGH COUNCIl., OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL Appellee ]~1 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUN .['Y, PENNSYL\,'ANIA CIVIL ACTION- EQUITY .' " NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL .'\XrD .,NOW this 18`;'dav of October 2004 comes the Appellant, Aubrcy Stcdzinski and fi}es this Land Use Appeal fi'om a decision of thc Borough Council of the Borough of, Camp I'li.~l, Cumberland County, Permsylvania, granting a land development approval on the grounds set l-o:-t h be}ow: Yhc Appellant, Aubrey Sledzinski is an aduh individt~a} and the owner of 400 North Street, Camp ,l:-li!t, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Sledzinski"). 2 The Appellee is the Bol'ough Couacil of thc Borough of Camp H'i!!, Cumberland County, !.'em~',.,lvania with ofl'iccs at 2145 Wah~ut Street, Camp I'lill, Pennsylv auia (thc "Borough"). The premises in ¢lUestion in this appeal is a 6.75 acre tract locatcd on the eastern side of Norc}'l 17tt' Street, Camp Hill, Cumber}and Counly, Pennsylvania (the 1 ' Premises is .ocatect in an R-.2B residential district under the provisions of tb.e B :~'ougl, of Camp Hil! Zoning Ordinancc. The Premises is owned by Rhodes Development ©roup, Inc., with an address of P.O. Box - 622, Lcmoyne, Per, nsy!vania (the "Owner"). 6. The Owner made application with the Borough for approval o£ a land development plan to develop the Premises wit}~, a thirty (30) unit multi-family development known as the 17'~4 Street Projecl (the "Plan"). 7, -On September 17, 2004, the Borough issued a written decision approving ~he Plan with five (5) requested waivers and sul~ect to rotor (4) conditions (the "Decision"), A copy offthe Decision is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". The Plan provides that the Premises abuts and t~ses North 17 Street fro' access. 9. Section 200-45.B(1 )a provides that multi-family deYelopments n!ust directly abut and access a major collector street as set forth in thc Borough of Camp Hill Comprel~e~s?e Plan. 10. in the Borough of Camp Bill Comprehensive Plan, North 17th Street is not set Ibrth as a major collector street. i 1. Thc action of the Borough in approving the Plan was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of d~scret~on m~d contrary to law in that thc Plan does not comply with. Sectio~ 200-45.B(1 )(a) of the Borough of Oamp Hill Zoning Ordinance because the Premises does riot abut ]hor does access a major collector street as set forth i~.~ the 'Bo]'otlgh of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan, W.:IEI&EFORE, Appellant requests that this Court reverse the action of thc Borough Council of the Borough of Camp Hill and direct that the Plan, which is ~c subject of this appeal bc denied. Attor~ey I~)~i~44859 23 'Waverly Drive 1.turnmelsto',vn, PA 17036 (717) 903-1268 Atto:'~'my for Appella:~.t EXHIBIT"A" C.~VIP HILL BOROUGH PLAN CONDITION FORM Plan N~wne/Title: Prelimfl~ary/Final Land DeveloCment Plan for 17th S~eet Proiect Plan Type: P_r_eliminary/FinaI [,and Devel. qpment Date of Action Taken: Wednes_d,a¥, September 8, 2004 Action Taken: At, proved, subiect to condition Waiver(s) Approved: (1_) ~ 404, pertaininz to submi.ssion.of sepm'ate Prelimin. arc Pla_n.= ~ $ 607. pertainip~ to curbing, alon~.North_ 17"' S.t. reet an.c[ private access drive, s within the project .(3_)'} ~ 502.11 ,c.(1), pertaining to multi-family access driveway width ~ § 608, pertainin~ io sidewalks. The waiver of sidewaLk requir.ement is re'anted for the _fi-ontate alone. North 17th Street north of the northern line of the northern l~hvate access drive, LS_) ~ 507.2, pertainin~o to storm water runoff rate. .. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (2__) (4._.) .sg. tisfaction of all Engineer comments as listed in .the attached Septemb'er 1, 2004 rev. i.e~ lerteri ap~r9val of the S.e. wer F. acility Plannine Module by the Pennsylvania D_ epartx, nent of Enviromne,ntal Protection (PA i_nstallation of sidewaLks for the frontage alone North 17t~' Street fi'9[D the pro;pose, d. southern private.access d_.-dve into thc development to th,.e prooosed no!them private access cLrivm and fu__mishinu of aoprop.'date financi.al sec~_~.riw for ~,ll oroposed iml~rove:.-nents in accord~3c~e with Cmnp Hill Subdivi.qion ~..md Land Develomn¢:nt_O_ rdinanee Attached Cor:maenrs o£Engineer: Letter dated September 1, 2004, reviewing..PDm Submi~sioL,. No. 4. Post Approval Items: ~, ?.___q.duced plans arc required for recording: electronic.copv required., for Borough's files . 'Date The tmdersi~maed, being duly authorized, hereby acceots the condition(s) that tlne Borough Council has plgced on the action 6f tt~c above-referenced Plan__ Date/ horizon-' Rep~es en ta[~ve TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOROUGH of CUMBERLAND' COUNTY CAMP HILL PENNSYLVANIA WILLARD ~ DETWEILER,dR.,INC. CITY 8~ REGIONAL PLANNERS LIST OF FIGURES 1. Regiop~l Population Growth 2. Existing Land 3. General Pund Raceipts 4. General Fund Disbtnrsements 5. Real Estate TaXes 1967 -,1972 6. Highway Aid Pund 7. Bonxied Debt P. age 1 11 19 21 22 23 24 LIST OF MAPS l. Topography 7 .... ~2< Existing T.m~d Use 12 C) 3. Future !~nd Use and Circulation 31 4. Market Street Plan 34 As detailed in the section on Market Street, a concentrated develop- ment ~ea is proposed for Market Street, between TWenty-First and Twenty- Third Streets. This high intensity area is to include high density resi- · dential, use, bus/ness offices and ccu~arcial facilities interwoven with suitable open spaces~ A syst~n of c~rcial nodes among other intensive uses will thus be created along Market Street. Industrial Trend Use Little change is recmxnended in industrial land use within the Bor- ough. Not only is industrial land use generally incompatible with the res- idential nature of Camp Hill, but also there is little vacant land available within the Borough for industrial development. Modern industrial establish- mants prefer extensive sites, especially for m~_ms production lines and ]~rge scale operations and are accord/ngly being attracted to the more open, semi- rural municipalities of the Metropolitan Area. Open Space and Conmmity Facilities The existiog park system in Camp Hill is generally good. As mentioned above, small open space areas should be required in the high intensity land use areas. Also, thru present park facility adjacent to the Conodoquinet Creek should be extemzled norttmmrd along the water front, in order to protect the fl~odpla/n. This is particularly _~mportant in view of the severe flood hazard in this area. Trees and other plantings near 'the Creek banks will also help control erosion, which is a major factor in sediment pollution of the creek. Tbm present c~_~%ity facilities in the Borough may be adequate to serve the present population, but may req,~ve future expansion. Circulation In general, the circulation system of C~m? Hill is adequate for both existing and proposed laud uses. Several streets have been designated as major collectors in order to establish highway priorities for future deci- sion ~_~m_~king. These major collector roadways include Market Street, Thirty- .............. S___e~._d__~_t~_..e_e_t, Curberland Boulevard, Twenty-First Street, Nineteenth Street, Twen~ Fo~i- ~e~"~l~-E'fr~t~'-CS~'~n~--St~-~7 -Rfi-d- Th~'~--Fcyt~r--~h-~m-d ................. Thirtieth Streets between Market and Trindle Road-Chestnut Street. 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the Petition for Bond filed by Intervenor North 17th Street Associates was served on the following individuals via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Steven A. Stine, Esquire 23 Waverly Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Appellant Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Appellee John Stephen Feinour, Esquire 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Camp Hill Borough Municipal Solicitor Dated: AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant Vo BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee and NORTH 17TM STREET ASSOCIATES Intervenor IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 CIVIL TERM MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO: AND NOW comes the Appellant, Aubrey Sledzinski, by his attorney, Steven A. Stine, respectfully requests that this Court continue the heating on the: Petition for Bond in the above- captioned case, and in support thereof represents as follows: 1. Appellant commenced the above-captioned appeal on October 18, 2004, seeking to reverse the approval of a land development plan known as the 17th Street Project, which was approved by the Borough Council of the Borough of Camp Hill on September 17, 2004. 2. Initially, Rhodes Development Group, Inc. intervened in the appeal as the equitable owner of the subject property, then on November 12, 2004, North 17th Street Associates filed an Amended Notice of Intervention as the owner of the subject property. 3. On December 8, 2004, Intervenor, North 17th Street filed a Petition for Bond seeking to require the Appellant to post a bond as a condition to proceeding with the appeal. 12/16/2004 12:14 FAX 717 730 7366 REAGER & ADLER ~002/002 THEODORE~ADLER + OAVIDW. REAGER CHARLES E. Z ALESKI LtNUS E. FENICLE DEBRADENISON CANTOR THOMAS O. WILLIAMS SUSANJ. SMITH Writm's Email Addre;s: Ifeni~e~re3geradlet0c.com REAGER & ADLER, PC A]-rORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 2331 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011-4642 717-763-1383 TELEFAX 717-730-7366 WEBSITE: ReagerAdlerPC.com SUSAN H. CONFAIR TIFFANY M. CARTWRIGHT PETER R. WILSQN ,~CedJfied Civil Trial $13ecialis{ Steve Stinc, Esq. 23 Waverly Drive Humm¢lstowr~, PA 17036 December 16, 2004 Sleflinzskl v. Borough Council of the Borough of Camp Hill and North 17*~ Street, Intervenor No.: 04-5220 Dear Steve: It is my understanding that you have a pre'planned trip scheduled which makes you unavailable for a heahng on December 27 at 1:30 p.m. in regard to the Petition for Bond. [ hav~ no objection to a continuance in view of your situation. I would ask that it be rescheduled at the court's earliest convenience. Very.tn~yo~rs~,,.~''~ LEF/dmb AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant Vo BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee and NORTH 17TM STREET ASSOCIATES Intervenor IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 CiWIL TERM ORDER AND NOW, this~day of~, 2004, upon consideration of Appellant's Motion for Continuance, said motion is granted and. the hearing on Intervenor's Petition to Post Bond is continued to the /~day of ~ ,2005 at ~ _~.m. in Courtroom No. fiat the C County Carlisle, __ unl~~use,_ Pennsylvania. Edward E. Guido, J. .o4 AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant VS. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-5220 Civil Term SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFIED RECORD TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: The following constitutes Supplements to the Certified Record in the above-captioned action: 1. Borough Engineer Review Report dated 9/1/2004 2. Comprehensive Plan of the Borough of Camp Hill 3. Ordinance No. 1004 amending Chapter 200, entitled "Zoning", Article VIII, entitled "R-2B Residential District", Section 200.45, entitled "Use Regulations" of the Camp Hill Borough Code. CERTIFIED TO BE THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE CERTIFIED RECORD IN THE ABOVE-REFERENCED MATTER. NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP ~. 'S;p~ mei~ou}} ~sq~ire - Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Solicitor for Borough of Camp Hill Date: December 30, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on the date stated below, I, J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire, of the firm of Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby certify that ! this day served the foregoing "Supplement to Certified Record" by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to the following: Steven A. Stine, Esquire 23 Waverly Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire Reager & Adler, PC 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4642 Date: December 30, 2004 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP {/- / J. S~ephen Feinour, Esquire ~---~--~ Supreme Court ID//24580 200 North Third Street, P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Telephone: (717) 236-3010 Solicitor for the Borough of Camp Hill §nnnel:l: Fleming SepTember 1, 2004 GANNETT FLEa'lNG, INC. P.O. BOx 67100 Harrisburg, PA 1'7106-7100 Location: 2(37 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Offl~: (717) 78:t-'/211 Fax: (7? 7) 763-7322 www. gan nottfleming .c~3rn Mr. Edward Knitt¢l, Manager Borough of Camp Hill 2145 Walnut Street Caxnp Hill, PA 17011 Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Rhodes Development Group, North I7th Street - August 27, 2004 Submission Dear Ed: We have reviewed the third submission of the referenced plan, prepared by R. J, Fisher & Associates, Inc. for conformance wi/h the Borough's Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances. The existing property consists of one 6.75-acre undeveloped wooded parcel'within the R-2B zoning district. The Plan proposes the construction of seven separate multi-dwelling townhouses that will be in condominjmm ownership. The project proposes a total of 30 dwelling units. Our March 15, 2003 letter to the Borough presented six review comments on flxe second submission for the project. The BoroughPlanning Commission reviewed the second sub~ission of the project plan~lat its March 2004 meeting and recommended approval of the plan, pending resolution of ~11 of our review comments and the review comments provided by the Cumberland County Planning Commission. The second submission included five requests for waivers. The Borough Plaxming Commission recommended approval of ali five waivers. The wa/vets are listed on Sheet 1 of the plans and described in Comment No. 1 below. Based on our review of the third submission, the proposed plan now addresses, all of the comments raised in our March 15, 2004 letter except as noted be!Low. We offer the following for the Borough's consideration: Sheet 1 of the Plans includes a request for waivers from the follow/ng Sections of the Borough's Subdivision and Land Development (SLD) Ordinance: · Section 404, pertaining to submission of a separate preliminary plan. The developer is proposing to combine his preliminary and final plan. · Section 607, pertaining to curbing along bor. h North 17th Street and the private access drives within the project. Tlxe developer is not proposing curbing to allow stormwater to run from the streets to the grassed areas to facil/tate infiltration. · Section 502. I 1.c.(I), pertaining to multi-family access driveway width. The Borough's Ordinance requ/res a 22-feet wide width. The developer is proposing a one-way egress driveway of 12-feet. A Tradition of Excellence Gunnp. Lt fleming Mr. Edward Knittcl, Manager Borough oF Camp Hill -2- September l, 2004 Section 608, l~ertaining to sidewalks. The developer is proposing sidewalks only for the first 200 feet of frontage (fi-om Myrtle Avenue to the proposed access drive into the development). The remaining 460 feet of frontage along North 17~ Street does not have a proposed sidewalk. Section 507.2, pertaining to stormwater runoff rate. The l%rough's Ordinance requires that the post-development stormwatef nmoffrate from the site be no greater than the pre-developm~.t runoffrate, for a I O-ye:ar design storm (20 minute duration). Given the presence of a retention w.all on the adjacent property that acts as a dam to stormwater rm~off; the pre-development runoff rate for a 10-year storm is essentially zero. The developer has installed stormwater retention facilities to keep the post-development, 10-year storm runoff rate to 1.3 cubic feet per second (assuming no infiltration occurring within the retention basin) and has made the changes requested in our March 15th review letter to ailed/for increased on-site infiltration. The stormwater nmoff from the site will disctmrge into the Borough of Lemoyne's storm sewer sy',t~m. Lemoyne has agreed to the discharge. The third submission addresses all of the review comments from our March 15th letter. However, we offer the following additional comments in response to changes made between tho second and th/rd submittal. The flushing/clcauout chamber detail on Sheet 13 of 13 is no longer needed and should be moved fi:om the final Plan. The Detention Basin No. 1 outlet structure detail on Sheet 9 of 13 should be revised to eliminate the 4-inch underdrain inlet to the structm'e. The developer moved the underdrain cormecrion, as requested in our }/larch 15~ letter, from the stormwater profile drawings on Sheet 5, but neglected to update the outlet structure detail. The third submission includes a partially completed Penn.qylvania Depattttent of En¥ironmental Protection (PADEP) Sewage Facility ?la~nqn$ Module for the project. Approval of the Plan should bE conditioned on the Developer obtaining Planning Module approval fi:om PADEP for the project. The Module is meant to address both wastewater conveyance capacity (addressed by the Borough of Camp Hill) and wa,stewater treatment capacity (addressed by the Borough of Lemoyne). The following steps are needed before the Borou~:t can adopt the Planning Module and submit it to PADEP for approval: Developer Responsibilities: Obtain Lemoyne Bomugh Auttiority' s signature in Section 1.4 indi,:ating ttmt adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project (PADEP requires that the owner or operator of the wastewater treau~ent plant (WWTP)) provide a letter attesting m the adequacy of treatment capacity when the municipality in which the development is located is not the owner or operator ofthe'WWTP. Gnnnel:t Fleming Borough of Camp Hill -3- September 1, 2004 Have the Cumberland County Planning Commission complete and sign Component 4b, indicating the plan is consistent with County land use planning. Provide a letter from Pennsylvania Water Company indicating it will serve the project. Provide a letter from the Pennsylvania H~tofical and Museum Commission regarding the site. Modify Project Narrative as follows: 1. Change "Authority" to "Borough" on the second line of time second paragraph. 2. Insert as the th/rd paragraph a discussion that the proposed low-pressure sewers and grinder pumps will be owned aud maintained by the condominium association for the property and the association will have full repair service capability on sho~: notice. Borough Responsibilities: · Have the Borough Planning Commiss'ion complete Component 4A indicating' the plan is consistent with Borough zordng and land use planning regulations. · Complete Section G. 1 associated with the Camp Hill sewer syste~r~ · Sign and date Section J.3 indicating that the Borough has sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the projected Wastewater flows from the project. · Adopt by resolution the Planning Module as an officia.l revision to the Borough's Sewage Facilities Plan. · Complete thc April 28th checklist and sign the DEP transmittal le~er fonn. A copy of this letter ha~ been provided to the developer's engineer for his review prior to Borough Council's next meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding our commenm or the project. Very tmly yours, GANNETT FLEMING, INC. Enviromnental Resources Division Proj eot Manager Water and Wa~tewater Practice Robert J'. Fisher, P.E,, R, $. Fisher & Associates Michael K. Lau, R&L Construction Company COMPREHENSIVEPLAN BORO.UGH of CAMP HILL CUMBERLAND'COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA WILLARD S. DETWEILER,JR.,INC. CITY 8~ REGIONAL PLANNERS COMPREHENSIVE PlAN FOR THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANia December 19 73 Prepared in conjunction with Borough of Camp Hill Planning Commission By Wlllard S. Detwatler, Jr., Inc. Community Planning Consultants 2118 ~pruce Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 December, 1973 Bornugh Council l~orough of Camp Hill Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Gentlemen: In fulfillment of our contract ~71-5-57 wfth the Borough of Camp Hill, entered into on February 5, 1971, we are pleased to submit this Comprehensive planning ReT~ort. Also, as separate documents, we are furntshln~r you a Summary Brochure and Zoning Ordinance. These results of the planning program, we are confident, will provide constructive directives for guiding Camp Hill's future growth and development. We wish to extend our gratitude to the Borough Planning Commis- sion who participated very helofully in the discussions and reviews of the planning materiats, as well as the formulation of the development policies and objectives contained in this report.. Res pectfully submitted, %¥ILLARD S. DETViEILER, ~R. , INC. Willard S. Detweiler, Ir., A .I.P. WSD/ss OFFICIAL COP~' A~OPI~ BY RESOLUTION ON THE 14TH ~AY OF 3~UARY, 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS Genera.1 Intro~k~ion Advantages of Long Range Ommmxxity Planning Some Pla~ Principles SECTION A: ANALYSIS OF LAND USE ~ Chapter I: Chapter II: Chapter III: Chapter IV: Chapter V: Regional Settizg Existing Land Use Transportation Finance SECTION B: PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT SECTION Chapter I: Chapter II.. Chapter III: Developmsnt Policies and Objectives Future ~nd Use and Circulation Plan Market Street Study Chapter I: ' Zordng Ordinance Chapter II: Continuing Planning Process i ii iv 1 4 8 13 16 25 28 32 35 37 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Regional Population ~cx,,~h 1 2. Existing Land Use 11 3. Gener~ ~nd Receipts 19 4. C~-mral Fund Disburse~?_nts 21 5. Real Estate Taxes 1967 - 1972 22 6. Higtmay Aid Fund 23 7. Bonded Debt 24 LIST OF MAPS 2. Exist/x~ Land Use ].2 C) 3. Future Land Use and Circulation 31 4. Market Street Plan 34 INT UD'ION The plarming program for the Borough of Camp Hill represents a twelve month intensive study ~dertaken by Wi~ -lard S. Detweiler, Jr'., Inc., _C~__mity Plarming Consultants, Philadelphia, Pennsy.lvamia. The consultant had ~onthly m~tin~s with the Borough _Cc~mi~sion and periodic cormultations with the Borough Council to review the findings and asce~t.-eln opinions. This report was f/nanced in part by an Urban Plarming Assistance ~ant ~ the C~tl% of Pennsylvania, administered by the a ~~p~a~.~ C~ty Affairs, and in part by local.funds. It reflects approach ~o deriving a basic w~iers~ of exiscin~ physical, econonic and social co~iitions in the Boron. and to da- lineating future land use patterns. Since in the final analysis, each co~ty ~st decide its own goals amxi priorities, the establisb,~nt of long range develo~t policies by the Borough citizens is a vital ccapon~t of this planning program. The specific planning schedule for the Borough of C~mp Hill consists of four major stages: 1. An analysis of la~J use detezminsnts. 2. The formulation of general development policies and obi ectives. 3. The d~s:i~ of the cc~prehensive plan m define future 4. The tee ~__~da~ tion of implementati~ procedures for sc-~- of the policies and proposals outLim~i in thru ccm- prehensive plan. Each step in this plmming process is described and the major find/rigs are thoroughly evaluated. i .- ADVANTAGES OF LONG RANGE ~IT¥ PLANNING ~ty planning is not rm~ in tbm United States. As early as 1792 George Washington adopted the plan of l'Enfant for the capital city. Since them, al- though planning has changed in form and mg. ture,, most American ~,,,.mities have attempted to plan their develc~mmmt ~n an orderly fashion. The very ex- tent and mature of the use of plarming indicate its advantages. More specif- ically, however, Camp Hill Borough can expect to obta/n the following benefits fr~n the adoption of a sound p]~n to control its growth and develo~t. 1. Achievsment of co-ordinated ccmnmity developmm%t. Changes which take place wi~ a ~ty are the result of hundreds of individual private and public decisions. Without a plan to guide the use of land, a man may build a house in a section which is only appropriate for industry, or a school may be located where there is little chance of substantial residential' development. It is the function of a plan to indicate how much Change is like- ly to take place within a given area and to show where various types of de- velopments should take place in order that lamx~ values may be enhanced and the general we/fare of tb~ citizens protected. 2. Esta_hlis _b~n~-nt of a pla~_ based ..on facts. One gr.eat a..d~n~tage of a well designad c°mpr~ive Plan is that it permits t~ze ~mpartlal analysis of the resources and potentials of a c~ty to the advantage of the entlve ccm- c~ .... miry. Only if there is an independent impartial analysis of the area can all the land be expected to be brought into optimum use. 3. Proper forecasting of needed o::,~,,~ity expe~xii .t~r_ es. Borough and County officials resp~rmible 'for providing s'chools, playgrounds, parks fire protection, and other services cannot plan effectively for these de- velopmants without knowing the potential growth and development of the area. It is the purpose of the ~ty develo~t plan to indicate tb~ nature and extent of future Borough and County requirements in order that long- range plans can be made for locating, desigrd_ng, and finan~ such pro- jects. In addition, only by having a program of all future re~,f~m-nts is -~t-/m~s s ibt~-t o'-effeutivety-at tach ~pr tor ~tfe~-t~---dif- f~_~ent--devet~mmemt~s-~m ................... the basis of actual need. 4. Safeguarding of the taxpayers. In order to prevent wasteful expendi- tures on essentia'fly unnecessary or inappropriate public facilities, tax- payers must know the comprehensive plan; this ~.11 permit them to measure all proposed developments against future Borough growth and needs. 1 Stanford Research Institute, Galifornia proposed direction of the ~~gr~ and ~ w~th respect to schools and pla2Eroun~s, if ~y are to make wise decisions. Mort§a~e lenders must be given assurs~:e that the buildings which they finance are not located in are_~s which may become blighted bacause of the intrusion of iuxRmtry, etc. ~t agencies - the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans AHm~nistration -- are more inclined to insure or guarantee loans on properties in c~m~ties where there is sound pl~; and large institutiooa_] investors are gr.~atly motivated by the type of p.~. in the te~m; consequantly, anyone er~aged mn it :s vitally interested ~n_the future value of properties; planntnE, of course, can do much to protect ~uture prop- 6. Creatio~ of a cozmxmity to which "outside" f~nancial assistance can be extended. This is most significant under the Federal Housir~ Act as ~ended which provides for grants and loans to assist co-,,,kraities in redevelopir~ b3~ghted areas, constructing cc~nnity facilities, providir~ open space, etc. The federal ~ov~t definitely has ~ ~tbe position that it will not help ommunities which do not have an active plann~ program. 7. Attraction of c~,~ctal and industrial activities. T~v~e enterpr{ses more and more are lookir~ to the conditions witl~k~ a co~mxxity and its plans for the future when selectir~.a location. A plan ~ives them an unbiased study of the future of the cc~smanity on which to base rational ~cisiorm. A plan guarantees industrialists that once they choose a location - in keep- ing with the plan .- their laud and improvemmts 'will be protected fr~n en- croaclxuent of other types of land use and, therefore, their inves__~/en_ t will be protected. On the basis of a plan, they can m~ke a lo~& range forecast concern/ng thru future of the coumunit7 and appraise their own develo~ts in the light of such a future. As a result, many industries which are locating in areas around cities have as one of their priumry locational criterion sound cmmmmity develo.~nt plsnntng. 8, Greation of a cuu~ty in which citizeus want to live, work, and play, PL~-sho-~-d-~-a-means-of-r~!_~ zin~_~ha~pi~..~f every_ .oue con~j. the type of co~m__~ty they wan~; only if there is planning for the orderly devel~t of a cuuuunity can such a goal be achieved. Areas are always changing; if there is no plan to control the change, they may' well develop in a fashion that prevents the fullest use of the land for the public wel- fare. A plan precepts the possibility of a region developir~ in a manner ~ich citizens do ~ot ~ant. SOME PLANNING PRINCIPEES2 O,,,,-~:~Ltv Dlann/ng is never finished - it is a con~ proc?ss. Any p~n off-~c~ial.ly adopted by Camp Hill Borough is mere. ly a br?ad.stat~e~en.t of the potentials ar~ desires of the cc~mm~ty based on ana-yszs o: past and present conditions. As these conditions dm~n~e, there may well h~ve to be alterations in the plan; since these alterations and char~es will have to be made with due cormideration on the part of all the citizens, it is /mportant to stress the principles underly~g most plsnnin~ decisions. 1. A _c~m~_ ,~ity plan - and more particularly the zoninE o. rd/nanc? which is allocated by the price sys~_em. ~n a no ..... . · ~ =~_ ~rke~ .. ~ is never the abolition o~ the compe=z~ve =o~ces oz uu~ -~== == the basic determinants of the manner in which land is used. It does, how- ever, provide the framework within which th~ price syste~ operates, and it attempts throu~ this framework to ~4n~mi~a any losses which mi~t occur if there were no plan. A plan is not a .substitute for the markat, but rather a complement to it. Finally, plannir~ seeks to ber~fit the .in- divi~ml as well as th~ public at large. 2. A plan must be flexibla. As conditions chanEe, the plan m~qt c~e with th~m. The only thir~ tt~t is permanent is charge. Cormequantly, comprehensive plans ~ust not be considared as urmlterable, Lronclad rules. 3. Essentially a plan ~ust reflect the thirds %~%ich the people of the ccunma~ty desire, and of course, these desires can and do c~e. It is a mistsk~ to believe that plarm/r~ can be only for expansion and development. Plar~ can be just as effective in preventtn~ expansion. Indeed, there i=and t~my may, for example, carefully de.szgn p-_a~s ~w~. cn e~z~..e .. ~3 F . . industrial develo~t. Planning m~st ~e a re~lection o~ rne o~ ~erenn arums and hopes of the co~ ~ity; stating ttmse hopes and achievers is importm~t to the success of the plan. a oamu~ty may be reflected in the way in which land is organized. 'If no youngster has to travel an excessive dist~nce to school and does not have to ~]k across a busy ~_y_, then schools and r~. ighborhogd 'are~ are well designed. If a housewife does not have to g6 an inordinate distance to shop, then cc~mer~ and residemtial areas are properly related. Thus, the probl~ of planning are the probl~m~ of relating different types of land use in order to ~=d~e the use of all types of land. Good planning is based on ~veloping and ~mforcing such relat~nmships. 2 Ibid. 5. The devel~t of adequate cbsnnels of mov~mt among areas is as important as the est_mh_lis~t of various types of land use in proper relation to each other. It is not enough to plan the use of land in such a way as to meet all objectives of good plainsong, if no~ng ? done to assure easy movement among areas. Conse~entl. y, planning zs con- cerned with streets, roads, and traffic systems ./n order to facilitate . op~_~n use of land. Mov~nt is as integral a part of plmm/ng as are land use relationships. 6. Planrdng'of cc~m~fties ~3~t be related to the position of the eom- ~xmity within the region and the state. Consequently, a fu~d~tal principal of plann/ng is to give due consideration to the relationship of the cu~mx~ty with the area which it is expected to serve. If the region is growing rapidly, ~ cc-~__~ity must be prepared to expand its commercial facilities, for e~mple, to serve the population of the region. Pla~ for C~m~, Hill Borough ~,mt be based on ma/n~ for the ~ munity an appropriate place in growing Cumberland County. 7. Although plmmizg is forward lookirg in that it attempts to predict the future, it also is ~d, in a limited way, with correcting the mistakes of the past. A principle of plarazlng is, therefore, that wher- ever a condition is contributing to something less than the best use of land within the _ec~m_~ity, efforts m~st be made to rectify the error. Consequently, plann/ng is concerned with problems of flight, overcrowded shopping areas, congested residential districts, unsafe road conditions, etc. As conditions change within a community, problems of this type develop and properly should be considered an integral part of those plann~ functions concerned with rehabilita~on programs. In mmmary, as com~ttiorm change, plans m~st be ahanged; ~ut the princi- ples on which plans are based do not Change and are valid for application to any cc~,unity, regardless of its location, size, or ecu~c structure. The stated objectives and principles of planning, therefore, should be used as guidelines in the develotxnent of a c___c~_prehensive plan for Camp Hill Borough. SECTION A: ANALYSIS OF LAND USE DEIEI~IN/~ CHAPTER I: REGIONAL SETTIN~ The Borough of C~,m? Hill is located directly across tim Susquehanna River from the city of Harrisburg. As the state .capital and major city of central P~mylvania, Harrisbur~ bas al~ays exerted a stron~ influence on Camp Hill. However, C--,,I, Hill is also part of the dy~m~c sOUth-central region of Pennsylvania. This area can be ro~y defined as the quadrangle formed by Carlisle, York, ~nr~ter and Lebanon. ~he rapid growth of this area in the past few years has been accompanied by increasing demands for housing, trans- portation and other services, as well as incre_~_?ed employment opp~ties and an expanded _~,3arket for the economic enterprLse~ of the region. Tbm Csmp Hill region has had a population growth rate consistently higher than the state average. While Pennsylvania's populatiom .g~.ew by 7.8 percent between 1950 and 1960, the population of Cumberland, Dauphin, York, !~ncaster and Lebano~ Counties increased by appro~-tely 18.2 percemt. Between 1960 and 1970, Pennsylvania's population incre_~_sed by (rely 4.2 percent while the population of the five county area grew by 13.4 percent. Within tha five county area, O~herland County has had the highest growth rate during the past two decades, increasing its population at almost three t~=~ the rate of Dauphin and Lebanon Counties. The pattern of population growth with/n the region reflects the areas trend toward decentralization. Tbmre has been little, if any, population increase in the central cities of the region si~e 1950. The population growth has instead occurred in the suburban areas, especially in the major transportation corridors running between the major cities. This population movement into thru suburbs generally falls into the classification of rural non-farm devel- opment. The new suburban areas thus have tended to r~n dependent on the establishad urban centers for employment, shopping and recreation, with the conc~tant reliance on the private auto~obile. Figure 4/1 REGIONAL POPULATION GROWIH ......................... 4~...ea ................... 1960-Pnpulation_..195D_-~Q ....... _Population 1970 1960-70 Ownherland Co. 124,816 32.17. 158,177 26.7~4 DaupHin Co. 220,255 11.4~ 223,834 1.67. Lancaster Co. 178,259 18.6% 319,693 14.8% Lebanon Co. 90,853 11.2% 99,665 York Co. 238,336 17.6% 272,603 14.4~ Pennsylvania 11,319,366 7.8 1'1,793,909 4.2~ Source: U.S. Census Bureau Ihe five county area has historically f~ a somewhat h~Dgenmus ecorxxnic unit. The economy of the region has been characterized by the preduminance of agrtcdlture, and, with the growth of the state capital at Harrisburg, of a public -dm~nistration sector. Most of the farming has been of a general mature with ds/fy products, livestock, field Oro~s (~crn, oats, wheat, 'hay), poultry products, vegetables and fruits c~Trrtsing the leading agricultural products. Agriculture has been a prosperous sector of thru regional econnmy primarily hecause of the extensive ~r_ ket provided by the Harrisburg urban area and t/lc outs~ .transportatio~ channels facilitating rapid and efficient H~tribution to more distant points. Recently there has been a trend ..~m~rd fewer but larger fazms in order to achieve more efficient pro- duction. Total farm acreage has declined sppro~M~mtely ten percent since 1950. Thru m~Ber of farms in the region, however, has d~clined by roughly twenty-five percent. In general, farms of less than 100 acres have either been absorbed by larger fazms or have been subdivided for housing. The state as a w~mle has experienced an even sharper declJ/le in its faring sector, having lost appro~4~m, tely twenty percent of 'its agricultural acreage and a T__~rter of its farms since 1950. The highly pro~k=tive agricultural land in the region seems to assure the cont/nued importance of agriculture in the regional ~, part/cularly in the out-lying arems. However, there is a high probability that those farms located near urban centers will not withstand cont/nued suburbanizati~ pressures. The public administration sector can be expected te continue, to grow rapidly. Regional -,?loyment in public s~nistration is presently over.ten percent of the tot~]_ regional emp~~, almost U~rice t/%e state average. The number of public employees will probably increase rapidly due to the growing role of goverrc~nt in the economy and the increasin~ dezsnds for public services of an increasing population. In o~hmr ar-as of economic activity, the regtom tends to have less manufac- turing but ecuparable wholesale and retail trade in terns of employm~t' t/mn t/%e state or national average. The Harrisburg Metropolitan area ploys only 22.9 percent of its labor force in manufacturing ccupared to 3~.1 -' ' ................... p~r~n~-'~or~TJne-state-sm~-~-5-.~--pe~ce~-for--T~e-nation .... The_Harr£sb~_~, ................. Bowater, has a well diversified industrial base. Leadin~ industries include food and kindred products, apparel and related products, both primary and fabricated metal pro_~_~cts and learner products. The variety of industrial categories illustrates a significant potential for /ndustrial growth. Industrial growth will undoubtedly be stimulated by the importance of the Harrisburg area as a distribution center. Both the natural and -~n-made advantages of the area have ensured ~ cont/nu/ng predominance of burg as a key distribution point. The topographical conditions which have contributed to the concentration of canal and railr-~ad facilities at Harrisburg have also mdc it a junction for the ]~terstate ~ System. Consequently, wholesale and retail trade is the cb/rd largest ~loyment category in the I{arris~ area, almost equalling the number in public ad- 2 A network of rail lines radiate outward frcm the city of Harrisburg. The railroads follow, along the banks of the Susquehsmm and Juniata Rivers and cut across the Cumber~ and Lebanon Valleys to .connmct the Harrisburg area with the Appalachian region to the north, with Chsmbersburg and Hagersto~ to the southwest, York and Bait/more to the south, Philadelphia to the east, and Lebanon, Rmad/ng and Allentown to the northeast. While rail transporta- t/mn has experienced a decline s/nce World War II, it cont/nu~s to offer an h~portant locatioDal advantage to ir~try. The highly network, however, plays an increasingly significant role in the movement of people and goods. 'A network of high speed expressways links the region with Philadelphia, Allemtown-Bethlehem, Pittsburgh, Balt~nre and P, oar~)ke, Virgim~a. Thmse i~clude such major regional roadways as the sylvania Turret, Interstate 83 (York Expressw~), Interstate 81 and an im- prove d U.S. Route 15. Additional freeways which are scheduled for comple- tion in the Drear future include a relocated U.S. Route 230, which will provide for a four-lane divided expressway with limited access connecting Harrisburg with southeastern Pennsylvania, including the cities of T~ncaster and Phila- delphia. U.S. 422 is also scheduled for relocation and upgrading to a divided, limited access expressway. ~ will link the Harrisburg area to Reading and Lebanon. A limited access, high speed roadway will be constructed from Cam- eron and Maclay Streets in Harrisburg to the Borough of Daupkin providing re- lief for the highly congested Route 22. Also scheduled is the West Sbmre Expressway 1~ 1-83 and 1-81. Curremtly in p~cess is the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study ~kTS), a c~mprehmnsive long-range plan for traffic mov~v~nt in the Harrisburg metropol/tan area. While it is too -~rly to marize the changes in traffic patters this study will produce, the impl~ ~m~en__ r- ation of the HATS proposals should provide the area with an outstanding reg- iomal highway network. O-~PTER II~ Introduction GEO6RAPHI C~L FEATUP~S One of the most important el~ts of the p ~lar~ process is an analysis of the existin~ geophysical ct~racteristics of the t~cipa.lity.' A thorou~ awareness of the potentials and limitations inherent in tb~ top- oEraphy, soil conditions, ~round water supplies and otter facets of the Borou~'s physical c:,,~-~sttion can be essential as ~mese are pri-~y t~ts of develo~t feasibility and land use. Only by respectiz~ the natural ecolo~ of the Borough can the geophysical assets of Camp ~ill be enhanced and sound develo~t patterns determined. Topography Camp ~ill is located in the O,_:~,~land Valley and the Susquehanna basin bet~een the Co~odo~et and Yellow Breeches Creeks. The northern part of Camp Hill drains into the C~t Creek, whils ~ southern part of o~p Hill drains into the Yellow t~eect~s Creek. The nature of the terrain is ~ently rollin~, altt~ 'there are some steep slopes alor~ ~ north central section of the Borough. The l~st point is about 320 feet, alor~ the ~et Creek. Cround Water Sources Northern C~:, Hill is underlain by calcareous shale. Ground water yields frcm this type of formation are 10 to 50 g~n fran most wells. The mai ority of wells deliver water fr~ zones less than 200 feet deep. The s~thern bulk of Camp Hill is underlain by carbonates-limestone and dolomite bedrock. Water levels may be as high as five feet ~elow Ero~d surface, seasonally. Water well yields frc~ this type of formation are hi~y variable. The Best locations are alor~ rock fracture traces. ~round water may be polluted from place to place; however, the ~reat majority of the hc~es in Camp Hill are cz~,-cted to a puSlic water system. The soils of the part of C~mp Hill north of Om~herland Boulevard are cceposed mostly of Berks shaly silt lom~, Weikert shaly silt lo~ and Bed- ington shaly silt loam. Berks shaly silt lom~ is well drained. Bedrock occurs at 2 - 4 feet. Depth of sesscmal high water table is 5 + feet. The permeability of Berks shaly silt lo~ is moderate to moderately rapid. Weikert shaly silt loam is well drained. Depth to bedrock is 1/2 to 1 1/2 feet. Its perm~mbility is mo~?~ately rapid. Depth to the seasonal high ~ater table is 5 + feet. Bedi~ton shaly silt ~ is well dr-~ned. Depth to bedrock is 4 + feet. Its p~m--%[lity is on the average, mo~_~ate. Depth to the seas- onal hi~ water table is 5 + feet. 4 Also, in this part of Camp Hill is fotmd, along tbm Conodoguirmt Creek, At/tins soils, which are deep and poorly drained, are sldwly to mod- erately slowly penueable, and have a high water table. They are soils of the flood plain and flood with every substantial ra/n. The problems in this area of w~tness, permeability and flooding present very severe devel~t. The floodplain, or the land adjoirdng the watercourse, is sub- ject to periodic floodirg as a result of overbank flow. Occupancy and in- tensive development of the floodpla/n should be prohibited im order to avoid the high costs of flooding. Suah costs involve not only monetary expense, but also expense in terms of irreplaceable property d~ge and ~ suffer- lng. The Conodogu/net Creek serves a vital function in the regional drain- age net~k, charmeling surface water into the Susquaharmm River. The Creek and the immediately adjacent land can also be an important scenic and rec- reational _ _m~aity as well as a vital water channel. It is therefore essen- tial that the Creek be protected fr~m pollution and abuse. By limiting de- velopment along the Creek, sed~t and erosion can be m/n~m~.ed, accessi- bility to the Creak's ~ties enhanced, and flood/rig costs reduced. In the southeastern quadrant of this part of C~? Hi. Il is found a small amount of made land, built up in shale soils. Made lam~ is a soils category re- ferring to areas where the original soils have been r~-ze_ d or their char- acteristics altered by extensive earth moving operations. The next sector of Camp Hill to be considered lies between Cumberland Boulevard and Market Street. Its soils are composed mainly of Bedington shaly silt loam, Duffield silt 10am, and (in the eastern part of this sector) Barks shaly silt loam. Bedington shaly silt lo~ and Barks sbaly silt loam have already been discussed. Duffield silt lo~n is well drained. It is 4+ feet to bedrock. It is moderately pe~__ble. The seasonal high water table is at 4+ feet. In the western add central parts of this sector of Camp Hill are lo- cated two areas of Huntington silt loam. Hunt/ngton silt loam is well drained. Depth to bedrock is 6 feet. It is moderately perme___~ble. The seasonal high water table is at 4+ feet. Huntington silt loam is located on flood plains . ~an-d _ is_subj 2nt_ fz~as.i~l ove~_~kc~.~, In the eastern part of this sector are located a few small areas of Blairton silt loam, which is moderately to somewhat poorly drained. It is 5 to 7 feet to bedrock. It is moderately (above the fragipan) to slowly Coelow the fragipan) permeable. The seasonal high water table is at 1 to 2 feet. There is in the ~stern part of this sector an area of Made Land, built up in Limes~ materials. Made Land refers to a m~scellaneous soil type, nearly level to moderately steep, which is formed by the mixing of soils during e_~rth moving and development. As a result of this mi~ing, on-site resting is nec- essary to determine specific soil characteristics. Thru last sector of Camp Hill to be co~sidered is situated between Market Street, on the north, and the southern boumdm7 of Camp Hill. Much of this sector is composed of Duffield silt loam and Hagersto~n silt loam. Duffield silt loam has already been described. Hagerstown silt loam is well drained. Bedrock occurs at 3+ feet. Hagerstown .silt loam is moderately. perm-~ble. The seasorml high water table occurs at 4+ feet. In the eastern part of this sector is an area of Bedington shaly silt loam (which has already been described). In the western, central and eastern parts of this sector are fcu%d one area of Huntington silt loam (already described) and two-of Melvin silt loam. Melvin silt loam is poorly dra/ned. Bedrock occurs at 3 to 10 feet. The p~ility of Melvin silt loam is slow to moderately slow. The seasonal high water table occurs on floodpln~ns. Contiguous with one of the areas of Melvin silt loam and the area of Huntington silt loam are ,small areas of Hagerstown silty clay loam, which has the same properties as Hagerstown silt loam, described above. Towards the eastern end of this sector is a small area of Barks shaly silt loam (already described), and towards the western part of this sector are three moderately sized areas of Made Land built up in l~n~stone materials~ Summary Develo~t patterns and the appropriate relationships of various land uses to one another are closely tied to the inherent physical fr_~ _mu~ork of tbs Borough. An understand/ng of the interrelationships between topography, soils, drainage ways, ground water and development provide a ba~ound for constructive land use plar~. The foregoing analysis has indicated that the Borough is well suited for development. The generally level topography and good soil conditions contribute to the suitability of ~ Hill for devel- op~nt. While ground water sources are only fmJ~ and able to support only very Iow population d~nsities, suah d~ficult/es have been overcome by a public sewer system. Similarly, the public sewer system enables the Borough to support high population densities. .............................. Tha--o~l~--~riD~s--limi~atiDns _ o f_ ~he_Borou~h ,_ s _geophysical.._ eharac~_ er , istics for developuM~t appear to be the steep slopes along t_ha Conodoguinet Creek and the conditions found in of and flooding are~_8 Atkins, Huntirgton Melvin soils. Flood/ng conditions occur primarily along the Conodoguinet Creek, and m/nimally along minor feeder streams of the Commdoguinet and Yellow Breeches Creek. While the Conodogu/net Creek thus imposes constraints on developu~mt, it is also an important element in the areas drains~e system, and provides a valuable scenic amenity. Careful preservation of the waterway can not only avoid costly cc~plications and damage to future development but also offer an enjoyable environment and enhanced property values for all in the area. CHAPTER I I I: EXISTING LAN~ USE ~ 1~ use ~~tion of C~ I-I~l cIea~l~ c~t~ates its c~ct:er as an. established residential ccumunity. Almost all the land with/n the Bor- ough · s devDted to residential use and supplementary uses such as convenience cu~u~re~al use. Very little vacant land is still available. The cons~zuc- tion of new roads and the obsolescence of some of thru older buildings in the Borough, however, are creating pressures for .changes in the present land use pattern. In order to obtain a detailed picture of the type and nature of ex/sting land uses in the tDrough, the consultant conducted a land use survey in Feb- ~mvy-March, 1971. This was a field survey, conducted on a street by street basis. Ail properties were classifiel according to land use, coded on field sheets, tabulated and transcribed into presentation form. Residential Land Use Residential land use is the predcudmmnt form of d~velopment within the Bor- ough. Approximately sixty-seven percent of tbm land area of Camp Hill. is in residential use, with all but appro~n~taly fifty-six acres being util- ized for single f~ ly dwellings. Of the land in multi-family residential use, only thirty-Two acres are occupied by buildings originally comstructed for multi-fsmily occupancy while twen~-four acres are occupied by structures which have been converted for multi-family use. Such conversions have occured pr4r~rily along Market Street, where old~-r d~ellings, umny of which have be- c=ne %macou~mical'to ~_jntain as s/ngle family dwellings, have been converted into apartments or a combination of apar~.ents and cu,,,'~-~cial facilities. Such a mixture of land uses is frequently incc~patible. The oldest housing stock of the Borough is located primarily south of Market Street. Scattered im~/dences of conversions are observable in this area, particularly in the section east of Nineteenth Street. The area of Thirty- Second Street and Trindle Road, across from the shopp~ center, is also sub- ject to pressures for conversions. Unless such conversions are governed by ........ a~ua--t~-5~l-dir~--ex~d~--~d-t~ular/nns-,-~ubs tJmdar d- rnnver s ions - could.--spt cad tArOt this section as the older single f~mily housi~ declines in value and becomes economically viable only in more intensive use. The gradual de- terioration of this section, however, can be prevented by the enactment of adequate control measures. The most recently constructed housing is located, north of Cumberland Bou- levard. No ~]ti-f~d~' ly residential land use is found in this section. Unfortunately, this area does not enjo~ tb~ convenience to schools foumd elsewhere in the Borough. In general, the public and semi-public facilities such as schools, churches and open space are well distributed among the res- idential areas of ~ Hill, showing the foresight of the early residents. A'problem does exist, however, for school children living in the section west of the Camp Hill Shopping Center as they must cross major roadways on their way to school. 8 In general, the residential sections are pleasant areas with well tm/ned houses and lawns. Old shade trees line the. streets, add/rig an en- joyable amenity and contributing to the graceful appeeran~.e of the Borough. C~mmrc~l Land Use Oammrcial land uses occupy seven percent of the. Borough's la~ area or' sixty-n/ne acres. Over forty acres are concentrated in the C~mp Hill Shopp~ Center located at Trindle Road a~d Thirty-Second Street. The shoppin~ center is scu~what of a regional c~_,~,~erc:Lal facility centn~nir~ a small department store and adjacent small convenience shops. Also a major shopping center is located just across the Borough line in Lenoy~. These c~m~e__rcial concentrations provide strong cc~petltion for the older commercial establistxm~nts strung out along Market Street. A/most all the ccamercial facilities of ~ Hill, outside of the Shopping Center, are located along Market Street. In some instances these properties are of a cce~ined residential-cc~ner¢ial nature. While there is a slight tendem~y for ~cial uses to cluster about Twenty-First and Thirty- Second Streets, coamercial facilities are generally strung out along Market Street in a "strip ¢~wcial" pattern. This category of land use is c~m- posed of cu-~,~=~.cial enterprises, which abut a major artery and are dispersed in a ribbon-like band. In m~ny instances a mixture of different types of land uses will be found immediately adjacent to each other, the cial usage being interspersed with residential or institutional uses. This condition often exists in developed cu,,,,,~ties such as Camp Hill, but efforts should be made to control strip cu~mm, rcial development so as to m!n~-r~ze its interference with adjacent residents:al uses. Industrial Land Use The Borough of Camp Hill has only a modest area of industrial land use. Industrial enterprises are concentrated primarily in an area of about forty- five ar. res along the railroad in the southern portion of the Borough. Institutional 7~nd Use Approw{~tely five percent of the land in tutional use. Th~ public schools account for a ]~ge portion of this land the BOr~, the Camp Hill Cemetamj at Logan and TWenty-First Streets, the ~ Hill Fire. Cc~pany, and the Borough Building. These c~~ facili- ties are well distributed throughout the Borough and provide a high level of public service for the residents of ~ Hill. Open Space and Recrea~ional Areas Little vacant or undeveloped land r~n,~ns in Cau~ Hill. The most sizable .area is located just north of Route 767, but in general up, k-;eloped land in Camp Hill is Limited to scattered imzlividual lots. Several ar-ms of permanent public opera space are found within the Boron. The Christian L. Siebert Park is a spacious area n~rth of Cumberland Boule- 'yard for public recreation. TWo smaller parks are located within the Bor- ough. Willow Park is located at Logan, Twenty-Fifth, Markat amd Twenty- Fourth Streets, and Spring Lake Park is located at '.Lincoln Street and Bev- erly Road. A private recreation facility, the West Shore Country Club, is located just outside the Borough's-bot~dary in ~h~ 'nort~t. L~ addition, the various public school sites offer recreational facilities, primarily in the form of playgrounds. 10 C) Figure LAND_USE I.,~nd Use C~r~ Rasident~,-l' Siugle-f~mtly 621 61[ 4 Multi-family 24 2.4 Apartmants 32 3.2 _Commercial 69 6.8 Industrial 48 4.8 Ins tituti~ 51 5.0 Open Space 33 3.3 P~oads & Railroads 44 4.4 Vacant 86 8. ? Utilities 2 O. 2 Total 1010. 100 Source: Comsultant's Survey, 1971. 11 CHAPTER IV; TRANSPORTATION The largest c_~a~sification of expenditures of C_~mp Hill Borough's General Fund has consistently beem higt~mys, which, at an average (for the y~mrs 1966-1970) of $118.6 thousand per year have re-_counted for appro~m-tely twenty per cent of Cmmeral Fund disbursers. In addition, the Highway Aid Fund has been the source of on the average (for the.years 1966-1970) about $25 thousand a ye~__r. Roads an~ railroads make up 44 acres of the Borough's land, or 4.4%. Harrisburg may be reached from Cramp Hill by 'way of the Harrisburg Expressway, which cuts across the southern part of Camp Hill, and South Bridge; by way of Market Street, which is Camp Hill's main thoroughfare, and Market Street Bridge; and by way of the M. Harvey Taylor or North Bridge. In general, Camp Hill's connections to high~ay transportation are good. Cramp Hill is located about four miles from the Harrisburg West Shore Interchange of the P~-mylvania Turnpike, which is a four lane div- ided high speed expressway, with full control of access. It runs east and west, linking Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Connecting with the Ohio Turn- pike, it links Pennsylvania to the western United States. Interstate 83 - known as the York-Baltimore Expressway - is a four- lane divided high speed expressway with full control of access. It meets tbm Harrisburg Expressway about 1 3/4 miles east of Camp Hill. By Inter- state 83, York and Baltimore can be easily reached. From its intersection with the Harrisburg Expressway, Route 83 proceeds .east across tbm Susque- bam%a River and through Harrisburg and then north to an intersection with Route 81. Interstate 81 is a fourlaue divided high speed expressway, with full control of access. When completed, it will pass about five miles north of _Cg~p_._. Hill. Moreover a spur of Interstate 81 is planned. This spur will extend south from Interstate 81-~n~d~'-T~-l~/p-'lfd-~--~cci'on-wi~mh ~ Harrisburg Expressway and U,S, Route 11 in the vicinity of the Machan- icsbur§ Naval Supply Depot - about 3 1/4 miles ~est of Camp Hill. Interstate 81 now has a southern portic~ ~ a northern portion with construction in between. The southern portion of Interstate 81 ho- gins at its intersection with U.S. Route 11 in Middlesex Township, about 11 miles west of ~ Hill. It provides services for Hagerstown, M~., and the south. The northern portion of Interstate 81, when completed, will meet the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Es~.~=rt~n Avenue. Thus far, traffic on Interstate 81 fr~m the north-east can proceed as far as Progress Avenue, east of Harrisburg. The northern portion of Interstate 8I provides services to Wilkes-Barre and Scranton. In addition, the northmzn portion of Interstate 81, by a connection with Interstate 78, provides services to Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton and New York City. At present, there is . construction on Interstate 78, so that U.S. Route 22 must be used for part of the trip to New York City. U.S. Routes 11 and 15 pass through Camp Hill on the s_~,~ rights-of- %my. Route 11, known as the Carlisle Pike betwe~ C~p Hill and Carlisle, divides in the vic/nlt-y of the Mechanicsburg Naval Depot so that t/~m southern branch becomes th~ Harrisburg Express~mf, ~%fle the northern brammh eventually beeches Camp Hill's Market Street. U.S. Route 15 intersects the Harrisburg Expressway at an inter- change partly inside a~ partly outside souttmm~tern Camp Hill. At this point, Routes 11 and 15, sharing the sm~_ right-of-way, head north on 32nd Street and then east on O~erland Boulevard. B~siness Routes 11 and 15 proceed ~st on Markmt Street, on the s~ right-of-way. When they reach thru Susquahamm River, Routes 11 and 15 proceed north together until Sbmmnkin Dam, about 3 miles south of the point where the Susqueharma divides into a West Branch and an ~ast Branch. Here, Routes 11 and 15 separate. Route 15 cont/nues north to the New York bor- der and into New York State as far as Rochester. Route 11 heads northeast to Scranton and fTc~ there to the New York border and into New York State to Lake Champlain near the Canadian Border, by way of Syracuse. SoutI~m~terly of Camp Hill, U.S. Route 11 provides services to Hagersto~%, Md., and all the way to New Orleans. South of Camp Mill, Route 15 provides services to Gettysburg and then south to Fredrick, Md., and ultimately to Walterboro, South Carolina. Part of Route 15, from its intersection with the Harrisburg Expressway at an interdhange partly inside and partly outside southwestern Camp Hill, to the Cumberland County lima in the vicinity of Grantham in Upper Allen Towa- ship, is being ~ ~-proved =o a fourlane divided high speed exp-resswmy with full control of access. The interchanges are now '.in tbm process of being built. U.S. P~ute 22 is an -~t-west ~y that may be pickad up in Marris~ .... _W_~_d_,. _U_._S.._R~u~.~t_e 22 shares the right of way with U.S. Route 322 until Lewis~wn, W~ '~t~ ~22--~d~-'~/i~%~s~'~-~%~lly- rea~ the Ohio line by way of Pittsburgh. Eastward Route 22 reaches the New Jersey state line by way of Allemtowm, Bethlehem, and Easton. For most of this way, Route 22 shares the right of way with Interstate 78. Route 322 eventually reaches Chester, Pennsylvania, by way of Ephrata and West Chester. U.S. Route 422 merges into Rou~e 322 about 8 miles east of Harrisburg. Rou~e 422 reaches Philadelphia by' way Of R~ad/ng. Penn Central railroad tracks along tim southern boundary of Camp Hill Borough. Rmad/ng tracks pass to ~ south ~ are connected to the Penn Central tracks by a spur. Camp Hill is 'served with bus service by' the. C~pital Area Transit System (CAT). CAT m-kes 29 trips a day to Camp Hill. These trips origin- ate in Harrisburg and have as their ultimate destination Mechanicsburg, ~__~rlisle, or C~mp Hill itself. With respe¢C to air transportation, C~mp HiLl is abouc four miles from the Capital City Airport (fonzerl~ knom~ as Harrisbur§-York or Ear- risburg S~ate Airport) on the west side of the Susquehanna River and about 10 miles from the Harrisburg International Ai~ort (forms=ly l.~own as the O!~tead State A/rport) on the east Side of the Susquab~m. Each of these t~o .!~x)rts handles both general and cuu~erc~l traffic. Th~ Capitsl City Atzport no longe= handles TWA, United, and Allegheny Air Lines, as it once did. This traffic bas been shift~ over to Harrisburg International Airpor=. ~er, Pe~%Tylvsnia Ccuuuter Airlines contir~es to use ube Capital City Aizport, providin~ scheduled flights to S~ate College, Pittsburgh, Bal~e, Wash/ngt~n and Alto~.~. CHAPTER VJ FINANC~ It is essential for a commmity to consider its fiscal situation prior to making any type of developmmnt decisions. The abi.lity of a ccmm~mity to .' meet its par~dular current and anticipated needs zs markedly conditioned must reflect the guidelines which are detennined by the area s fzscal cap- ability. The coordination of the cc.,.;~i~ity's obj.ectives and its resources can be achieved only within a planning framewoz~k set up in accordance with the c_~z~mz%ity's financial capabilities. 'The consideration of a coord/nated patter~ of rever~e and expenditure flows will provide a basis for deter- min/ng the priority and feasibility of prospect/ye measures in the develop- ment program. Areas affeating and affected by municipal financial decisions will inaluda not only the quality and extent of e__n,~nity facilities and services, but also the various types of land use and the nature of land use control measures enacted by the Borough. While many of the ma~or factors deter- miming the future course of C~mp Hill are of a regiomal mature, the spec- if ia nature and selective impact of Borough financial policies can be equally, if not more, significant to the character and scope of Camp Hill's development. The inter-relationships of a viable devel~t program caranot be minimized if the optimum scale and rate of c~ity development are to be attained. Municipal Revemue Revenues and receipts in ~ Hill are of two types. The first type is derived from general municipal revenue measures end used to f~ muni- cipal operations for which the Borough §overrmm~t is directly responsible. The second type of r~ and receipts in the Borough is obtained from sources outside the regular Borough go~tal fiscal structure. Reven- ues so received are earm-vked for a specific purpose and cannot be used to T~ special funds in C~,~. Hill cor~ist of ~ ~ ~d ~md, ~ Se~e I~o~t ~k~d, and the C~te~ ~era~_~ hd. ~ Higt~,~a7 ~zLd ~ is utilized for the ~te~ and re~ir of s=eets, roads and brid~es. benues are 6~.rived almost exclusivd7 b ~tat4 mqtor 1/¢.ense fund gr~nts %4rich ~/noreased fro~ $20,784/n 1967 to $50,393 in 1972. A Sewsge T~p. rove,~_ ~qt Fund and a Capital Reserve Fund were established by the Borough within the last five years to meet ant/c±pated future needs of tbm Borough. Both of these funds, which had balances of $250,337 and $181,816, respectively as of Dec _~Ser 31, 1971, since have been appropriated .to pay part of the Borough's obligation of $1,250,000., inctm-red in a joint sewer project with ~ Borough of L~Fne, which 'will provide a more re- f/ned method of treatment of sanitary sewage. Tb~ balance of the Borough's obligat/on has been financed by the issue of General Obligation B~nds in the _.~unt of $800,000, dated July 1, 1973. The Cemg. tary Operating Fund was established in 1970 with m~../nit/al transfer of $4,714 frc~ thru ~m? 16 Hill Cemetery Assoc-_~tion. AJd~tiomal receipts are derived fr~n the sale of lots, interment, and inves~t inco~e fr~n the trust account. These special funds are thus largely self-supporting with revenues resulting almost entirely from state grants, investments, and user fees. Most of Borough government, however, is firmr~ed out.. of the General Fund. Total General Fund receipts amounted to $734,443 in 1972. This represents an increase of about forty-two percent since 1967. Historically, thru most important single source of general revenues for local municipalities is the real estate tax. The dependance of local municipalities on t/~ real estate tax resulted frc~ man~ factors, ~ them the relative ease of mmasuring tax- able value, the historic correlation of real property with wealth, the past correlation of increasing real property valuation with increasing tax needs, amd state statute. Recently, hoW. ever, mmztcipalit±es have increasingly turrmd to scme form of income tax to m,~n_ t general reverams. Not only has tha c~ne tax become feasible to assess and collect, but ~_c~ has also become a more accurate ~e~_~sure of wealth than real property. Numerous additional ar- guments have been put forth recently to support this new source of local rev- enues. Among th~n is the more immediate correlation of incomes with the gen- eral price level, and the tendency of the rea! property tax to discourage imp~ts to property. Under Act 511, the Borough. is authorized to enact a m~ tax of one percent on earned income. Since 1967, the real property tax has accounted for a substantial portion of tbm General Fund receipts, as bas the earned income tax. Since 1967, revenue from the real property tax has increased only as a result of the two mill tax increase in 1970, but revenums from the e_~r~d income tax have i~- creased by 247° ~ the sm,~ period. In 1972, revenues from the .eprned incom~ tax were $248,640, and those ~om the real property tax wer.e $308,244. Other major sources of General Fund receipts are departmm_ _ntal esrrn/~s, the deed transfer tax, licenses and permits, and federals, state, and count7 grants. Receipts from each of these sources generally fall ~ithin the range of $10,000 to $30,000. The significance of the real property and emvned income taxes is, therefore, apparent. Tax Revenues and Land Use Struature One of the broad objectives of a cz~prehemsive plan .is to develop a proposed ultimate pattern of land use, which will contribute to a sound tax base. The tax base of a municipality is defined as the s~n of taxable resources on which the c~mmmity may place assessments or charge fees. Due to the importam~.e of the real property tax, the relatiormhip between land use structure am~ assessed valuations is significant. The average municipality finds that co~m--rcial land use provides approximately four t~-s tbm revenue per acre that single family residential use does. In- dustry contributes about five t/roes tbs reverm~ as single family residential land use. Multi-family residential use provides two to four times the revenue pe~ acre that single family' resident/al does. All other land uses contribute no,zing to the ~icipality's revenue. Tax exempt t=Dperty, howmver, is not to be avoided. While tax e~mption does not eltra/hate the need for servicing the tax exempt properties, there are r~ny advantages in hav~ng private schools, medical, religious and other institutions. Many of these institutions provide facilities and services that would otherwise be' supported 5y public tax monies. 17 A land use plan ~m~st consider the varied needs of a ~ty, not only in tenms of tax revenues, but also in terms of services and amenities, and thus a balance of la~ uses is generally preferred. The relationship between land u~e structure and e~ned ~ levels is more difficult to deter~ ~ne. While low density land use is often associated with higher inc__mme_~ levels, this is not true with luxuzy apartments or t~wn houses. Nor is the association of an increased population with increased total revenues from an in~ tax completely valid as revenues will also be det~_~rm~n~_d by the size and occupation of the labor force. Total General Fund disbursements have varied significantly since 1967. They rose frc~ $407,232 in 1967 to $665,366 in 1972. Not reflected in these fig- ures are transferes to other funds and the purchase of inves~t~gn__ ts, as these do not refelect true expenses of the Borough govez¥~.%t. The general costs of Borough govermmmt have tended to increase at a rate of appraw~tely 6% per y~r. The largest category of expenditures in the General Fund is consistently hi~ys. This on~ category has accounted for approximately twenty percent of C~mmral Fund disbursements. Other major expenditure categories include police protection, recreation, sewage disposal, general ~8/~m'nistration, em- ployees hospitalization and sOCial security, and san/tary sewers. Assessed Valuations ami Mmicipal Borrowing Taxable real property within the Borough of Camp Hill ~as assessed at $22,610,550 in 1972. This represents an increase of only ten per cent since 1967, reflecting the low rate of develo~u~nt in the past few y~mrs. In the same period General Fund disbursements increased by thirty per cent. Assessed valuations are a significant factor in two P~=y financial areA- of municipal firmnce. The first area involves general revenues. The Borough has relied heavily on revemms based on real property ta~ms. Camp Hill's revenue needs have increased at a greater rate than ~ assessed valuations' ....... r-a~:"-'~-~'-'l~-ba~-been-t/~-Borough-'~ -practice~to-meet- ~hose--4~arease~- revenue needs primarily through the earned incomm t~(. As a result, the millage rate has been increased by only two mills, from 12 to 14. Gross revenue is now the stamd~d to determine muniaipal borrowing capacity. Current law permits a m~nicipality to borrow 2 1/2 times its revenues without voter approval. The excellent credi~ situation in Camp Hill is reflected by tb~ fact that it recently borrowed $800,000 by the issuance of General Obli- gation Bonds at an interest rate of 4.357o, a consid~rably lower rate than that obtained in other m/nicipalities in the s~ t/me span. 18 Real Estate Taxes, Current Real Estate Taxes, ~ Years Licenses and Permits Fines, Forfeits and Costs Interest Earned on Investments Federal and State Grants County Grants Assessments and Lierm Deed' Transfer Tax Sales of Property, Supplies Refunds and Other Joint Project with Other Municipalities Emer§ency Preparedness Grant ' 97! 972 256,329 308,244' 7,263 863 12,138 9,150 6,368 9,145 1,994 2,517 4, 603 4,603 13,33% 9,998 36,439 29,772 60,358 49,665 221,049 248,640 22,956 27,711 488 665 19,65,3 13,775 236 3,184 1I, 461 Total Receipts 663,205 734,443 Source: Borough of C-~9 Hill Financial Statements, 1971-1972 19 F~e #3 (con~me~) Real Estate Taxes, Current Real Estate Taxes, Prior Years IAeermes and Permitm Fines, Forfeits and Costs Interest Earned on Imves~ts Rental of Property Federal and State Grants County Grants Dental Earnirgs Assessments and Liens Earned Imcome Tax Deed Tramsfer Tax Sales of Property, Supplie~ Refumds and Other Joint Project with other Mm~Leipalities Sale of Inve~_..~_ ts (Net) 1969 1970 233,294. 252,578 10,225 22,509 10,328 9,763 3,332 2, 673 7,364 6,383 180 1,457 4,603 4,6O3 10,147 15,157 26,503 27,420 3,399 2,779 170,721 265,266 37,95:2 20,165 661 480 4,53:2 4,439 10,215 203 167,111 48,030 Total Receipts 730,567 683,905 Source: Borough of Camp Hill Financial Stat~nents, 1969, 1970. 2O Administration Tax Collection Police Protection Fire Protection Building Re4p~l ~tion, Board of Health Sanitary Sawers Sewage Disposal Higb~ys Recreation Inmzance ~mployees ' Hospitalization and Social Security Other Miscellaneous 1969 197__0 1971 _1972 34,596 37,227 43,455 49,592 3,907 8,259 2,230 2,292 7,189 5,974 4,484 7,122 89,690 91,957 121,837 127,808 45,456 11,785 9,646 15,248 7,452 4,445 18,776 4,910 427 138 4 00 12,725 23,961 31,912 29,920 48,522 54,721 37,545 73,143 128,642 129,051 228,0~+ 203 , 474 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 59,887 64,782 72,330 49,896 17,293 8,447 5,704 18,802 27,2~ 27,693 14,307 28,583 1,591 3,203 7,312 4,039 ......... T~f~S' '?x~--o-t~6r--~ ............. 7.5-;-179 ........... 15-5-;725 .......... 20;.864 .......... t9,976 .................... Transfers to Reserve, etc. 50,110 10,564 Total Disbursements 529,771 647,368 688,560 665,369 Source: Borough of Camp Hill Financ!~! Statements 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972. 21 Creatural by Vote of Electors Ordinance 597 Created by Action of Cmmail Ordinance 392 Ord.'L.~mce 8OO $ 4~, 000 3,000 800,000 Total $1,297,000 Source: Borough of Camp Hill Finane~l Statm~n.ts 1972. 24 S~CTION B: PLAN ~OR D~ CHAPTE:~ I: DEVEhOP~NT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES A viable c°~pr~±ve plan for the future physical development of ~ Hill ~_~t be d~vectly related to the needs and goals of the residents. A vitally ~ .~portsnt part of the plmm/n~ process involves ascertaining and expressing these short term and long range o;-,,,~.~i, ty objectives. Failure' to take this step and to delineate these goals could result in arbitrary or ~ely momentarily expedient decisions because the citizens' values and de- sires were not defined and articulated. The policy fran~work which has been established by the Borough of Camp Hill is as follows: 1. Main~n the unique character of the Borou~ as a pleasant resi- dential corm_ ~ity. The Borough of Camp Hill has developed a par~io3]~ character as one of the outsts~/ng residential suburbs within the Harrisburg metropolitan complex. The f/ne old houses, gracefully tree shaded streets, generous parks and sound public services establishe~ Camp Hill as a desirable ~ty in which to live. Nmwever, many once pleasant boroughs have been sub3ect to decli~m as their buildings age, as their Trax base stabilizes while the cost of local goverr~ent continues to rise and as newer developments are constructed in the surround/nE areas. Older boroughs such as Camp Hill ~tqt ~mrd against such deterioration and take positive steps to r~ntain those assets which con- tributed to their desirability and livability. 2. Develop creative, constructive methods for chsnneling and direct- lng pressures for Change. As an integral part of the vigorous and growing Harrisburg m~tropol- iran area, ~ Hill cannot escaPe the ~pact of changing economic patterns and living styles. The trends toward sm~ler household units, increased leisure time, large scale cuuA~rc~a! structures, and ch~ ~loyment pat- terns will inevitably be felt within the Borough. Adequate preparation, how- ever, can enable the Borot~h tO ~uide charge so that it becomes a constructive, rather than a destructive force, and ensure that the Borough is able to nmxi- 3. Establish control measures to protect snd rm~ntain the housing resources of the Borough. The housing stock of the Borough includes many older dwell~ units ~hich, while generally sound structurally, have be~x~ne uneconomic to m-~ntain as single family d~ellings. Strict code enforc~nw~xt should ensure that these buildings are not allowed to fall into .disrepair and become dilapidated and deteriorated eyesores. Furthermore, care should be taken in permitting con- versions to more intensive uses. Such conversions often entail social costs not ~m~=d~-tely apparent such as increased traffic vob~ and parking requ/re- merits, expanded public school enrollments, and overtaxed public facilities, ~uch as ~mter and sewerage. For this reason, roach/nary for the careful s~udy and review of proposed conversions should be established. 25 4. Provide for a variety of hmusimg types to acom,~,_w)date the diverse needs of a growing and ch~ population. In addition to single-family dwellings on spacious lots, the housing stock of the Borough should include housing facilities for small household units, those who do not cmre for, or are unable to undertake, extensive main- tenance chores, and those who prefer traditional, as well as modern archi- tectural fon~s. Moreover recent advances in construction techniques should be permitted to provide the residents with th~ most ~-to-date advantages and 5. Control of strip c~mercial development should be encouraged. Thru character of graph and traffic patterns Jn ~ Hill has contrib- uted tm strip ~cial developumnt. As this k/nd of develop~e_~nt can produce unpleasant conditions for adjacent resident.iai areas,, an effort rmmt be made to control these conditions by use of buffer zones, cormentration of retail activities in convenient ~nd easily serviced locatlc~m, and other restrictive controls. 6. Provide adequate ~ty facilities and services to ac~date both present and future residemtS of the Borough. A safe and adequate ~ater supply and sewerage system is essential if the health of the residents and the quality of the erarir~t is to be pre- served. The Borough currently has public sewage and water in virtually all its areas. Consid~ration should continue to be givm.% to increased d~m~nds for Police and Fire protection, water and sewer services and public school needs, as the character of land uses within the Boro,~h changes. 7. T ~mprove the functioning of the local road system. A road network should be established which will facilitate efficient vehicular cir~,lmtion, both passing through the Borough and withLu its con- fines. The road system should be designed to maximize safety and min/mize congestion with adequate attention, to the integration of pedastrian and ........... 9~hiduT~_-~~---sy~66i~q .... Gai~'i'd~ra--ti~-~tR~Ul-d'-~iI'S'D -t~-'~%~if-t-O-f~-ilT-' ......................... ta~ing efficient police and fire protection, trash collection and school accessibility. Particular attention should be given the busy ~rteries of Markat Street, Twenty-First Street, Thirty-Second Street and Cumberland Bou- levard, and the proposals concerning ~/~_se .locations being developed by the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study. 8. Encourage the high intensity land uses in a central location where supporting services and facilities are easily available. High intensity land uses are generally high traffic generators and should be ea_sily accessible by the regional ~y network. In this man- nar, traffic loads on local, residential streets are minimized. . -Wurther- more by concentrating high intensity lao~ uses in central core,, private up- grading and redevel~t of the core area is encouraged. 26 9. Provide for an increase in t_he ~m~unt of land designated for multi-family d~elling units and encourage their location in the central ~,~ti-fsmily residential land use should be ,encouraged as a method of ~ting the expanding population of the area, as a way to supply' a variety of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the residents, and as a-~ans of widening the tax base while preserving the character of the Boro,~Eh. By locatir~ such multi-family units in the cs~tral core, traffic congestion will be m~n~ad in other ar-~. 10. Preserve permm~emt open space and recreation areas. The Borough presently offers several pleasant parklands and play- ground facilities. Efforts should be made to ~n~n and improve open space areas within the Borough for the enjoyment and recreation of the res- idents. This is particularly important in a highly built-~ area such as 11. Establish a beautification program as a joint effort of the pub- lic and private sectors. A program to preserve and improve the scenic amenities of the Borough should be estab!~hed and carried out through the cooperative efforts of the m~nicipality and private groups such as businessmex~ associations and service clubs. This will help to er~ure the continued desk=ability of the Borough for all who live and work there. 12. Coordinate developm-nt plans with the Regional Land Use Plan de- veloped by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and the Harrisburg Area Transportatien Study. The Regional Lam~ Use Plan rec~,,,~nds that Camp Hill Borough be util- ized for medium and high density resident~.~l use with ]~ ted areas of com- mercial and indus~ land use. Recr~m~nded residential densities are three ............ · o~ ten-~r, more _dwelling_units_per_a~re ............................................................ ~ .......................... 27 CHAI~ II: FUTUR~ LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN The color, ire plan for the future dmvel~..t of Camp Hill Borough is a generalized seb~ for the orderly, selective gr~ of the Borough. As such the plan provides a framework for both private and pub- lic decision-~mk/ng. By respecting t/~ inherent logic of this outline for the future, it is possible to channel the forces for growth and devel°Pme~t into patterns that will preserve the best characteristics of the Borough as it now exists, while allowing the fullest scope for the adaptation to chang- /ng conditions am~ the adoption of future '.zimovatloas contributing to the equality of life in the Borough. Several fumd~.~ntal considerations have shaped the future land use plan for Camp Hill. Among the factors considered critical i~ the determin- at/on of the plan were: (1) an analysis of thru established character of the Borough juxtaposed with the present pattern .of land use and the projection into the future of current trends such as changes in the nature of economic activity and residential preferences; (2) t~. expressed cou/mr~ty develop- ment policies and objectives; (3) an analyszs of st~h land use determinants as water resources, topography and transportation channels.; (4) an appraisal of the availability of sewage fac/lit/es and o .t~e~, oi~;;,~ty services and facilities; and (5) an evaluation of the Borough ~L the context of the Har- risburg Metropolitan area. Reco~e~ndat/ons are made for the various land use classifications: residential, ~clal, industrial, open space, sz~ ot~ Cu~,-~;k~ity facili- ties. Over-all Coumept A primary focus of ~ Future T~nd Use Plan for the Borough is the retention of th~ present chanm and character of C~p Hill. The Plan attempts to retain a distinot ~_..,~_~.,%%ty identity and to prevent Camp Hill's unique character frc~ being obliterated by the growth of Metropolitan Har- risburg. Allowance is made for the projected population growth and corme- quant development pressures. The plan, however, directs such devel~t 'tOW~-~oit~b~a- T~iOD~-~o--as-~o - provide- max/hum-convenience- for - beth- present and future residents as well as to preserve thru existing quality of land use in the Borough The pre~t land use will continue to be low density, s/ngle family residential use. More intensive land uses 'will be located in the center of the Borough ami adjacent to the mjor intersection of Market and Thirty-Second Street. Concentrated areas of intensive land use are essen- tial to protect the quality of low density residential areas as well as to maintain the future fiscal well-being of the Boro%~h. An overall scatter- ing of more intensive development would result in critical parkin~ and traffic problens and high social costs of noise, dirt and congestion for the low density single family resident. At the same ~, concentrated intensive uses provide focal points which serve to re/nforce t/%e identity of the com- munity. Moreover, tax revenues tend to be higher when intensive land uses are concentrated rather than scattered. Thus in ¢=der to strengthen the tax base and preserve the present ~ities of the Borough, carefully deli~eated areas of intensive use are proposed. 28 P~sidential Land Use At the present time, the land use pattern of C~,p Hill is charac- terized by predominantly low density residential land use with commercial and hi~ density residential uses located in the ~Dre central areas of the Borough. It is. prOpOsed that the pattern ,be. essentially retained.. Higher density reszdential use is proposed zor the area bounded by TWenty-First and Twenty-Third Streets, and Market ~ Walnut Streets. This area is presently occupied by a n~xture of cczmmrcial and multi-f~n~ ly converted structures with several in a state of deterio:ation. Intensive land use is proposed for this area, both to s~_,~te private development by entrepreneurs, and to a~trac~ people in~o the "&~mto~a~" area. The small shops in this area have suffered from mba ccmpetiri~m of nearby shopping centers. By constructing higher density residential units in this section as suggested, an immediate market will be created. This will greatly in- crease the vitality of this "downtown" area, stimulating ~ upgrading of the emtire section. At th~ same .time, discernable development forces will be ac~dated. It is suggested that commercial ~es 'occupy the ground floor of tb~se units. Adequate off-street parking facilities should be pro- vided, soma of which should be covered parking. Developm~at in this area should be regulated in or_der ~o permit park-like op~ spaces and sufficient light sm~i air. Medi~ density residential land use is proposed for four major areas in the Borough. O~e such area is alon~ the Market Street Spine of the Borough, on the north side between N. Thirty-First Street and Twenty-Third Street, and Tw~n~-~st and Seventeenth Streets, and on tl~ south side between Thirty- Second and TWen~-Second Streets. The second area is C~_~po~ sed of two sec- tions in the western portion of the Boro~h, one ~etween Market, Thirty- Fourth and Trindle, and the other in the area of October, November and April Drives. The third area is located at Seventeenth Street, north of Myrtle Avenue, south of 65mberland Boulevard and the emmt Borou~ Line. The fourth srea is located north of the Harrisburg Expressway, roughly between Thirty- First Street and Twenty First Street. This area will provide a buffer be- tween the expressway and the industry on its south side, ampi the single faro- cent land uses while expandir~ th~ choice of ho~s. ing types wi~--~l~.'-Bo--r~ and acc~atir~ the ~ population. The re~M~n~er of tl~ residential land area in the Borou~ is rec~m~nded for low dermity residential use in keeping with the present land' use pattern. ~ciat !~__~ Use Except for the major ~ctal facility of the C~,p Hill. Shoppin~ Center on Thirty-Second Street, the oxxm~rcial facilities in C~ Hill are strun~ out along Market Street and a f~ othe~ locations. These smaller c~,maerc~ establis~nents are already sufferin~ from the aompetttion of the ~.avge shopping centers, particularly the near-by ~ Hill Shopping Center and the West Shore Shopping Center on Market Street in Lemoyne. It is, therefore, essential to the continued prosperity of the smaller-scale commer- cial sector to avoid un~_~ decem~ralization. 29 As detailed in the sect fort on Market Street, a concentrated develop- m~nt area is proposed for Market Street, between TWenty-First and Twenty.- Third Streets. This high intensity area is to /nclude high dens fry resz- dential, use, husi~-_ss offices and ~mm~rcial facili'~ies in~ with suitable open spaces~ A system of _cc~m?cial nodes among other intensive uses will th~s be created along Market Street. Industrial Land Use Little change is rec~,.,~ in industrial land use within the Bor- ough. Not only is industrial land use gener~ly incc~patible with the res- idential nature of C~mp Hill, but also there ma little vacant land available within the Borough for industrial davelopmm~t. M~dern .i?dustrial establish- men~ ts prefer extensive sites, especially for mass pz~f~ction lines and ]~ge scale operations and are accordingly beir~ attracted to th~ more open, semi- rural nmazicipa~ties of the Metropolitan Area. Open Space and Co~m~zity Facilities The existing park system in Camp Hill is §enarally good. As n~ntioned a~ove, small open space areas should be required ~% the b{Eh intensity land use areas. Also, the presemt park facility adjac~%t to the Conodo~t Creek should be extende~ ~d along the water front, in ordgr to protect the 'floodplain. This is particularly important in view of the severe flood hazard in this area. Trees and other plantings near the Creek banks will also help control erosion, which is a major factor in sedtmemt pollution of the creek. The present community .facilities in tbs_ Borough may be adequate to serve the present population, but may require ~lture expansion. C~rculation In general, the circulation system of Cm~?. Hill is adequate for both m~sting and proposed land uses. Several streets 'have.been designated as or collectors in order to establish ~y priorities for future deci- siom making. Ib~se major eolie~tor roadways in¢luda Market Street, Thirty- _s_~_~_t_r_eet, Ctm~erland Boulevard, Twenty-First Street, Nineteenth Street, Twenty F~-~h-'~t~-~, "%~al~-S fr-~e-t]'-C~ ti~-' S t~-~7 Thirtieth Streets between Market ~nd Trindle Road-Chestnut Street. 30 SECTIQ~ C: I~LEPENFATION PROGRAM CHAPTER I I I: MARKEr STR£~T SLIMY Market Street has traditionally been the center of Camp Hill. For yyears., the street served as the Borou~h's p. rir~:ipal access thorou~h- e and ~.ts bigbmmy cca~m, ction to the surrounding region. As the Boroug~ developed, activities were located along the central section of the street atmosphere. These c/~-~-rcial, governmental, transportation, professional, and religious activities brought the street into fo(.~s for most residents as the Borough's center. However, as urban growth continued in and around Camp Hill over the years, the image of Market Street began to change. The street became a critical traffic artery in an expanding metropolitm.% area. Residential properties along the street were converted to other uses, creating a ran- dram land use pattern. Traffic volt~s increased, creating hazards and in- conveniences for both pedestrians and motorists, and th~ provisi~ of ade- quate perking space became a severe problem. The mnall town main street ~m~_ge of Market Street D~w tends to be submerged in these effects of urban- ization, which stretch along the street's corridor :from Lemoyne into N-mpden To~rmhtp. The undesirable effects of urban/zation c~ Market Street are not synonomous with the unique residential character and orderly attractiveness evidm~eed in the balance of the c~unity. Howler, as the central corri- dor in C~ Hill, the street bas the.potential to be a vigorous, yet orderly, and dynamic center of coummity activity. This could be achieved by modern- izing the design and function of the center. Therefore, it is proposed that the o~ntra.t sec~r of'-F~rket-Str'eet be 'deve-lop~d"to '~ovid~ a '~l~iy' delin- eated focus for C~,p. Hill throu~h'a s~sten of concentrated activity areas. An illustrative site plan is provided at the end of this chapter that de- tails a proposed des/~n for such an activity center o~ the site bounded by Market, TWenty-Second, Walnut, and TWenty-First Streets. The Plan proposes higb~.r density residential/c~mmrcial use to strengthen the tax base to increase the market for Borough cu~uercial enter- prises, and to acc~uu~_d~_te a concentration of residents in the _bpr~ oLjg~'_S- ~ld he appropriate for retail cu,~cial facilities am~ related activities. Land coverage is restricted, permitting generous open space areas and both open and ~closed off-street parking spaces are proposed. The Plan's proposed scale and arrang_ _-3,~n~ t of! structures can enable the development of a functional traffic circulation pattern. The present Market Street traffic cor~estion and parking d~fficulties are eliminated by the inclusion of adequate accessways and convenient parking bays in the overall si~ ~ ' m ~ ~Cl~ ~e parked, the site of~ers a concentration of facilities oriented, towmrd the pedestr_~n. An integrated park and walkway system joins the individual structures, permitting pleasant pedestrisn circular, ion, the use of outdoor booths or kiosks as a good-weather mall, and the gracious residential setting of somewhat formal landscaping, which creates open _-Jr rooms for those wbm live and work there. The proposed Plan thus could ~ still the best of the urban ~~t from a combination of gracious park facilities, easy pedestrian access, ccncentra~ed c~ty services, and an a~sphere of exciting activity. 32 Other sections of Market Street contain large older houses, which are becoming increasingly difficult to ~ntain as s'.hlgle fmmily resi- dences. Many of these houses may be suited for conversion to other uses, but it is very d~ficult to make a blanket reco~tion concern/ng the Market Street residences. The variety of architecture am~ subtle advan- tages or disadvantages of different property sizes-and locations create · a complex situation. S__nme._ properties may be best suited for conversion to apartment use, while others may be better suited for professional cc~mercial offices, retail uses, or s~ne combination of these uses. In addition to dhanges in function, attention should be given to the result- Lng changes in external effects, includ/ng appearance, the use of signs, and additional traffic gemmration with its attendant consideration of adequate off-street parking. The actual devel~t of this core area, bounded by TWenty-First Street on the east, Twenty-Second Street on the west., Walnut Street on the rmrth, and Market Street on the south, will be the subject of more intensi- fied stu~ in the future. Special considerations will be given to height of buildings, design and traffic patterns. 33 + MAI~KET %TF-.E!ET ~TUDY CAMP ~11-1.., , PBNN%"Y'L-VAN%A CHA~ I: ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning is probably the single most ~w?ortm~t legal -and administrative device available today for carrying out the land use plan of a ccamunity. This concept may be defined as the division of a mx~tcipality into dis- tricts and the regttlation within these areas of the following: 1. The height and bulk of buildings and other s uctures. 2. The specific use of buildings and land for c~m-ercial, /ndustrial, resident/al., institutional, or ot/%er purposes. 3. The percentage of a lot that may be occupied and the size of required yards and otbar open spaces.. 4. The density of population. Although zoning may be and has been used for a grea'C variety of purposes, its powers are m~d at upholding the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. Zon/ng 'is a ~e_ans of ensuring tha'~- land uses of the munity are properly situated/n relation to o~e another; that adequate space is available for each type of development; that thru density of de- velo?~=ut in each area is ~a~nta/ned at a level which can be properly ser- viced by such ~mwticipal facilities as the street, school, recreation, and utilities systems; and that development is sufficiently "open" to permit light, air, and privacy for persons living and working anywhere within the municipality. Also, when zon/ng is consistently administered, it can pro- tect and stabilize market values by giving property o~ners assurance that the character of the envir~t will be m~__~ntained. The adoption of a revised zoning ordinance will be 'undertaken with direct reference to the cou~rehensive plan, which is itself not a legal It should specifically detail the generalized allocations which were estab- 1/shed. The goal of a sound zoning ordinance is to ~chieve, in practical form, the more theoretical objectives of the land ~e plan. analyze the various factors involved,~ to draft relevant the proce~_~e for adopt/on resembles the passage of other Borough ordinances. Because of its major role in shaping tbm future cxm-~/ty, it is extremely important that the zon/ng ordinance reflect the views of the citizens. Pub- lic hearings should be held to expla/n the provisions to the residents, and to solicit suggestions. An infozmed citizenry, which has participated ac- tively in ibm process of preparing the zoning ordirmnce, will understand the implications and ~ ~mportance of zoning for the c, oemunity and support its enforcement. 35 P~gsrdless of how much care and study ~o into the preparation of uhe lng ord/nsnce and regardless o£ the excellence of ~be fin~s~ produc=, it will have no ef_[ect unless it is enforced by ~ appropriate ml~horit_~es. If the Zoning ~_eartng Board is over liberal in granting variances or if the z~ enfor¢~m~%t officer is lax or i~fere~t in carrying out his' duties, or /f arbitrary or ~_~cr~m~natory treatm~-~t is aF~n~nistered to certain Lndividual 'property o~mrs, a zoning ordinmme can be destroyed. Widespread compliance with zoning provisions can be assured through periodic actions taken for correction. Without this enforcen~%t, the promises which might result may be corrosive to the planzdng objectives and detrimental to the goals. 36 CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS In the final analysis, the effectiveness of th~ development and implement- ation of a cca~rehensive plan rests with the citiz~m and elected officials of C~.? Hill Borough. Each resident has a ~ect responsibility to his mumity to as~w~ bis share in ca~ out the proposals embodied in the plan. The plan itself is an outline for constructix~ action, a ~rki~g,I practical blueprint expressing the objectives for physical devest for C~np Hill Borough, objectives which are ~t~hought. to be desirable and neces- sary. The citizems should both st~port the principles inherent in the Plan and continually strive for successful impl~tation. If the plan is al- lowed to becc~n~.~ a mere dooz~nt, which is rarely referred to by the people in the Borough, it will lose its value. Because ~ principle of plarazing represents a continuing process, each decision per~ to land use should be carefully evaluated in te~ms of its consistency with tbm ob- jectives and goals in the plan. It is only through the cc~stsnt and regulmv use of the plan that it will be~ a val,~hle, r~m~ instrtm~nt. The physical envir~t is constantly affected by l~ae exertion of pressures for change. The current plan as it has developed represents, .on the basis of a thorough analysis of existing conditions and resources, and anticipated trends, an accurate and constructive guideline for future growth. Because of the persistent interaction frcm outside forces %tztch my cause the crea- tion of new and unforeseen cirow,~tances, the policies which have been form- ,11~ted and expressed in the physical plan must be subjected to a continued review. Perpetual re-evaluation is an important part of the plarm~ process. Efforts should be made by the Borough to provide that thru plan is kept up to date and responds to changed conditions. The rate at which t_he ptslt sBould be moH~ lied and revised is depend~nt upon the rate of growth of the i~y s~d .the effects of the e~pansion of the surroum~tng region. C~ .... w~ity plaming is not a static spplicatio~ of theoreti~ foi~m~las carried a vao~. A fundamental understanding that the pl~ of the physical en- virorment is a dynamic, viable process is necessary to make maximum use of the report, thus, insuring optim~n future development. Blight generated by inccupatable land uses, flagrant disfiguration of the ................ ~u~ar i~.an--landscape ;--or- la~k- of-pltb ~ '~c-~-private- ~.on~,--is -~-'~T. able 7 .................... Neglect, indifference, smd apathy regarding our physical emr/zo~-mt can cause p~_.~t injury. For these reasons, proper .and appropriate planning of the resources available to a cxxmmmi~ poses a constant challenge and de- mands action. 37 rn OKOINANCE OF THE BOROUGH OF CAB/IF HILL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, i~]SNNSYLVANIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 200, ]~N'ITrLED "ZONING", ARTICLE V,~ ENTITLED "R-2B RESrDENTIAL DISTRICI"', S.F~CTION 200-45, ENTITLED "USE ,~.5GULATIONS" BE l'r ORDAINED AND EN^C'mI>, and it i.s hereby ordained and enacted, by the Borough Council of the Borough of Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, that SECTION I. Chapter 200, entitled "Zoning", Article VIII, entitled "R-ZB Residential District ", Section 20045, entitled '~Jse Regulations", is mended as follows: ARTICLE VIII R-2B Residential District §200~45. Use Regulations, Subsection A is hereby amen.tied as follows: A building may be erected or used and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the uses herein identified and u.o others: A, Permitted Use. Any use permit'ted in 1t.-2 Residential Districts, provided that all regulations contained in the R-2 District are satisfied. B. Multi-family Permitted Usc. A development for two-family or multiple-family buildings (defined as three (3) or more dwelling units per bail.ding) in which, two or more structures are proposed is pemfitted by right, provided the development complies witla the following: (1) Access. (a) Major. Collector Street. The tract directly abuts and the use will access a major collector street as delineated in the Borough of Camp Hill Comprehensive Plan. (b) l~.inimizc Acc_e. ss Points. Vehicular access points onto the same major collector street shall be minimized to the lowest reasonable number. A tract with two (2) buildings or more shall share common vehicular access points onto a major collector street, and no dwelling unit shall have its own separate driveway entering onto a major collector street. (2) Variation in Setback and Desima. (a) General Layout. Structures shall be designed so as to provide a desirable and harmonious addition to the general environment of the neighborhood. (b) Vafiat/on in Dwellina Units. No more th.an three (3) consecutive dwelling units in any structure shall have the same setback line. In. addition, each dwelling unit shall be distinguished from the adjacent dwelling unit in some appropriate manner such as by varying unit width:, use of different exterior materials, or varying arrangements of entrances or windows. (c) ,,V,,,ariation in Angle t~> Public Street, If a portion of a structure is located within eighty (80') feet ora public street right of way, the structure shall be set at an angle of at least fifteen (I5°) degrees from any publie street line and no adjacent structures shall share the same angIe. In addition, the angles of adjacent structures within the eighty (80') feet ora public street right of way shall vary by at least ten (10°) degrees from each other. (d) Courtyards. Structures containing multi-family dwelling units shall not be arranged so as to form closed courtyards. (e) _G_ar, ages. Structures shall be designed so that public street views of garages md/or carp. om are minimized. (/) Mailboxes. Any mailboxes provided within a public street tighx- of-w.ay should be clustered together in an orderly and attractive arrangement or structure. (3) Length of S. tt3t, ctures. Thc overall dimension, in any single direction of any building or combination of buildings shalI not be mo~ than two hundred (200') feet. (4) Density. (a) units. Each separate structure shall have no more than six (6) dwelling acre. The number of dwelling units is not to exceed six (6) units per (5) Managemen. t. Each multi-family building or group of buildings shall be designed and operated as a single management and maintenance un.it, with common yards~ open spaces and parking ar~. In the event multi-family dwellings are converted or developed as condominiums, such condominiums shall be owned and operated in. accordance with the Pennsylvania Uniform Condorninium Act, 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 3101, et se_fl, as amended. No subsequent subdivision of the propcn'ty into single or multi-family dwellings shall be permitted. (6) Setback from single-family houses. The yard regulations of fl~e zoning district notwithstanding, no principal building or group o1~' buildings, multi-family structure, or common parking area, shall be located closcr than forty (40') feet from any property line common to that of an adjacent tract zoned ibr or developed in single-family detached dwellings. (7) Buffer Strip. Notwithstanding Section 200-23, on those portions of a tract to be developed with rnnlti-family structures, a suitable buffer planting strip, twenty feet (20') in depth shall be provided along any property line common to that o£an adjacent tract zoned for or developed in single-family detached dwellings. The buffer strip shall be planted in accordance with Section 200-22(B). (8) ,Lighting. Exterior lighling of entranceways, walkways, and parking facilities shall be arranged to avoid direct glare upon abutting streets or properties. (9) Parking. (a) Amount. Thc number of spaces for parking shall equal two and a half times (2.5) the number of dwelling units. Co) Requirements. Off-street parking f~cilities shall be provided in accordance with § 200~97 and if more than five spaces are located together, shall be effectively screened from abutting single-family residence uses by a strip of planting not less than fifteen (15) feet in ultimate depth, such planting consisting of not less thau fifty percent (50%) evergregn material scattered throughout. (e) Location.. No parking facilities ma,.? be located in any yard or buffer setbacks. (10) S_Lg!~. All signs shall comply with the provisions of § 200-86. SECTION 17. A. The Borough Mauager of the Borough of Camp Hill is hereby authorized aud directed to do ail matters and things required to be done for the proper can3dng out of the purposes of this ordinance. B. All ordinances or parts of ordinances, insofar as fl~ey are inconsistent herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. ORDAINED z~ND ENACTED ~Yro ORDINANCE this 12~h day of February, 2003, Attest: Secr~_ .7.tdent Approved this 12t~ day of February 2003 Mayor 9359a.a 2/1 z/03 AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBEHLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. fLo 04_ '::i ~ ;;LO C'~..JI ~ BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee and NORTH 17th STREET ASSOCIATES, Intervenor ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2005, after hearing, it is ordered and directed that Appellant post bond in the amount of $20,000.00 within 30 days of today's date or the appeal shall be dismissed. We will consider an application for the posting of additional security if this matter is further delayed by appeal to a higher court. Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire For the Intervenor Steven A. Stine, Esquire For the Appellant ~ ~dA~ J~ 14 -(J.{ J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire Solicitor for the Borough of Camp Hill 0~, " srs 0;"1 . '..1 0" '" .'1,'; . . U i !,;',:l ',J REAGER & ADLER, P.c. LINUS E. FENICLE, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. No. 20944 DAVID W. REAGER, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. No. 20868 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-1383 Facsimile: (717) 730-7366 Ernai1: LFenic1e@ReagerAd1erPC.com Attornevs for Intervenor AUBREY SLEDZIN3KI, Appellant v. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee and NORTH 17TH STREET ASSOCIATES, Intervenor : IN THE COURT 0 F COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 04-5220 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE Please mark the above-captioned Appeal "dismissed" pursuant to the Order of Court of January 13,2005, ordering and directing Appellant to post bond in the amount of $20,000.00 within thirty (30) days of January 13, 2005, or the Appeal shall be dismissed. A copy of the Order is attached hereto. Dated: ~f~s'" AUBREY SLEDZINSKI, Appellant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CAMP HILL, Appellee and NORTH 17th STREET ASSOCIATES, Intervenor ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2005, after hearing, it is ordered and directed that Appellant post bond in the amount of $20,000.00 within 30 days of today's date or the appeal shall be dismissed. We will consider an application for the posting of additional security if this matter is further delayed by appeal to a higher court. Edward E. Guido, J. ~nus E. Fenicle, Esquire For the Intervenor Steven A. Stine, Esquire For the Appellant J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire Solicitor for the Borough of Camp Hill srs ff-lUE CfjFV FROM r;':':;;CORU In Tntlmor.y w~::J!'1:im. ! I:ore !!n!;;~;ljtrW11;;\nd ,d the &~ fA 5<J.k!' lit at C."lisliJ. Par fhi day ~5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Dismiss filed by Intervenor North 17th Street Associates was served on the following individuals via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows: Steven A Stine, Esquire 23 Waverly Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 Attorney for Appel/ant John Stephen Feinour, Esquire 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Camp Hill Borough Municipal Solicitor Dated: f/i~5/ H v , .~-' "