The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-02347 . , ~ I t;! . '1 . t' . , -- # . t ~ ~ j 1,1 ,. -- ---...---------------------- --.- .---._------ .-----------..---.----- ------ -._------. .---..- ~ ,n ~ ..; Ul '"' 0 7- ,n 0.... .... 0 H 0 ~ " <lJ f-< !3. <(, 1:: en '" <lJ '" ~ ~ t5::i ..... ..... 0 r: ~ .-\ ;!; ..... ..... H .. uJ' ~ o-l :>- '1:l '" '" f-< l.lJt.Lll.lJ 7.0 ~ '" UlCj " 0. 0. OVlUV) .1: .. ~ '" 0. D. -:"'1;1::> ;U ~ w ~ Z 7- ..; Ul ~ ... ~ - ~ uJ2 ~ 0 '" f-< t.:l " <>: OA-oCU ~ . a; Po Z t.:l '" " f-< .... ~. :? ;;; ... o-l .... V. ~ Po ~~ :;: al8 ~ , :? ~ o "H :;l .... Ul 0.... '" :r:LlJO " ~ UJ U~;:; ~g ;> ....:x: f'!f-< :x: ~i Ul '" . UlUl .;t; ~Vl Z ~SU Ul~ Ul<>:<: ~g ~ 0 0 00 ~ ....... ~o~o ~ ~ '" ~ -0 ~,",Of-< uJ~ 0 '" !-ou ~!-o .... ~" ~ ~ '" !5s~ 0 Ul t.:l !-ow <(,~ Q ufJ :.'. 8!:J O~M :>: , '" H ~< U N t.:l '"' t=> ~:;l:?,<>: Z I en o~ uJ ~ '" '" w ~ [;'l~ ....'" z 1::"'''' :;l UJe:J~ u z~ci ~80 V') UJ a gj <f. ::: 0'"' ..r;. HUZ f-< o:l 0 - --- __h . .. .. . . LAW OffiCI (0 SNELnAKl;.ft II 13AENNEMAN 3. Admitted. By way of further response, it is averred that "Lot No.1" was created by Appellants and designated as such on a certain submission plan of lots of public record entitled "Final subdivision Plan No, 3, Charles M. Kemberling et ux" dated September 22, 1982 (revised october 27, 1982) as made by Michael C. D'Angelo, R.S., recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, in Plan Book 42, Page 107 (hereinafter called "Original subdivision Plan"), said Plan being cited in the Request for Waivers mentioned in paragraph 4 hereinbelow. 4. Admitted. By way of further response, it is averred that such request for waivers was made by William R. swanick of Hartman & Associates, Inc., by letter dated January 25, 1995, addressed to Township's Planning Commission, a true copy of which letter is attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" (hereinafter called "Request for Waivers"), said Request being a part of the record filed herein in response to Writ of Certiorari. 5. It is admitted that the Board met and acted to deny approval of a sUbdivision plan on March 30, 1995. By way of further response (since the Motion does not fully identify "the sUbdivision"), it is averred that Appellants' plan is a one-page drawing entitled "Final Three Lot Subdivision Plan for Charles M. Kemberling" as made by Hartman & Assoc" Inc. dated December 20, 1994, bearing File # 94663, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto marked "Exhibit B" (hereinafter called "Proposed Plan"), said Plan being a part of the record filed herein in response to -2- LAW O"ICl:li SNELn"l(t;n a DRENNEM"N . Writ of Certiorari. It is denied that said action of denial was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. On the contrary, it is averred that such decision was regular, lawful and proper under the law and the subdivision regulations and ordinances of Hampden Township and constituted a proper exercise of discretion by the Board. a. (i) The "request for waiver" (whichever one intended by Appellants, since two were requested) was not unreasonably and arbitrarily denied. On the contrary, said denial was the result of the Board's sound exercise of discretion and in accordance with the sUbdivision regulations of Hampden Township. (ii) It is denied that the denial of the approval of the Proposed Plan was unreasonable and/or arbitrary. On the contrary, such disapproval was based (in part) upon the fact that Lots 1-C and 1-0 on the proposed Plan did not have the required immediate access to a public road or street as required under the pertinent subdivision regulations of Hampden Township. b. Board disputes Appellants characterization and interpretation of section 509 of the Hampden Township SUbdivision Ordinance, and, therefore, submits the following as a true statement of the provisions of said Section 509 as the best evidence thereof, said quoted provision being of public record: -J- l....w OnlCLt> SNELnAKEn ft BRENNEMAN and, therefore, submits herewith a true and correct copy of the pertinent part of the conveyance attached hereto marked "Exhibit e" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. Therefore, the interpretative content of paragraph 5g. of the Motion is denied and the copy of deed cited therein is submitted in response. h. It is denied that Lot 1-0 has a right to use "Park Access Drive" as a means of ingress, egress and regress to and from creekview Road. On the contrary, for the reasons stated in subparagraphs d. and f. above, "Park Access Drive" is a driveway private to the Township of Hampden. By way of further response, the pertinent provisions of New Matter hereinbelow are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 6. The statement in paragraph 6 is admitted; however, as a matter of law, it is not necessary to make an evidentiary record, findings of fact or conclusions of law and, therefore, the provisions of paragraph 6 are irrelevant and denied. 7. The provisions of paragraph 7 are arguments of law to which no response is required and, therefore, are deemed to be denied. Nevertheless, Board specifically denies the need to produce evidence for review of the Board's disapproval of the proposed Plan. On the contrary, for the reasons set forth in the following subparagraphs and in New Matter below, the record as submitted in response to the Writ of certiorari is full, -6- LAW O,.,ICEIi 6NELnAl(ER & BRENNEMAN sufficient and complete to decide this appeal. (a) The character of the "50-foot strip of land" is fully and sufficiently stated in the deed cited by Appellants and attached hereto as "Exhibit C". It is not necessary to hear evidence on "how and why" the 50- foot strip of land was to be used nor as to "how and why" said street was improved. The matters of record are sufficient to decide Appellants' appeal. (b) It is unnecessary for the decision of this appeal to present evidence on "how and why" Section 509 cited above is to be interpreted. The cited ordinance speaks for itself. It is denied that Appellants' land is "unusually configured". On the contrary and as indicated on the Proposed Plan, it is open, having no unusual topographical features and fully accessible by reason of 141.47 feet of frontage on a public street (creekview Road). (c) It is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to produce evidence of a professional engineer. The matters at issue can be decided on the basis of the record as submitted pursuant to the Writ of certiorari. (d) It is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to present evidence for the reasons stated in the Motion. The content of the Township ordinance being construed speaks for itself and the Board's exercise of discretion is within its lawful authority -7- LAW OHICI!! SNEl.nI\KEn 11 Dn[NNEMI\N and consistent with its power to administer its regulations. (e) It is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to present evidence on the "how and why" on the issue of alleged prior agreement. Appellants having raised the conveyance of December JO, 1982 (see "Exhibit e" hereto), they are bound by the terms thereof which speak for themselves. NEW MATTER By way of further response to the Motion and Rule, the Board avers and alleges as follows: 8. Based upon the Proposed Plan, Appellants' land ("Lot No. 1") has 141.47 lineal feet of frontage on ereekview Road, a public road. 9. Based upon the Proposed Plan, Appellants' land ("Lot No. 1") is open, unobstructed and contains no topographical features which prevent it from being developed. 10. Appellants' land ("Lot No, 1") does not front on an existing private street or road, 11. Appellants' situation giving rise to this controversy is the result of their desire to change a fully usable single lot (Lot No.1") into three smaller lots, two of which do not have immediate access to ereekview Road. 12. Appellants' Motion is disingenuous because in requesting waivers, they recognized in their Request for Waivers ("EXhibit A" herein) and via the Proposed Plan ("EXhibit B" herein) that -8- lAW o"ler.1f 6NELnAKER Ii BAI:NNEM~N they do not have the rights now alleged. The Request for Waivers specifically recognizes that Lots 1-C and 1-0 do not have "immediate access" to a public street and that they needed the Board's special dispensation by waiver of the requirement of such access. Note 5 on the Proposed Plan likewise recognizes the absence of rights and the need for special consideration: "5. The Owner has applied for waivers for access to non-public street.!:! from Lot No. 1-C and Lot No.1-D." (Emphasis added to indicate Appellants' recognition that Lot 1-0 does not have immediate access to a public street. ) 13. Appellants recognize that Lot 1-0 has no immediate access to a public street (as alleged otherwise in the Motion): a. The Request for Waivers ("Exhibit A") specifically recognizes the private nature of the Township's recreational park access drive: (i) "This land strip now contains the Park's access drive". (ii) "For the above reasons, we feel that the Township should grant the two (2) waivers for access to non-oublic streets". (Emphasis added.) b. The Proposed Plan ("Exhibit B") prepared by Appellants specially indicates: (i) The driveway in question being characterized and designated as such: "Park Access Drive". (ii) The driveway consists only of a "24' -9- LAW OFFlcr:1 SNELnAKER a DnENNEMAN Macadam Cartway" which does not abut Appellants' land. (iii) The "Existing Gate" is shown on the driveway just north of the intersection of the driveway with Creekview Road. 14. It is not denied that Appellants have the right of passage over a 50-foot wide strip of land on the east side of "Lot 1-0" to Creekview Road, but it is averred that said right of passage is private in character and will remain as such until the same is improved to public road requirements of Hampden Township. 15. Section 509 of the Subdivision Ordinance (see paragraph 5b. above) states the general policy of the Township: " . . that all developed lands shall have immediate access to a public street." 16. The limited exceptions to the above recited general policy relate only to existing private roads and do not include the creation of new private roads by subdivision. 17. The Board's refusal to approve the Proposed Plan is consistent with the policy of Hampden Township and in accordance with the subdivision regulation. lB. The concept of a waiver of a regulation is vested exclusively in the discretion of the Board. 19. Appellants have not averred in their Motion any basis for indicating an abuse of discretion which would obviate the prevailing standard as set forth in Blumenschein v. pittsburoh Housing, 379 Pa. 566, 573, 109 A.2d 331, 335 (1994): -10- LAw O"ICl.Il SNEl.nAKln a BRENNEMAN . . . courts will not review the actions of governmental bodies or administrative tribunals involving acts of discretion, in the absence of bad faith, fraud, capricious action or abuse of power; they will not inquire into the wisdom of such actions or into the details of the manner adopted to carry them into execution. It is true that the mere possession of discretionary power by an administrative body does not make it wholly immune from judicial review, but the scope of that review is limited to the determination of whether there has been a manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion or a purely arbitrary execution of the agency's duties or functions. That the court might have a different opinion or judgment in regard to the action of the agency is not a sufficient ground for interference; jUdicial discretion may not be substituted for administrative discretion. Absent any such threshold demonstration, no basis exists for creating a new record in this appeal. 20. Appellants' Motion fails to meet the requisites for a hearing as provided in Section 1005-A of the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. S 11005-A): Under S 1005-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"), this Court has discretion in cases appealed from local government agencies to (1) hold a hearing to receive additional evidence, (2) remand the case to Board below, or (3) refer the case to a referee to receive additional evidence. However, in order to establish that any of these remedies are appropriate, the appealing party must show "that a proper consideration of the land use appeal requires the presentation of additional evidence". Appellants have not met the requisite conditions precedent to the relief they seek, and their Motion shOUld be denied. a. The leoal reouisites for a hearino are not met. -11- LAW Ol'f.CI.1l SNELnAKln /I BAENNl;':MAN Pennsylvania courts have interpreted MPC S 1005-A to mean that a party is not entitled to present additional evidence in an appeal unless it demonstrates that the record before the Court is incomplete either (1) because the Board refused to allow the party to be fully heard, or (2) because the Board excluded relevant evidence offered by the party. Lower Allen Citizens Action Group. Inc. v. Lower Allen Tp. Zonino Hearinq Bd., 93 Pa. Cmwlth. 96, 106, 500 A.2d 1253, 1259 (19B5); see also, Kossman v. Zoninq Hearino Bd. of Borouoh of Green Tree, 143 Pa. Cmwlth. 107, 113, 597 A.2d 1274, 1277-7B (1991); Vanouard Cellular Svstem. Inc. v. Zoning Hearino Bd. of Smithfield Tp., 130 Pa. Cmwlth. 371, 3B2, 56B A.2d 703, 709 (19B9), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 620, 590 A.2d 760 (1990); Hoqentoqler v. Windsor Tp. Zoninq Hearing ~, 65 Pa. Cmwlth. 451, 455, 442 A.2d B34, B37 (19B2); and Robert S. Ryan, Pennsvlvania Zoninq Law and Practice S 9.5.9 (1992). The legal standard is both clear and severe: [T]he court of common pleas is ~ warranted in taking additional testimony at a de novo hearing when the party seeking it demonstrates that the record is incomplete because it was denied an opportunity to be fully heard, or when the Board excluded relevant testimony that was offered. Reformed Seventh Oav Adventist Church. Inc. v. Philadelphia Zoninq Bd. of Adiustment, 127 Pa. Cmwlth. 445, 451, 561 A.2d 1324, 1327 (1989); see also, Borouoh Council of Churchill Borouoh v. Paoal. Inc., 74 Pa. Cmwlth. 601, 607, 460 A.2d 1214, l21B (19B3); and Ryan at S 9.5.9. The Court may properly refuse to consider additional evidence (1) where that evidence was available at the time the -12- LAW OFI'ICl.:G SNELDAKEn /I BRENNEMAN matter was considered by the board, Kossman at 114, 597 A.2d at 7B; Hoqentogler at 455, 442 A.2d at B37; (2) where the evidence is in the nature of rebuttal, the need for which could have been anticipated, Boron Oil Co. v. city of Franklin, 2 Pa. Cmwlth. 152, 157, 277 A.2d 364, 366 (1971); or (3) where the evidence is repetitious or immaterial to the issues involved in the appeal, William Cherskv Joint Enterprises v. Bd. of Adiustment of City of PittsbUrqh, 426 Pa. 33, 36, 231 .20757, 75B-59 (1967). See also, Ryan at S 9.5.9. Without question, MPC S 1005-A does not require this Court to receive all additional evidence relevant to the issues raised by Appellants on appeal: Such an interpretation would not only nullify the discretion plainly conferred upon the court, it would effectually remove from the . . . Board the fact- finding function entrusted to it by the legislature. It would further render meaningless the requirement that the proposed additional evidence be shown to be necessary for a proper consideration of the appeal. Boron Oil at 157, 277 A.2d at 366. In the instant case, the Motion does not contend that the record of the proceedings before the Board is incomplete because (1) the Board denied Appellants' right to be fully heard, (2) the Board excluded any relevant evidence offered by Appellants, or (3) the evidence Appellants now wish to present was not available at the time the matter was considered by the Board. On the contrary, the Board never denied Appellants the right to be heard fully. The Board never excluded evidence offered by Appellants. And the evidence Appellants now want to present is not new -- -13- LAW OP'l'lCl.ll 6NELnAKEn /I BRENNEMAN merely additional. Appellants' additional evidence was just as available to it at the time the matter was considered by the Board as it is now. All that Appellant has asserted in its Motion is that the "additional testimony" it seeks to present is somehow related to the claims it has raised in the Appeal. Clearly, such an assertion, without any claim that the evidence was improperly excluded by the Board or was previously unavailable, is insufficient to support Appellants' Motion. The controversy as perceived by Appellants' attorney relates primarily to the interpretation of Section 509 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The controversy (as accurately reflected in the various meetings' minutes) arose early in the process and was fully debated throughout the proceedings in Hampden Township. Appellants had full opportunity to be heard. Their belated request to present "additional testimony" is simply too late. The responsibility for interpretation fell on the Board as the body required to execute and apply the provisions of the ordinance in issue. As recently stated by Honorable J. Wesley Oler in an analogous case, Board of Supervisors of Middlesex Township v. Middlesex Township Zonino Hearinq Board, No. 95-7157 civil Term (Cumberland County) February 22, 199~: "[A] principle, now codified as to statutory interpretation under section 1921(c)(B) of the statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa. C.S. S 1921(c) (8) , [is] that courts should give great weight and deference to the interpretation of a statutory or regulatory provision by the administrative or adjudicatory body that is charged with the duty to execute and apply the provision at issue." Johnston v. Upper Macunoie -14- LAW O"ICIII 5NE\..nAKln /I DRtNNEMAN Township, 162 Pa. Commw. 170, 176, 63B A.2d 40B, 412 (1994). This principle has led Pennsylvania courts to defer, in appropriate circumstances, to the interpretation placed upon a zoning ordinance by the zoning hearing board charged with adjudicating it. In the case sub iUdicie, the circumstances were appropriate for the Board to interpret the meaning of the terms in issue. The Board was charged with the duty to execute and apply the provisions at issue. Appellants had the opportunity to present evidence and to make its arguments to the Board. The Board performed its duty. No additional evidence is needed now to debate the decision. b. Scope of Review This Court's decision regarding Appellants' Motion will determine the scope of judicial review to be applied in the appeal. It is a well-settled principle that where the Court of common Pleas does not take additional evidence in an appeal of a zoning or land use matter, the Court's scope of review is the same as an appellate court. Limely v. Zonino Hearinq Bd. of Port Vue Borouoh, 533 Pa. 340, 343, 625 A.2d 54, 55 reargument denied (1993); see also, oecray v. Zonino Hearing Bd. of Upper Saucon ~, 143 Pa. Cmwlth. 469, 473, 599 A.2d 2B6, 2B7-BB (1991); Valley View civic Ass'n. v. Zoninq Bd. of Adiustment, 501 Pa. 550, 554, 462 A.2d 637, 639 (19B3); and Ryan at S 9.5.10. If there is no legal basis for an additional hearing, the Court's inquiry is limited to a determination of whether the Board committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law. rd. Furthermore, the Court must affirm the Board's decision if it is -15- LAW OHICrr. 6NELnAIU.R /I BRENNEMAN supported by substantial evidence, and the court may conclude that the Board abused its discretion only if the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Vallev View at 555, 462 A.2d at 640. "SUbstantial evidence" is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. rd. at 555, 462 A.2d at 641. It is also well-settled that where the court of Common Pleas does take additional evidence in an appeal under the MPC, the Court must decide the case de novo. stoltz v. Zonino Hearino Bd. of Borouoh of Lewisburq, 130 Pa. Cmwlth. 45B, 462, 56B A.2d 746, 74B, appeal denied, 525 Pa. 615, 577 A.2d 546 (1990); see also, OeCraY at 473, 599 A.2d at 2B7-BB; Ryan at S 9.5.10. In the instant case, the record of the Board is sufficient to allow this Court to determine whether the Board's denial of Appellants' land SUbdivision plan is supported by sUbstantial evidence. Where, as here, a board's decision is sound and based on substantial evidence, the taking of additional evidence is clearly unnecessary. Vanouard Cellular System. Inc. v. Zoninq Hearino Bd. of Smithfield Tp., 130 Pa. cmwlth. 371, 3B2, 56B A.2d 703, 709 (19B9), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 620, 590 A.2d 760 (1990); Ernsberoer v. Zonino Bd. of ~diustment of city of pittsburoh, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 373, 3B2, 531 A.2d 9B, 102 (19B7), appeal denied, 517 Pa. 625, 53B A.2d B7B (19BB). c. conclusion This Court is only warranted in taking additional testimony at a de novo hearing when the party seeking to admit such -16- lAW Onl~lli 6~H:Ln^KlR /I DnENrUMAN additional evidence demonstrates that the existing record is incomplete because the Board denied the party an opportunity to be fully heard or because the Board excluded relevant evidence offered by the party. Appellants' Motion to Present Additional Evidence is deficient on its face as it fails to make any assertion that the additional evidence was improperly excluded. Furthermore, the Motion does not assert that Appellants' "additional evidence" was previously unavailable. Given Appellants' failure to offer any factual or legal basis upon which this Court can properly receive additional evidence and given the fact that the Board's decision below is sound and based on substantial evidence already present in the existing record, it would be both improper and unnecessary to allow Appellants to present additional evidence in a de novo hearing. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Answer and New Matter, Appellee Board respectfully requests your Honorable Court to deny Appellants' Motion for Presentation of Additional Evidence and discharge the Rule issued thereon. Oated: July 'I , 1996 SNELBAKE':&_ 13~ NNEMAN, P. C. I I /tt ttfi-c-~ chard C. Snelbaker 44 West Main street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-031B (717) 697-B52B Attorneys for Appellee B -17- "- , , _ .J!l!1lI1 ," . '1 , ...' ----, ,Mt&'"' ." 10 I .,.IM."n...... I ,.' S I ....~.~~ ~ I ~ I , ,I Ie' , !\ I - " J;:: YI 'J:lII' '''01 4'" U II~ I ~ -~ ' : ZH 'loIl 10 I ... " :I GW'M~IHAnNlIOll . GI^'G. " I 1- 1 ~ ',- I' ~ . I " I, U!~ '. II II.U" , !i J! "I '01" W, 0 r- --- :"" = /- :stv: II! Q , [" , r-:;-;.... " ~ ,I.. aCC i', '! 'cfj: I. 1', = a:~ 1\ ',~ ~ l. I Ii 'a~. " !:'e I I a: . , u !! , .. , 4..___'> t i. ~ "':S <l '. I o. 1 2t I ~ I e ,~! ~. It . '''' ~ '" c .. I .0 t, :. , .. >i 0 t .. It o' si 0 ~. t l t, ~ a t.. i · ~ h !'':: t. ,do, 1~ ~~ a:! j" :It,.. I'''' .. ~ ~~.;; ~ n \ qUJ~ l~ \ · '1I'C i.." , \ii.iU'~ll ;i" : t.l! , !~! o 'i Ii" :: ~ ----- wo sn:>>*' )lWVd \ ) ,,"'" . 1 " ~ ~ ~ 'I; I - .. " ~ :: ~ ~ ~ I ~ - ~ ~ 0 ". . s ~p e . ~ 1 i ~ , Q I " t I in \oj t . ~q v ." .," t ' it II J J II! ,I " ~1.~t("iS i~ : d ~ ! e l.~ ~ ~ i 1 ~ uP ~J::~ 11 ~ 1~~ll!J - I .. ~ ~:; \ " $111 =: ' t .1 ,lll oil, J! 1;1'. Ii n 111 nJ'~~H In 111 ~ " !.. t., & ~ :11 ... \i ~! a Ii I ~ oJ ......_._.. . r!..' \ II ~4 ~ l :: I' I Ii , I z ;1 If- ; I d l'! gill ~ I~~ I f!. , Ii; 9, 911 .1 Id Ii ,il l!' .. E. Ii iiii=i U! Et wi .. ..,: .... I" -- ...... 0 M..ot ,II .11 'N \ , I N ! CD CD: Q. . CD CD .. "- , . I N , ' ,:i Ii ! ::; . \1\ 1 !L; Hi ~i tI gl=l! NJ ..9 S ngd;llE e~ 2 EliM!!~= ~~ w ~9 !!Jlil..l ... ~ "III!K~"o ~ . "S"~l=..Ii~ ..I :l.!hl!g=!! ~9 :a!l!ftI2a~ i~ d2!1h I!.:: ..! oW .... I.." Q W&zl.w -"w ~ a ~~!laeul'!"~:= 15 tlo..~a"..c . ~ 15;;"\1 1I'"1! ... I I z!l !l;~!lI~gl!~ ~ ii ... N tri .. 01 11)U'd 'GOGI "," 'V1 e;.-g..z UG MOU1U ~IN IlllI'l II :1, 'III~ I. I I I I I ! _~t 1-' II :t '. Ii! I ! I Ul illll J I !ll 11\.. n: 11'1 \' ,lllll h -jl -!-- , 1'1'111. 1m ~:I'III"II "" ft. I II , . . '.' . . ~ I~ Ii 'rl !It 0 ~ i !d i~ r -.;" -, !I'fJ i~ a I .. Ii;! S :l ~ ~~ :i i 9 8 !!~ 2 ~ ~! i lilnUi H I ;;I~ ~~~ ~Qi~W d ~~, a ; uUlhlh~lh! _N ,1."....01.. R:i d . =. '" ~ -;l I . II . I cJ z - I' 81_ !..I; ,A =.11.: ~ Iii I ~ I i , I t i I 0, .. II " Iii Pennsylvania, is located in an RS Residential Oistrict under the provisions of the zoning ordinance of Hampden Township. Lot No. 1 is owned by Charles M. Kemberling and Thelma G. Kemberling. 4. On January 25, 1995, representatives of Charles M. Kemberling and Thelma G. Kemberling filed with Hampden Township an application to waive two separate driveway accesses and to divide the property into 3 single-family dwelling lots. 5. The action of the Board of Commissioners of Hampden Township, dated March 30, 1995, in denying the SUbdivision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion and contrary to law, in that: a. The decision of the Board: (i) unreasonably and arbitrarily denied the request for a waiver; and (ii) unreasonably and arbitrarily disapproved the 3 lot subdivision because a proposed lot did not have immediate access to a public street. b. Section 509 of the Hampden SUbdivision Ordinance recognizes that certain properties have unique property configurations and locations, and that not all subdivision plans do have immediate access to public streets. Section 509 goes on to provide conditions by which private streets will be permitted. The ordinance specifies that no SUbdivision will be approved on a private street or road if more than two lots already front on such street or road, or 2 if after SUbdivision more than two lots will front on such private street or road. c. Lot No.1, which is proposed to be subdivided into three lots has an approximate square foot area of 53,300 square feet in the shape of an L. d. Lot 1-B already fronts on a public street (namely, Creekview Road). The instant Kemberling proposed subdivision shows that Lot No. l-C and 1-0 conform to the conditions set forth in ~he ordinance by which private streets will be permitted. e. Lot No. l-C has need of the private road 20' access in order to reach creekview Road. Therefore, it is not the case that more than two lots already front on the private street or road in question. Moreover, it is not the case that after subdivision, more than two lots will front on the private street or road in question. f. Lot No. 1-0 fronts on a public street already improved by the Township. g. On Oecember 30, 19B2, Charles M. Kemberling and Thelma G. Kemberling granted and conveyed to the Township of Hampden Lot No.3 consisting of approximately 25.6 acres on the north side of Creekview Road. Oeed Book 30-a, Page 59B. Kemberling retained an express reservation of rights, specifically agreed to by Hampden Township, which provided Kemberling a perpetual right-of-way and easement over the property on which the park access drive now sits, granting 3 to Kemberling "free and uninterrupted use of the sellers, their heirs, devisees, and assigns, forever, as a road for the ingress, egress and regress from Lot No. 1 on the final subdivision plan" of Kemberling "to the public highway known as Creekview Road." h. Lot No. 1-0 has a right to use Park Access orive for ingress, egress and regress to Creekview Road. 6. The Board did not make an evidentiary record, findings of fact or conclusions of law in connection with the Kemberling application. 7. In order to properlY adjudicate the assigned errors of law and fact addressed in Kemberling's Land Use Appeal, Kemberling desires to present evidence for jUdicial consideration, inClUding, but not limited to: (a) how and why the facts show that the Township had previously agreed to use a fifty (50) foot strip of land as "dedicated to public use as a street," via an express agreement with Kemberlingl and how and why that same 50 foot access is now, in fact, a fully improved street, "Park Access Orive"l (b) how and why the Township ordinance on "private streets" contemplates and authorizes the proposed uses contemplated by Kemberling in its SUbdivision of its unusually configured property I 4 (c) how and why there is no lack of access to a public road, through competent testimony of a professional engineer, Robert G. Hartman' Associates; (d) why there is no legitimate reason to deny the access proposed in the Kemberling subdivision, because it is consistent with policy set forth in the Township ordinance. (e) how and why Kemberling and the Township agreed to Kemberling's free and uninterrupted access set forth in the proposed subdivision as recently as December 30, 19B2. WHEREFORE, Appellants request that this Court set forth a date and time at which additional testimony may be taken before this Court relevant to Appellant's Land Use Appeal. POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN CARRLE Ie BOWMAN i) , ~I~ c. Gra nger I.D. #15706 114 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 23B-9300 Attorneys for Appellants Date: June 1B, 1996 5 (1 -,.., (-) ('- (..., '1\ ; , --r:tt: .l OJ1- , : . '(1 r_. .. ...t \3 (: ,'. \.;;J l:. '0 ....' l~ " ..., r".. ~ ) r"' ... :'-' . -n1 ,1 ;"'.~ ~J .- N !,! 11. Oenied as stated. Lot No. 1-0 does have immediate access to Creekview Road through Park Access Orive. Admitted that Lot No. 1-C does not have such access to Creekview Road. 12. Denied as argumentative and as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 13. Denied for the reasons stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 above. a. Appellee is estopped from taking the position that Park Access Orive is a non-pUblic street. The facts are otherwise, and Appellee'S and Kemberling's rights are set forth in the Agreement. Kemberling did not waive any rights. b. Park Access Drive is believed to abut Kemberling's Lot No.1, and a hearing is requested to so prove. The "Existing Gate" does not limit the rights of Kemberling under the Agreement, and Kemberling has the right to demand its removal. 14. These averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required. The Agreement defines the rights of the parties, and it is the position of Kemberling that the Agreement establishes rights to public access. A hearing is requested. 15. Admitted that the paragraph partially quotes the Ordinance. The entire Ordinance speaks for itself, and read as a whole, the Ordinance provides exceptions to benefit Kemberling and others similarly situated. A hearing is requested. 16. Oenied as a conclusion of law. 2 :0 :0 I. ^G1lLL':!!:.!i! Holdo tnil ..:z .-,( dAY of 11arch, 1'>65, f.lL'TIIl::F.tI ClI/lRLhS H. K!'111I:.IlLING /lnd TIlf.LMA G. J\EHIlERLING; hlH wl(o, ot the Township ut hA~pden, County of Curtberland an!: 5tllt~ rJt l'unnsy1vanh, horelnafter rutorr"" to A" "OWnor9", ANIl ~'(h,11~1I I P OF II,."Wlli:ll, Curilio rl.lnd Cc:unty, PennlY 1- vllnill. hereinbCtsr ro[orrdd to al "Townahip". wm REf,S, tho ",lid Char lei ~. J\or.,berlinq nnd Thelma a. " I' I<nmberlln'l, hI. wHu, by virtu.. ot de"" trom 11ur1e G. l<emb.rl1n9 nud ^nnle A. ~"mborlin!J. his wl.J, cJntoJ July 24, 1964 and re- ,;': ~:::'i cordfld In the lIocorcl"r' I Offlc" in /lnd (or add Cumborlaml Coun.ty, in 04leo Boo~ "II", Yolo 21. I'II'1e 264, 111'0 ths ownerl ot a certain tract a~ tar~ lund 81tUllto in thl! Township of Hnmpden, County of Cumborlund and Stato of l'enn8ylvanill, and WIIEREAG, tho Ddd Charles M. Komberlln'] and Thelma G. '", I<lImberl1nlJ, hiR wHo, havo Dub,olttnd t" the Comwi81110norll of lIampden Town8hlp a Plan for epprovnl undo I' the Town.hlp land Iubdiv18ion ordinance ahowing Illnds to be conveyeJ by laid, OWner. to JamOR F. Merrlttl end wi(o And othllr lanJ. to bo conVeyed by oald OWners to Maynard Gandy and wlf~, Ind W11t:IlEMI, th~ laId OWnere Intend to retaIn ownenhip,,,, 'I, .. . of a tl(ty (50) foot Itrip ot land ,.paratlnq the 1andl about to b. conveyed to laId Jam.1 r. Merrittl .nd wlte and to Maynlrd Gandy and wite, end '.,' , WIIEREAS, the laId Ownere In ordor to obtdn IPPl'ova~,r,O,f;: " ,I laid lend lubdivilionl under tho Hampden Townlhip llnd .ubdivllipn ardin.nce, havo agreed to dedicate thl laid fifty (SOl foot , ' , /' " ,. , I ~ i, -." :: ..::; " ,.;. ,.,., I,' 1',1 . ' . t ~ " .' ~I! 'l" \ :,lr.'" q j.. '.l';; . .... " ',~" . '; i ,1.' " ';'. " 1~ , " . / \ ~' .. .t .j ,: f ,'. .t " ~, . '. , ! ',I " 'r ' ~~"I'" ,~ " / " ~i 1 flO PAtE 3~1 Exhibit "A" CI .n Cl (~ ,.}"l 1\ ." ..\ ., ,;n [1 " ,> .' -,' .;~ . I":) S! ' r- ,I:a .- ,_. ~;( !l) ".~. ~ ~..' if" - ' .-~ .-:1 ,. " :J,J l~:J ~ Pennsylvania, is located in an RS Residential oistrict under the provisions of the zoning ordinance of Hampden Township. 4. Lot No. 1 is owned by Charles H. Kemberling and Thelma G. Kernberling. On January 25, 1995, representatives of Charles H. Kemberling and Thelma G. Kemberling filed with Hampden Township an application to waive two separate driveway accesses and to divide the property into 3 single-family dwelling lots. 5. The action of the Board of Commissioners of Hampden Township, dated March 30, 1995, and served on April 3, 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", in denying the subdivision described in Paragraph 4 was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion and contrary to law, in that: a. The decision of the Board: (i) denied the request for a waiver; and (ii) disapproved the 3 lot SUbdivision because a proposed lot did not have immediate access to a pUblic street. b. Section 509 of the Hampden SUbdivision Ordinance recognizes that certain properties have unique property configurations and locations, and that not all subdivision plans do have immediate access to public streets. Section 509 goes on to provide conditions by which private streets will be permitted. The ordinance specifies that no subdivision will be approved on a private street or road if more than two lots already front on such street or road, or 2 if after sUbdivision more than two lots will front on such private street or road. c. Lot No.1, which is proposed to be subdivided into three lots has an approximate square foot area of 53,300 square feet in the shape of an L. d. Lot l-B already fronts on a public street (namely, Creekview Road). The instant Kernberling proposed subdivision shows that Lot No. l-C and 1-0 conform to the conditions set forth in the ordinance by which private streets will be permitted. e. Lot No. l-C has need of the private road 20' access in order to reach Creekview Road. Therefore, it is not the case that more than two lots already front on the private street or road in question. Moreover, it is not the case that after SUbdivision, more than two lots will front on the private street or road in question. f. Lot No. 1-0 fronts on a public street already improved by the Township. g. On December 30, 19B2, Charles M. Kemberling and Thelma G. Kemberling granted and conveyed to the Township of Hampden Lot No.3 consisting of approximately 25.6 acres on the north side of Creekview Road. Oeed Book 30-B, Page 5gB. Kemberling retained an express reservation of rights, specifically agreed to by Hampden TownShip, which provided Kemberling a perpetual right-of-way and easement over the property on which the park access drive now sits, granting 3 exhibit A , , --.....J ,. ~ 'it ~ g-.J r. ,~ ~?3 ---(b, ..) ~ ~ (' ~ S1\ r-..) ,.;.~_. ~-- 1\;. t ~r-. v. <::l V', . --, ["j <:> , ~. ~- ..:,. - . (" , ~ '. ~..:.J '- tI- -,- -t:. C> G~"'" -\; r, i\ "f- ~ ~ ~ ~ t ,Ct.l Po: r I.F' V.l ~. r-' 4'V . ~ .8: .... ,,- ~. .... . ""- ~. ~, ..... ("t- r- . (.... ~ I , .. 7. Original Memorandum (Comments) of Township Engineer aated February 3, 1995. B. Copy of minutes of Hampden Township Planning commission meeting of February 9, 1995. 9. copy of letter from Township Engineer to Hartman & Associates, Inc., dated February 10, 1995. 10. copy of minutes of Hampden Township Board of commissioners meeting of March 2, 1995. 11. copy of letter from Township Manager to c. Grainger Bowman, Esquire, dated March 6, 1995. 12. original "Final Two Lot Subdivision Plan for Charles M. Kemberling" filed March 15, 1995. 13. copy of minutes of Hampden Township Board of Commissioners meeting of March 30, 1995. 14. copy of letter from Township Manager to c. Grainger Bowman, Esquire, dated April 3, 1995. I hereby certify the foregoing items constitute the record of this matter as it occurred with the Township of Hampden. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and the seal of the Township of Hampden this /8~ day of May, 1995. , 7tiL~ <- John E. Bradl y, Jr. Township Se retary J / //' - (Township Seal) -2- I ~ r::;~.~...--':-~' ~-.. COPIES OF HAHPDEN TOWNSHIP DOCUMENTS & DRAWINGS FOR FINAL THREE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CI~RLES KEHBERLING -.,;.' 'I "'9_1" . ("..~ f l ",""-..-""".~-..-.. 'f<' ,-.- 5EP 16 .~ 00141 IRPDEN TCWiSHIP 717 761 7267 . ' / ,. PAHPOEN TOWNSHIP APPLICATION FOP. SlJllDIVISIOIl 011 UII1l DEVELOPl\:!N'C APP110VAL .~..*~~....*....*..*....*.*.*..*.*.....*..*.....*....*-*_................. CTcwnahip U~a Only) , Fi18 .No~ (t.J , r / i ' i ," Data of Application ,Fees: tiling Recording Total Township , Count:v I,~ ',.", 'i'; ,$ Il~ (' t' : ')"JJf $ '10, (r' 'rUlII Linrl t Datil / I . ,',.0 . 'i.:" I:J " ................................................w..*...................... PrOj~ct Name FI/JAL l1-lF:.E.~ LOr Svgptl/lSlVt..l PLMJ fO(L. CH~ ~B~'-IG Project LofationJAddrells ,4-800 c!tU~YI~W \UlAn IvIEO-iANIL'5&>(l.b PA ora Pa1:cei Nola), -1058' PM..cl;;..L- I ':x::' Prall1aiDary Chllck One: Pre,liminary}F1nal Final x - Subdivision Land Development Check One: - Jlropo511d Use ~INC:.LE.. FAMIL"{ Dl::11\CH~ DWf.t.uI-lCL~ zonin!,' D~4trict(ll) RT -12E'i, 'TOWN 110. ot Lots 3 '1'~t!,;L Acreage _J.22'2.1 AC.US 0,4,'H'IO,309<}, IWerllqe tot Size At..1C\ O. +?'5+ ~ (iI: Sulldivision) J1Ublic Water -:- Yes 'X No Public SIIWI1r X Yes No OWnIl!:'a Name ~~iiU:.s ~6E(LLlNb Phone No. In.13.1-~3~ Address' +tCll Ui+y':-..tt.W 12DM;> MttHAN\tSe.~(U1 PA \1055 , APPl1cant'~ H_ CHr'1t.LE..S ~~(tuN6 Ph"n" No. '111-1?J":'?3U, . Address '4-beo UJ=..elColltJ.J fUM)' tvtt.C.HAf.t\(~~Vt'l0 (7A IloSS . ' Enqineer/Architect Fim HAiL'H-'\PoN At-JD As.s.t'(.I~S ,(1'1(.. Mdnss ZltJl (J(ttH~I') IUA-D CA-t---lf HILL PA IlOI' , " Contaot. ferson v...1Il.L.I/'rM ~'NM4lt\L Phone No. ''''11.''~''1-'3f9lJ I provia. a gllAeral description of the propeaed project on the reverse aiae ot this torm APl'llc~t 8i'3nllbu:.. ~ ~~1 'ritlll Pru.~q- f:NG1N~ SUBUlP .A1't'/rolUls . " No. 95-29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY SUBDIVISION/uAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REPORT Municipality Plat Title HAmoden Townshio Charles Kemberlino Surveyor Hartman & Assoc. Inc Zoning District RT Engineer Hartman I Assoc Inc. Land Use Residential Zoning -K-- Acreage: Subdivided 1.22 Total 1.22 SILO X Number of Lots 3 Dwelling Units ~ Staff Review 1/5/95 Official County Review 1/19/95 Preliminary ___ Final -X- Pinal (Minor Subdivision) Regulations: Municipal X county Date Received 12/26/94 Plat appears to comply with applicable regulations. X Plat appears to generally comply with applicable regulations: revisions may be required. as indicated. Plat appears to need substantial revision. as indicated. Reviewed by PXC Checked by ~ Review comments with cited ordinance provisions ale based on municipal regulations on file with the County Planning Commiss~on. 1. When applicable. streets. sewer. water. storm drainage. and other infrastructure elements to be verified as adequate by municipal staff/engineer. 2. When applicable. zoning compliance to be verified by Municipal Zoning Officer. 3. Appropriate sewage module component should be processed prior to final plat approval. 403.2.W. 4. Certification of ownership and dedicatory statement shall be signed and notarized. 403.2.U.&V. 5. Minimum lot area for dwelling units with public sewer is 9000 square feet. Likewise. the minimum lot frontage is 85'. The site data should reflect such. 6. How will Lot 10 be accessed? 7. Will the existing frame garage be razed or retained7 It should be noted on the plan. 8. The plan notes that aCcess to Lot lB is via a 20' private right-of-way. Is that note correct? It appears that Lot 1C is accessed via the right-of-way. 9. Final plats must be recorded within 90 days of approval. HAI'l~IJEN IUWN~HIP RECEIVED JAN 2.\ 1995 j( , ENGINEERING DEPT IIAMPDEN TOWNSIIIP PI.ANNING COMMISSION 2 Jnnunry 12. 1995 New Business a. Gearhart Subdivision - review of Prelim in arylFina I Subdivision Pllln, property located at 23 Stone Spring Lllne, Camp Hill, 1.0152 acres, 2 lots, zoned R-S, owned by Mllrvin E. and Donna L. Geluhart, submitted by Bornman Surveying. PC File #95-01-01 TLD: April 12, 1995 Emerson Bornman WIIS present to speak for this submission. Tovmship Engineering and County Comments, eopies ofwhieh are attached to and mllde a part of these minutes, were reviewed lIS follows: MATTER OF RECORD: p.m. Greta Line, Planning Commission Chairnlan, arrived at this time...7:35 Mr. Bornman addressed Engineering Comment Nos. 1-3, stating that right-of-way and eartway width for Hillerest Road had been shown, but would be made clearer on the plan. Comment No.4, he will submit D.E.R. Planning Module and obtain Driveway Pemlit and other approvals as required. Comment No.5, he will follow ordinance with required 30 feet for combined side yards. Mr. Bornman will comply with County Comment Nos. 1-5. Comment No.6, the intention was to leave it that way. Township Engineer Spease indicated a note must be added to the plan. Comment No.7, regarding periods when access is restricted, an access casement be provided on Lot #2. Mr. McConnell suggested a note be added to the plan that during an emergency and/or flooding, access would be made available. Regarding Comment Nos. 8 & 9, Mr. Bornman advised they will ultimately end up with two driveways. Comment Nos. 10, II & 12 will be addressed. MATTER OF RECORD: meeting at 7:50 p.m. Vice ChIn McConnell turned the gavel over to Chm Line to chair the Mr. Urling asked about lot size for R-S zoning and was told this was adequate. Commissioner Stathas indicated there is a problem with Engineer Comment No.2 which is not in confonnance with Section 509 of the ordinance. Chm Line advised that on previous plans, approval has not been recommended. After further discussion, Mr. Bradley advised Chapter 8 of the Land Development Ordinance allows for waivers. MOTION: by Chm Line to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval ofthe PreliminnrylFinal Subdivision Plan for Marvin E. and Dunna L. Gearhart contingent upon Township Engineer Comment Nos. I and 2, with applicant requesting a waiver to ordinance; Comment No.3, existing right-of-way and cartWay width for Hillerest Road must be shown on plan; Comment Nos. 4a, b, d & e. and 5, side yard setbacks must be shown on the plan; and Comment No.6. Also, Cumberland County Comments Nos. \-12 with Comment No.7 adding a note to plan: "During an emergency and/or flooding, access will be made nvailablc across Lot. No.2." Comment No. II, a HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION 3 January 12, 1995 note be added to remove structure on Lot #2. Ms. Roberts seconded the Illotion. Motion carried 3-1. Mr. Urling voted agninstthe Illotion. b. Sun Enter:prises - review of Preliminary IF inn I Subdivision Plnn, property located nt 4444 Carlisle Pike, Cnmp Hill, 9.775 ncres, 2 lots, zoned C-L, owned by Klare Sunderllllld, submitted by Hartman and Associates, Inc. PC File 1195-01-02 TLD: April 12. 1995 Mr.Willinm Swanick was present to spenk for this submission. Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which nre nttached to and made a part of these minutes, were reviewed. Mr. SWlIIlick advised they were willing to comply with all comments. They will revise the plllll to show the lot in southeastern comer zoned A-O is not part of this subdivision. Also because the Sun Mitsubishi building had been rotated from the approved plllll, they will submit lIIlas-built plan. Ms. Roberts and Commissioner Stathas were concerned with screening along the residential properties. Mr. SWllllick indicated the trees will remain. Mr. Urling questioned the ownership on the deed--two separate parcels? Township Engineer Spease ndvised these are two confonning lots. Also drainage must be addressed at nccess to Carlisle Pike. Mr. Swanick stated that a survey was complete. When they pnve the intersection, the water problem will be eliminated. Mr. Spease asked that the survey be submitted to the Township. MOTION: by Mr. Urling to recommend to the Board'OfCommissioners approval of the PreliminnrylFinal Minor Subdivision PIlIIl for Sun Enterprises contingent upon Township Engineer Comments No. 1-5b with Comment No.4 requiring an as-built plan be submitted to the Township and County Comment Nos. 3-9. Mr. McConnell seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. c. Charles Kemberlinll - review of Final Subdivision Plan, property located at 4800 Creekview Road, Mechanicsburg, 1.2227 acres, 3 lots, zoned R-T, owned by Charles Kemberling, submitted by Hnrtmlllllllld Associntes, Inc. PC File 1195-01-03 TLD: April 12, 1995 Mr.William Swanick was present to speak for this submission. Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which are attached to and made a part of these minutes, were reviewed. Mr. SWllllick agreed with Engineering Comment Nos. 1,3,4,5,6, lIIld 7. He stated on Comment No. 2, that owner feels he hns a written agreement to use access drive. but has not been able to locate the agreement. County Comments Nos. 1-9 were also reviewed. HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION 4 January 12. 1995 Ms. Roberts inquired about location of wells on plnn for Lotl-C nnd I-D. Mr. McConnell addressed his concern as to how individunls arc going to get out when the Creekview Park's access drive is closed. Mr. Swanick stated that the owner feels there is n written agreement. Mr. Bradley indicated the Township staff has searched and has not been able to locnte an IIgreement. The applicunt has been IIsked to produce the agreement. MOTION: by Mr. McConnell to table the Final Three Lot Subdivision for Charles Kemberling until the agreement is located. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Motion resulted in n 2-2 vote. Mr. Urling made a motion asking the applicant to withdraw the Final Three Lot Subdivision Plan. Mr. McConnell seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. DISCUSSION: Lotl-C is using a 20' access easement across Lot I-B. Lot 1-0 is fronting on Creekview Park's access drive und eunnot be used to access this property. Mr. Bradley asked Mr. Swunick to send a withdrawal letter to Township tomorrow. d. Sportinll Hill ElementaI:Y - review of PreliminarylFinal Lund Development Plan, property located at 210 S. Sporting Hill Road, Meehunicsburg, 23.49 acres, zoned A-O-L, owned by Cumberlund Valley School District, submitted by Derck und Edson Associates PC File #95-01-04 TLD: April12,I995 Jim Hocker, Phil Kavanaugh and Don Searle were present to speak for this submission. Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which are attached to and made n part of these minutes, were reviewed. ~ Mr. Hocker indicated they would comply with Engineering Comment Nos. 1-5 and 7. Comment No. 6 regarding inlets would have to be reviewed. On Discussion Item Nos. I & 2, detailed design will be reviewed with PnDOT concerning the new intersection, signals and improved drainage. County Comment Nos. 1-4 were addressed. Comment Nos. 5,6 & 7 involve working out right-of-way and ownership with school officials. Comment No.8, will include easement. Comment No.9, the 18" CMP ties into a sump. They will show on the drawing. Comment No. 10, it is not necessary to fence detention pond. The pond will have gentle slopes. Comment No. II, the stonnwater management system at this site reduces the rate at which the stonnwater leaves this site. The way the system is designed is better than what exists now. Comment No. 12, they are negotiating with private property owners. Comment Nos. 13 & 14 will be done. Ms. Roberts asked about demolition after school is constructed. Mr. Hocker advised this will be accomplished with DER guidance as the contract stipulates. Don Searle, with the Ray Group, advised the demolition pennit will be through DER. The two story new structure is being built to hold five grades (kindergarten to grade five). Mr. Searle advised Park Drive is being turned over because of realignment for a right hand turn onto Park Drive will bring into a right ungle with Sporting Hill Road. Mr. Searle explained the play areas will be a resilient surface--no macadwn. Ms. Roberts asked about bus traffic and how would this be affected? Mr. Hocker advised they had retained a consultant and will time lights for the traffic of8.10 buses. He advised a traffic study was IIAMPDEN TOWNSIIIP PLANNING COMMISSION 5 Jnllllnry 12, 1995 done uboutll year ago and will be submitted to the Township. The type of curbing to be installed along Park Street is six inch vertical curb. Mr. McConnell asked aboutlhe detention area. Phil Kavanaugh, engineer for the project, advised most of the water is being diverted and piped underground. Ingress comes up the side with the bus entrance by the school. Commissioner Stathas advised the Commissioners would want additional right-of-way along Sporting Hill Road und curbing. Chm Line expressed concern on the issue of population at the school. Is this an adequate plan for growth projected in the district? She agrees that fences need to be higher with an access break. Also. Chm Line is concerned about safety with overflow parking around the playground equipment.. . Karen Christie, Chainnnn ofPTO und Playground Committee at Sporting Hill Elementary School, addressed the Commission und advised there arc 630 students. The Department of Education had a part in designing the school. There are twelve buses that leave three exits. She was concerned about safety with overflow parking being around the playground areas. Mrs. Christie advised of a need to have handicapped areas on the playground for wheelchair accessibility. Chm Line asked if overflow parking could be used on grassy areas instead of playground. Mr. Hocker indicated this is not always feasible during rainy und snowy weather conditions. Engineer Spease indicated the Recreation Department Director's concern with layout of soccer fields. She is concerned about softball field location und interested in a girl's softball field. Also, there is conflict with over-lapped 200' x 330' soccer fields. She was concerned that road construction not be done while the pool is open. Road construction is preferred after August 1995. A meeting is scheduled for Monday with school officials und sequencing is important. Mr. Bradley advised the State should be notified. MOTION: by Mr. Urling to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval of the PreliminaryfFinal Lund Development Plan for Sporting Hill Elementary School subject to Engineering Comment Nos.I-? On No. I. dedicate additional right-of-way along Sporting Hill Road with curbing. Also, add increased height to six feet for fencing und restriction on overflow parking. County Comment Nos. 1-14, noting there is to be some way to block children from entering the pipe at outlet to detention pond. Keren Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. e. Pennsylvania Contractor's Insurance Company - review afFinal Land Development Plun, property located at 203 Lynndale Court, Meehaniesburg, 2.03 acres, zoned I-G, owned by Pennsylvania Contractor's Insurance Company, submitted by Hartman and Associates PC File #95-01-05 TLD: April 12, 1995 Gordon Aekennan was present to speak for this submission. Township Engineering und County Comments, copies of which are attached to und made a part of these minutes, were reviewed. IIAMPOEN TOWNSIIII' PLANNING COMMISSION 6 January 12, 1995 Mr. Ackcnllan hud no problelll complying with Engineering Comlllent Nos. I and 2. On No.3, he indicated there arc 32 employees with an cstimated use of 320 GPD and will provide this infonnation in writing. Nos. 4 and 5 are no problem. On County Comment No. I, they will provide note to Township staff. No.2, regarding zoning compliance, the office will be two units instead of one. No. 3, they will not need sewage module for 320 GPD. No.4, this is an I-G zone and will write letter explaining type of use which is part wurchouse with an area of office personnel. No.5 will add note to plan due to the grading, water must now across this area or ponding of stonnwater will occur. Will ask for a waiver to leave bumper blocks at this location. No.6, they will do before going to commissioners with plan. No.7, Mr. Ackennan had not discussed lighting with owner. Mr. Chlebnikow's recommendation was for direct lighting. Comment No.8 indicated there are five. to six monuments already there. They were not clearly marked on plan. Mr. Spease indicated the concrete monument must be labeled. No.9, as noted with Fire Department comment this area will be marked with "No Parking" signs to ensure fire lanes. Nos. 10 & I I will be accomplished. Ms. Roberts indicated the zoning variance should be applied for because of the I-G designation. A letter is to be written to the Township so that a zoning detennination can be made prior to February 2, 1995. Previous owner swaled to a detention pond with flow going south. Mr. Ackennan indicated trees will remain. Mr. Urling asked about the nature of Pennsylvania Contractor's Insurance Company's business. Mr. Ackennan indicated Mr. John Ortenzio owns this and several other businesses under the same umbrella. Mr. McConnell asked about parking spaces. Mr. Ackennan advised there are 47 parking spaces which is adequate for the number of employees. MOTION: by Mr. McConnell to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval of the FinnI Land Development Plan for Pennsylvania Contractor's Insurance Company contingent upon Engineering Comments Nos. 1-5 with special note being lidded for Comment 2d that "No parking" signs are to be placed between building to ensure fire lanes. Also, County Comment Nos. I - 11; and specifically with No.8, they must show pennanent monuments and label concrete monument on the plan. Mr. Urling seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. f. ABS Mailinll- review ofPreliminurylFinal Land Development Plan, property located at 3912 Market Street, Camp Hill, .90 acre, zoned A-a, owned by Edward McDennott, submitted by D. Michael Frye PC File #94-12-01 TLD: March 8,1995 J. Michael Frye was present to speak for this submission. Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which are attached to and made a jlart of these minutes, were reviewed. Mr. Bradley requested a description of use for the business be provided the Township so that a zoning detennination could be made by February 2, 1995. Mr. Frye indicated they would comply with Engineering Comment Nos. 1-5, although No. 4b after discussion with Brian James, this site does not require approval. On County Comment Nos. 1-2, will HAMPDEN TOWNSIIII'I'!.ANNING COMMISSION 7 Jnnunry 12, 1995 comply. On No.3 regarding sewer module, did not feel it was needed with six employees using 60 GPD. Nos. 4 nnd 5, notes will be added to the pion, No.7, they will install new curbing. Nos. 8,9 & 10 existing driveways have limited frontage to satisfy compliance with maneuverability on site. Nos. II, 12 & 13. they will comply. Ms. Roberts expressed concern nboutthe steep slope of the parking aren behind the building which is dangerous. Mr. Frye advised this is used primurily for the purpose of accessing products at lower level of building. Ms. Roberts commented on unsightly outer appearance of building. Mr. MeDennoll, owner of property, commented that the building had been left vacant and the outside appearance will be improved. Mr. Frye advised projection for stormwater calculations. Site is crowned in center, and water is diverted to the east and wes!. Mr. McConnell noted that correct address for the property is 3912 Carlisle Pike. Mr. Urling expressed concern with driveway at rear. Township Engineer Spease indicated there should be some type of loading zone. Mr. Bradley advised there must be a loading area which cannot be the same as the parking area. Chrn Line was concerned with severe drop in reur loading/unloading urea which is a potential safety hazard. Also, she noted a commercial loading zone must be added to the plan and exterior building condition needs to be improved. MOTION: by Mr. McConnell to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval of the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for ABS Mailing contingent upon Township Engineering Comment Nos. 1-5 and County Comment Nos. 2-13, noting that designation for a loading zone must be included on the plan. Also a location map is to be put on the plan. Mr. Urling seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Good and Welfare . CIun Line was happy to welcome back Mr. McConnell to serve on the Planning Commission again. She congratulated Ms. Roberts on her permanent appointment to the Planning Commission. Also expressed gratitude for the past service of her predecessor, Chm Dave Harris, He will be missed; we wish him well in his new endeavors. Adjournment Having no further business, Chm. Line adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted. 'OM hlUttl.J IJJrntkK- Burbam Worden Recorder 011295M,DOC HAMPDEN TOWNSJIIP PLANNING COMMISSION 2 February 9, 1995 Solicitor and Township Manager ngreed that the deed in existence docs give the applicant access back and forth from his property to Creekview Rond. but that it docs not supersede the ordinance which says in order to subdivide you must have frontage on a public street. So while Mr. Kemberling may exercise his access today. ifhe is to subdivide. he still has to follow the ordinance and put his subdivision on a public street. Chm Line stated she saw other alternatives Mr. Kemberling could pursue. Unfortunately, they both have costs to them which he would probably find undesirable, yet they arc available. She would dovetail on Ms. Roberts' suggestion ofa road. A road could be put either on the west side going around the back; or he could request the Township to move back its access to the park and use the existing park exit as part of the road that would come back and wrap around to Lot No. I- B. Then he would have those properties I-B and 1-0 supposedly with homes on them. The front of their houses facing the road, and also the interior of the park giving a nice appearance to the park and having all the four backyards together. The other option was in light of the fact there is no public road there, and it is an undesirable waiver, present it to the Township--convey the land over to the Township. Another option is to forget about Lot No. 1-0 altogether, and put a road in to go back to Lot No. I-B. Commissioner Stathas added, and Lot No. I-C. Chm Line amended her prior comment to include Lot Nos. I-C and I-D. To restate then, the first option was to take the access road. move the gate back, using the existing park access and have the road wrap around to Lot Nos. I-C and I-D. Commissioner Stathas asked if we ever did this before on a private street? ChIn Line indicated that it was clarified last month that we have not set a precedent or procedure for the Township to grant such waivers. MOTION: by Mr. Urling to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the proposal be denied. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. ~ DISCUSSION: ChIn Line stnted the motion carries unnnimously to not recommend approval because of the problem of the lack ofnccess to a public road. Chm Line recommended pursuing with the Township the possibility of moving back the park access gate. Mr. Swanick indicated he could discuss that with Mr. Kemberling. New Business a. Grandon Farm - review ofPreliminnry Subdivision. property locnted Northeast of intersection of Good Hope Road with Sears Run Road. Mechanicsburg, 136.6 acres. 169 lots . zoned R-T, owned by James and Jean Grandon, submitted by H. Edward Black & Associates. PC File #95-02-01 TLD: May 6,1995 Chm Line stated a letter was received from the applicant to table action on the plan for one month. MOTION: by Mr. Urling to table this plan for one month. Mr. 1-1i1\ seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. HAMPDEN TOWNSIJlP PLANNING COMMISSION 3 Fcbntnry 9. 1995 b. Hllmpden Court Phllse V - review of Final Subdivision Plan, property loealed North of BaJlersea Parkway, Mechanicsburg, 6.9 acrcs, 17 lots. zoned R-S. owned by William Chanoff, submitted by Betz Associates, Inc. PC File 1195-02-02 TLD: May 6, ] 995 Mr. Gerrit Betz was present to speak for this submission. Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which arc attached to and made a part of these minutes, were reviewed. Mr. Betz agreed with Engineering Comment Nos. 1-6. On the discussion item for Ihe recreation area construction, Mr. Betz indicated there is a storage pile of dirt on Phase IV. During Phase V, the recreation area wiII be c1enned 01T. Somewhere at the end of Phase V or beginning of Phase VI, it will be turned over in a clean state to the Homeowners Association. County Comments Nos. ] -5 were reviewed and addressed. Mr. Brinn Guyer, 6211 Charing Cross, Treasurer of the Hampden Court Homeowners Association, asked about sidewalks and the park playground area. He stated thut neighbors who had lived there for a while were under the impression that the dirt would be removed this spring. The park is an amenity that the residents expected. Mr. Betz advised that should be done in Phase V sometime during the summer. Chm Line requested that the developer move the dirt before the summer so the children can play on the playground area. MOTION: by Ms. Roberts to recommend to the Board of Commissioners approval or the Final Subdivision Plan for Hampden Court Phase V subject to the Township Engineering Comment Nos. ] -6 with special attention to the construction of the recreation area. sidewalks, and dirt removal by the summer. Also, subject to the County Comment Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Urling seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Chm Line amended the motion to add a note to the plan stating driveway of Lot No. 153 must access Edgeware Road. Ms. Roberts agreed to the amended motion. Mr. Urling seconded the amendment to the motion. Motion carried 5-0. c. Pinehurst Phase IIJ - review of Final Subdivision Plan. property located at end of Mountain Pine Drive, ll'lechaniesburg, 17.663 acres, 13 lots (Lot No. 31 is being replotted). zoned R-C, owned by Pamay Development Company, Inc. PC File #95-02-03 TLO: May 30,1995 Mr. Ron Lucas was present to speak lor this submission. Township Engineering and County Comments, copies of which arc attached to and made a part of these minules, were reviewed. IIAMPDEN TOWNSIIIP PLANNING COMMISSION 4 Fchmnr)' 9, 1995 Mr, Lucus udvised there wcre no problems with County Commcnt Nos. 1.4. Engineering Commcnt No, I wus being reviewed by the Sewer Authority und County Soil Conservution. Comment No, 2 the bike path casement was shown on the preliminury plun between Lot Nos, 92 and 93 between the cul-de-suc at Red Spruce Lune und whut is shown us Rundall Roud in the Glenda Crest Development, The note on the preliminury plan was that when the final subdivision plan, including Lot Nos. 92 and 93. is submitted by the developer, the Hampden Township Board of Commissioners will deeide if the Township willuccept the ten foot bike puth casement on Lot Nos. 92 und 93 for construction of a bike path by the Township. It wus not put on the flnul plan because it was their understanding that the Township did not own the right-of. way of Randall Road to the property line. Ifit is detennined that the Township docs own it. then they will put the casement on the finul plan. A detennination will be mude before the Board of Commissioners meeting. Ms. Roberts and Mr. Urling asked several questions whieh Mr. Lucas discussed und clarified. MOTION: by Mr. McConnell to recommend to the Board of Commissioners upproval of the Finul Subdivision Plan for Pinehurst Phase III subject to Engineering Comment Nos. 1.3, adding to Comment No.2 that detennination be mude by stuff on bike path casement. Also, subject to County Comment Nos. 1-4. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 5.0. d. TlIylor Trust - review of Preliminary/Finul Subdivision Plun. property located at 5015 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, .7665 acres, one lot, zoned Col. owned by Charles Taylor, submitted by Hartman & Assoeilltes. PC File #95-02.04 TLD: May 30,1995 Zaek Bond was present to speak for this submission . Township Engineering !tnd County Comments, copies of which arc attached to und made a part of these minutes, were reviewed. Mr. Bond addressed Engineering Comment Nos. 1-3 und agreed. County Comments Nos. I, 2 nnd 4, they agree. Comment No.3 the sewage module component is required only when the plan exceeds two EDUs. Mr. Bond expluined their usage would not excced 75 GPO for the live employees in the officc. The Township Engineer agreed a sewuge module is not required. Ms. Roberts asked the type of business. Mr. Bond stated they were in the mobile home business and this will be the central office lor their companies that operate in Middlesex und Silver Spring Townships. Ms. Roberts asked about the 12' x 50' loading areu. parking spaces, and septic lield. Chm Line asked if there would be u problem with parking in the rear instead of out front. Mr. Bond responded to these questions and advised according to the ordinance, they do not huve enough width to run paving up the side to put the parking in the rear. Chm Line would prefer the Township provide a waiver to put the purking lot in the back. Township Engineer udvised thut would require a zoning variance. Mr. Urling asked if the one story garuge was going to stay. Mr. Bond advised it will remain, and also indicated they wished to move quickly to get into the IIAMIIIlEN 'I'llWNSllI1' 1'l.ANNINI I 1'( IMMISSIIIN ~ Februnry 9, 1995 propcrty nlld going through till' proccss of n /lining vnrinncc will slow the process. Chm Line nddrcsscd thc Township Mllnllllcr on how lonl! II vnrillncc would tnke. Mr. Bradley ndvised it is nminimumof (ill dnys, 1111I1 not knllwing thc dClllllinc lilr thc Zoning Henring Bonrd, it would be probnhly 9ll dnys frolllnow, t.h, Mcl 'onncllnskcd thc Township Engineer if there wns nny problem with run.oll'. Mr. SpCIISC IIdvlscd thc slorrnwlltcr Illnnllgcment wns out front. Mr. Bond Indicntcd on thc orll!lnlll pllln, Ihcy bllll pllrklnl! out bnck, but there wns nn issue of stonnwnter. Clull Line lndicntcd thlllnlllnlltcrlll cUccI lillthe bcnclit of the Township, the parking lot would bc hetter suited ill the bliCk, MOTION: by Mr. Mcl '1Il1nelltll rccolllmcnd to the Board of Commissioners approvnl of the I'relilllinnry/Finlll Subdlvlsloll 1'11111 Ii" Tllylm Trust subject to Township Engineering Comment Nos, 1-3 nllll COllnty Comlllellt No, 4. Ms. Robcrts seconded thc motion. Motion carried 5-0. e. Good Ilol2lLMh1dh:1il:huul- review of Preliminnry/Finnl Land Development I'llIn, propcrty locntcd nt 451 Skyport Rond, Mechnnicsburg, 31.031 ncres, four ncrcs dlsturhed, owncd hy Cumherlnnd Vnlley School District, submitted by Derek nnd Edson Assocllltcs. PC File 1195.{)2.05 TLD: May 30. 1995 Philip Knvllnnugh WIIS presclltto spcnk Ihr this suhmission. Township Enginccringllnd County Comlllcnts, copies of which nre nunched to nnd mnde n part of these minutes, were reviewcd. Mr. KlIvllnllugh nddressed Enginecring Commcnt Nos. 1-6 which will be taken care of. Speciflelllly, on Comlllent No.3, they rCllllze the impervious coverage exceeds the 30 percent mllxlmum. A lettcr wns writtell to the Zoning Oft1cer indicnting thnt their delicieney is minor nnd requesting rcllefofthe requirement lilr lll'nrillnce. If they must npply, they have nn nppllcntlon rendy to submit. Addressing Counly Comments, Mr. Knvnnuugh indicuted Comment Nos. 1-6 will be completed. Mr. llillnsked whllt the devintlon WIIS on the lot coveruge. Mr. Kavnnnugh ndvised they currently exceed Ihe limit of 30 perccnl hy ,2 percent. The proposed addition and pertinent walkwllYs will inerense thllt hy 1.2 perecntto II totul of 31.4 percent of the 31 ucre trnct. Ms. I{oherts llsked filr ndditlollnl c1nrificlltion on the rooms to be added and the grease trap. Mr. Kllvnnllugh IIdviscd the science room uddition necessitnted the nddition oCthe grense trap for the chcmienls whieh could not be lidded to the sewer. These chemicals would be disposed of uceordillH to UER reglllutiolls. Mr, McConnell uskcd if these changes aflcct parking. Mr. KuvulIUlIllh IIdvlsed this docs 1I0t. Mr. MeConnellnsked stnff ifit is proper for the school to go hellne zOlllnglilr upprtlvul. Mr. Brudley udvised thut 1.4 percent is minimal and would not recommend they go belilre zoning ulld delny this tor another 90 days. Chm Line expressed COllcern wilh the proposed hllildillguddition on the side that connects to Hampden Elementary. This Is u concern hecullse of impuet Oil parking. Mr. Knvanuugh indicnted the full-time parking IIrCII is nlltll11pUCICd, hilI SOIl1C of the impervious play nrea which is used for overflow parking IIAMPIlEN TOWNSIIII' PI.ANNING COMMISSION 7 February 9. 1995 Mr. Ronl.ucns. nttorncy, Dnvid Schwnrtz from Olympic Realty, and Dennis Miller, a traffic consullnnt with Grove Miller, ure here louight for the Planning Commissions reaction to a proposcd option lilr neccss to the site und surrounding properties. Mr. Lucas would like to go to the Bourd of COl1lmissioncrs mecting on March 2 meeting and get its reaction to this option. One of the prohlems is the SkyportlWingute combination through light. When Pep Boys went in, tl1llttook out the eusy solution ofstraightcning the lining-up of the two streets. The timing of 111IIt purticulur signuluffccts the entire Carlisle Pike. What they are looking at is an idea thai may help solve thut problemund not cut off anyone's access, but change some of the access capabilities, Basically, thcy would be moving the light at Wingate to a new location. Dennis Miller and Mr. Lucas explaincd locations on aa aerial photograph and drawings, The last time they were before the Planning Commission, they discussed allempting to utilize the traffic signal at K-Martto service the 38 aeres at the old Capitol Products site. Allemate accesses are being considered lilr this parcel since it is along a heavily traveled corridor. It is important that attempts be madc to get the bcst utilization from thc highway system. They are trying to establish ancw intersection tbat would be exactly midway between the K-Mart signal and Skyport ROlll!. In conjunction with the main entrance, there would also be a secondary entrance thut would "bleed-off," One of the key elements they arc proposing is to restrict the traffic movements at Wingate to rights inul1ll rights out only and remove the signalized eontrol from that intersection. The Pep Boys drivewuy would be realigned with Skyport Road to create a standard type four way Interseetiun. They huve proposed und discussed this idea with Ovemite on a preliminary basis. Their primary access now is by way of Wingate. Because of the restricted movements at the Wingate intersection. it would bc necessary, in order for them to tum left on the Pike, to access the new Intersection. They are proposing a roadway that would conncctthis proposed new entrance and Wingate Drive using an existing right-of-way between the two properties. Mr. Miller stated the Skyport/Wingate intersection controls the entire system on the Carlisle Pike. All of the signalized intersections from Gateway Drive to Route 114 are one computerized system that is monitored and controlled nt the Township building. SkyportlWingate because of its inelliciency hus an effect on the entire system. It needs to have a very long cycle length because of the clearance intervals that are required to safely get traffic through the intersection. This plan is not a perfect solution, but Mr. Miller thought it was one with merits. He went into details of design and diseussed eross movements und explained the reason for the left and through combination in the middle lane. Members of the Planning Commission and Commissioner Stathns asked questions regarding accesses. Mr. Lucas stated this proposal does not recommend any restriction of access to the Carlisle Pike. Mr. Hill advised that he is President of the Westover Civic Association. Their board has reviewed the plan and would support the Township moving ahead with the plan. HAMPDEN TOWNSIIII' PLANNING COMMISSION 8 February 9. 1995 Commissioner Stathus, Chm Line and Ms. Roberts spoke about access with K-Mart. Mr. Schwartz, President of Olympic Realty and Development Corporation, advised K-Mart muy not be part of the project. They arc in a different financial shape than when this was originally discussed. Even if they do become purt of the project, they would like to pursue this aceess plun because they feel it is u better plan. Andrew Sheely, attorney on behalf of Ovemite, was present. In attendance were Mickey Kelly, Manager of the Ovemite complex, Jaek O'Brien. Service Center Manager with Overnite, and Chris Hoover, a traffic engineer with Hartman & Associates. Mr. Sheely stated this is the first they had to participate in this project. They request the opportunity to participate in any further discussions on this matter in the future. They want to participate in the introduction of those facts which are necessary for the Planning Commission to get a full understanding of the make- up ofthis entire area, including the Wingate Drive access area. They are concerned with two things: (I) placing additional traffic on Wingate; and (2) mixing of commercial vehicles with motor vehicles. Mr. Mickey Kelly, Service Center Manager with Overnite explained they have 300 trucks entering and exiting Wingate Drive daily. They arc extremely concerned with the access of Wingate which is their only entrance and exit to the facility. Mr. Kelly explained the operational layout of the terminal facility. He indicated left turns with a proposed shopping center mixing vehicular traffic and tractor trailers is of great concern to Ovemite. Mr. Hill, Mr. Urling, Chm Line and Mr. Miller discussed various options for traffic flow. Mr. Urling suggested further discussion continue with the applicant and Ovemite. Mr. Lucas advised the main access to the shopping center would be a public, dedicated street with four lanes. Chm Line suggested that the studies be completed before the Board of Commissioners meet on March 2. Mr. Chlebnikow suggested it would be beneficial to present this plan to the Cumberland County Planning Commission and the Tri-County transportation staff. Chm Line expressed concern that the traffic will not decrease with the 1-581 connector and anything that could be done to move the traffic along the Carlisle Pike in a more efficient manner should be considered. Mr. Swanick expressed concern for the England Jeep/Eagle plan. The owner, Harold England, would be concerned with his driveway. Mr. Tom Dommel. owner of Your Place restaurant, advised he received the plan about u week ago. I-Ie expressed his concern with the plan and the elTect on his customers. For ulmost20 years he has been at this location and has lived with the problems at this intersection. He was concerned with the shopping center coming in and adding another red light causing a problem for his customers. His suggestion was to go back to K-Mart and utilize the present traffic light. He did not want to see the Carlisle Pike turned into a Lancaster Route 30 with red light after red light. Mr. Dommel asked to be informed of any further plans and changes. Mr. McConnell asked what type of shopping center is being proposed'! Mr. Schwartz explained they developed the Colonial Commons Shopping Center in Lower Paxton Township on Route Agenda Meeting Minutes M'lrch 2, 1995 to be removed from that location. He said the primary reasons the intersection operated poorly was because of the offset condition and the time required for sign"l opemtion. He said the alignment of Skyport/Wingate would be ide "I and that the right-turn restriction was a second.best effort which would substantially improve the levels of service at the intersection. He said, as part of the reconfiguration, " road would need to be constructed through an existing right-of-way which would connect Wingate Drive with the proposed new boulevard servicing the Olympic Realty tract. He said a connection to the Overnite Trucking terminal w"s being suggested because,. by restricting the movement to right turns in and out, Overnite, as well as Your Place Restaurant and Pep Boys, would loose the ability to make a left turn. He said it was suggested that Pep Boys align its driveway with Sky port Road and make it part of the signal operation and that England Jeep/Eagle align its driveway with the boulevard. He said another suggestion was to provide a right-turn overlap at Skyport, allowing concurrent movements within the same time period and increasing the efficiency of the intersection even further. - Mr. Miller referred to an enlargement of the area and pointed out a secondary entrance to the Olympic Realty tract that would not be signalized but which would allow left turns in and right turns in "nd out, with left turns out prohibited. He said the restricted movement could be accomplished by raised channelization. He said the boulevard design included three lanes exiting the property, with the left-most lane for left-hand turns, the middle lane for left turns "nd straight-through movement, and the third lane for right-turns. He said there would ~e two lanes coming into the property and that the right lane could "peel ofr ontO the proposed access road or go straight through into Overnite Trucking. Mr. Miller said the proposed access plan had been presented to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. He said the concept needed to be presented to PADoT, and he thought PADoT would be enthusiastic about the concept because it would improve conditions "t the Skyport/Wingate intersection. Comm Rendler asked how much of the proposed boulevard would be dedic"ted to the Township. and David Schwartz, President of Olympic Realty and Development, informed Comm Rendler it was the developer's desire to dedicate all of the boulevard and the access ro"d to the Township. Solicitor Snelbaker asked what the source was of the east/west, pamllel "ccess ro"d, and Ron Lucas, legal counsel for the developer, said ownership of the 50-foot right.of-way was with the heirs of Myers who had originally subdivided the property. Comm Rendler "sked how far west the rigln-of- w"y extended, and Mr. Lucas sOlid the right.of-way extended to Salem Church Ro"d. I" I , '. Ken Hess, 6 Wingate Drive, sOlid, concerning the right-of-w"y, counsel for the developer had said the right.of-way was a public right.of-way, but his deed described .2. p1 101" Agenda Meeting Millutes March 2, 1995 '._, it as a private right.of-way. as did the deeds of several other propeny owners whom he named. He said. over the years, parking lots, fences, etc. had been phlced in the right-of-way. Mr. Lucas said the right.of-way was not public as far as the Township's rights. Comm Stat has asked if access to the K-Man propeny and that traffic signal was anticipated, and Mr. Schwanz said that propeny was owned by the Brandywine Group and leased entirely to K-Mart. He said both panies would have to consent to . access of that propeny. He said there was an easement between the two propenies and it was hoped that K.Man and the landowner would allow a connection. Comm Rendler asked if it was correct that Olympic Realty's proposed constntction would not stop that from occurring, and Mr. Schwanz said the proposed shopping center would be laid out in a manner that would allow for a connection. Solicitor Snelbaker asked Mr. Miller to review the names of the owners of the propenies abutting the 50-foot right-of. way, and dbcussion followed. ~.. J.: ' Solicitor Snelbaker asked if an opinion had been issued on the availability for dedication of the 50-foot right-of.way. Mr. Lucas said Tredegar had received an ojlinion that the 50-foot right.of-way existed and that the heirs of the Myers Estate would have to offer the right-of-way for dedication. 'tt;'.'~ ~ Mr. Lucas said the developer was asking for the Board's suppon of the concept of the proposed access plan, so it could be presented tQ PADoT, and he said he would be happy to answer any questions. Bob Lunger said Mr. Miller had implied that trucks from Overnite would use the access road and the boulevard and asked if that meant they would not use Wingate Drive. Mr. Miller said the trucks could continue to use Wingate to make a rightLUrn in and out, but left turns in and out would be restricted to the boulevard. Mr. Lunger asked if the boulevard would connect to Overnite's propeny, and Mr. Miller said, if Overnite was willing to do that, it would be to their advantage. Mr. Hess said his propeny was the only residential propeny remaining on Wingate Drive and that he and his wife had lived there since 1965. He provided a history of the area and said there were pons of the proposed plan which were attractive, panicularly the reduction of traffic on Wingate Drive. l- Douglas Hill, representing the Westover Civic Association, s.lid the association board had discussed the proposed plan and had voted unanimously in suppon of the changes recommended by the plan. He said the residents of Westover had been apprised of the proposed plan, and it was his understanding the Township had received a number of calls and letters from the residents in suppon of the plan. He -3- Agenda Meeting Minutes March 2, 1995 said the Capitol Products site was a prime piece of property that deserved to be redeveloped and that could only happen if the developer got approval from PADoT. He said the only way to get that approval was to show that the flow of traffic on the Carlisle Pike would not be adversely affected. Mr. Hill said the ilSSocionion belieVl'd the plan was commendable and hoped the Township would vote in support of the plan and forward that recommendation on to PADoT. Brian Guyer, representing the Hampden Court Civic Associ.ltion, presented a petition to the Board supporting elimination of the traffic signal at Wingiue Drive. He said only positive feedback had been received from the residents of Hampden Court concerning the proposed plan and that he endorsed all of the statements made previously. Harold England, owner of England Jeep/Eagle, said he was in favor of the proposed plan. He said, having observed the traffic situation on the Carlisle Pike over the years, he thought what was being suggested would greatly improve that situation and would not hinder the businesses. lJ....-. Mort Bernstein, president of Ollie's Bargain Outlet, said he wanted to echo his support for the proposed plan. He said, even though it would make it difficult for his customers to turn left, he thought, from a safety and overall business point of view, the proposed plan would greatly improve the traffic flow on the Carlisle Pike. '\ Al Meloro, representing Pep Boys, said he had several concerns about the proposed plan. He said tractor trailer and emergency vehicle maneuverability around the Pep Boys site would be eliminated and people would use his parking lot to make a left. hand turn onto the Carlisle Pike. Mr. Meloro asked if Mr. Miller had been employed by the Township or Olympic Realty to conduct the traffic study. Mr. Miller said he was employed by the Township which would be reimbursed by Olympic Realty. Mr. Meloro said he was sure his concerns could be mitigated, but he wanted the Township to be aware of them. George Tusing, president of the Noll Acres Civic Association, said the association was in favor of the plan because the Skyport/Wingate improvement would eliminate the traffic flow problem through Noll Acres. I' Andrew Shelly, attorney representing Overnite Transportation CompilllY, said that he, along with Jonathan Macdonald from Overnite's Richmond, Virginia office, Chris Hoover from Hartman &. Associ.nes, and Micky Kelly, Overnite's Mechanicsburg terminal manager, were present that evening to express their concerns about the proposed plan. He said Overnite's basic concerns were access and safety, and he deferred to Mr. Macdonald. ,4. [ Agenda Meeting Minutes March 2, 1995 Mr. Macdonald presented an outline of commelllS concerning the proposed plan and s.lid that representatives from Overnite Imlmet with members of the Township stolff and Mr. Miller the previous Friday. He said Overnite had concerns that needed to be addressed, and he expounded on the items cont.lined in the outline. Comm Funk said the "spirit" that evening was not to promote Olympic Realty, but rather to consider the improvement of an intersection that failed the whole area. Mr. Macdonald said he did not want to sound as if Overnite was opposed to the development proposed by Olympic and that Overnite WOlS willing to consider anything. -.... Tom Dommel, owner of the Your Place Restaurant, said he was not opposed to the Capitol Products parcel being developed by Olympic Realty nor was he opposed to the proposed access plan. He said he was opposed to the proposed change at Wingate Drive because he felt sufficient time had not been spent studying the impact of that change and he felt the presentation of the proposed plan to the Board that evening was premature. He said he "echoed" the comments of Mr. Macdonald and felt the Wingate Drive intersection could be better improved by realignment with Skyport Road, even if it was diagonal. Comm Rendler said alignment of the Skyport/Wingate intersection would require widening of Skyport ROOld and, in turn, the acquisition of additional right-of.way from the property owners. He said he did not believe those property owners would be willing to give up any of their land, and discussion followed., I~ MOTION by Comm Stat has that the Hampden Township Board of Commissioners support a submission to PADoT for its consideration a plan showing the relocation of the traffic signal on Route II at Wingate Drive to a new public road east of Kevin, located approximately opposite the entrance to England Jeep/Eagle, new public street being constntcted off of Route II tu be connected to Wingate Drive which would then be restricted to a right in - right-out onlYi and that the developer continue discussions with Overnitc, Inc. and other p.lrties expressing concern with the plan. Motion seconded by Comm Funk. Question on the Motion Comm StathOls said the reason for her motion was to see if PADol' would allow rhe developer to Olccess the Carlisle Pike. ._-..) -5- Agenda Meeting Minmes March 2, 1995 had preliminary approv.11 fromPADoT for its elllrance, and if Olympic Realty found its entrance was going to be offset, some re.llignment might h.\Ve to take phlce. Comm Rendler asked Mr. Swanick if he would object to a condition concerning alignment of the Enghll1d jeep/E.lgle driveway with the traffic signal on Olympic Realty's proposed plan being added to the approv;II, and Mr. Swanick said there was a timing problem, since Olympic Realty's plan had not gone to PADoT yet. Engineer Spease asked Mr. Swanick if the owner would be willing to realign the England jeep/Eagle entrance, and Mr. Swanick said that might be difficult due to the layout of isles and the now of tractor trailer traffic through the property. Discussion followed. .....,1 MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the Preliminary/Final Resubdivision ;llId Land Development Plan for England jeep/Eagle, property located at 6030 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, 3.9798 acres, 2 lots, zoned C-L, owned by Harold England, submitted by William Swanick. Planning Commission File No. 94-10-03 with a time limit deadline of March 12, 1995. Approval contingent upon (I) plan being reduced to 18" x 24," signed, and notarized; (2) bonding; and (3) Township Engineer approval. Motion seconded by Comm Funk. Motion carried unanimously. Final Subdivision Plan of Charles Kemberling . Mr. Swanick said he. as well as Grainger Bowman, attorney for the owner, were presen. to speak on behalf of the submission. Mr. Bowan said the issue before the Board was whether a waiver would be granted in connection with the access of Lot Nos. IC and 10. He said, currently, the property was a one + acre, L-shaped subdivision and the proposed subdivision would be three smaller, rectangular lots. He said subdivision approval was being requested under the ordinance de;lling with private streets which stated that, ordinarily, it was the policy of the Township not to encourage private street development but that the Township recognized the need for limited exceptions. He then cited the criteria for exceptions and said only Lot No. IC needed access to Creekview Ro.ld through Lot No. 1B, currently the residence of the Kemberlings. He said the remaining lot, Lot No. 10, had access to ;1 public street through the park access drive bec;luse of the provisions of a deed dated December 30, 1992 existing between the Township and Mr. Kemberling. Comm Rendler asked if the owner intended to bring the private riglll.of-w;IY up to Township standards and dedicate it to the Township, ;Ind Mr. Bowman s;lid there was no requirement to do so bec.luse it would be a private road. Concerning -8. r-" Agenda Meeting Minutes M.lrch 2, 1995 , r--' the deed, Mr. Bowman s.lid, if the property were subdivided. Lot No. I [) would be the only lot that would have .Iccess through the park access drive, but that the owner would not subdivide if there W.IS no access to Lot No. IC. Discussion followed. Solicitor Snelb.lker said the Township's policy of not permitting lots on private streets W.IS well documented. He said that Pm 7, Residenti.II.Suburban, of the Zoning Ordinance provided that lot areas within the R.S district were to have certain dimensions which included a dimension along a street line, with street line being defined as a public street. He said he wanted it to be clear that, while the subdivision ordinance might be ambiguous, the Zoning Ordinance was "dove.tailed" to try to correct that ambiguity and make it clear that subdivisions were to be on public streets. - Manager Bradley said, if the waiver were granted, the staff could possibly conclude that a variance would be required from the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Bowman said he had not contemplated the Township sugge,ting a variance might be required, because the subdivision plan, based upon the limited exceptions that were otherwise authorized by the subdivision ordinance, seemed to suggest it was proper to put a house on a lot that was appropriately subdivided. He said having to go to the Zoning Hearing Board for a variance on an allegation of unnecessary hardship seemed to belie the very reason for the private road and he thought the issue was becoming much more complicated than what it should be. ':1.,. \ Comm Stathas said, if the Board were to grant the waiver, it would be setting a precedent because the Board had denied other people what Mr. Kemberling was asking for. Comm Rcndler said other people had not gone this far; that, prior to plan submission, they had been told they could not develop on a private street. MOTION by Comm Rendler to deny the waiver request of Charles Kemberling for a private street to be located on the western-side of the property at 4800 Creekview Road, Mechanicsburg. Motion seconded by Comm Stath.ls. Question on the Motion In response to Comm Mcc.llIin's comment about a loop hole in the ordinance, Solicitor Snelbaker said the question was could .1 private ro.ld be created in the Township. ,_..... President Finkelstein .lsked for a vote on the 1II0tion. Motion colrried un.\lIimously. -9- Agenda Meeting Minllles M'lrch 2, 1995 reconllllended ilpproval with conditions, and he reviewed those conditions. Concerning the two 'ldditional items for discussion, Mr. CW'1I1ilugh s'lid, because of the limited space in the front and side of the school, the recreation fields had been placed to the re;lr of the school. He said the location of the school and the required parking would not permit the size ball field desired. Concerning the request for 'ldditional parking along the parent drop-off drive, Mr. c,lV;\J1augh indic;lted on the plan where overflow parking would be allowed and solid it had originally been shown in front of the school, but that the Fire Chief h'ld requested it be removed and the fire lane maintained. He said there was no paved area, other than what he had shown, to accommodilte overflow parking. Comm Rendler "sked if diagonal parking along the entrance drive, as opposed to the parallel parking shown, would provide additional spaces, and Mr. Cavanaugh said he did not believe the driveway was wide enough to accommodate diagonal parking. Comm Rendler suggested the driveway could be made wider, and Mr. Cavanaugh said p;lrking in that area was for overflow Pilrking which would not be utilized on a regular basis. .-- Comm Rendler inquired ilbout the criteria used to determine the number of required parking spaces, and Engineer Spease stated there were special parking requirements for schools and the plan met those requirements. -. Comm Rendler asked if the relocated sigp would be lighted, and Mr. Cavanaugh said it would. Comm Rendler said the Township hoped to install a bike path parallel to Rome 581 in the future, and he asked Mr. Cavanaugh if the school district would be willing to provide a "pedestri;ln crossing" button on the traffic signal. Mr. Cavanaugh said he did not believe PADoT would approve a crossing button unless there was an existing need, but that the school district could make provisions to adequately wire the signal for a crossing button in the future. ,. MOTION by Comm St'llhas to approve the Preliminary/Final LlIld Development Plan for Sporting Hill Elementary School, property located ;It 210 S. Sporting Hill Road, Mechanicsburg, 23.-19 ;Icres, zoned A-O-L, owned by Cumberland Valley School District, submitted by Derck and Edson Associates. Planning Commission File No. 95-01-04 with a time limit deadline of April 12, 1995. Approval contingent upon (I) plan being reduced to 18" x 24," signed, and notarized; (2) approval/review by the Cumberland County Soil Conservation District; (3) existing m'lsonry sign being moved to a location acceptable to the Township; (4) providing wiring to the traffic signal for future pedestrian crossing; (5) bonding; and (6) Township !~.. -12- r~..' I I I Agend;J Meeting Minutes M.lrch 2, 1995 Engineer ;Jpprov.11. Motion seconded by Comm Funk. Motion c;Jrried un;Jnimously. Preliminary/Final Land Development Pl;Jn for Good Hope Middle School Mr. C;Jv;Jnaugh, also representing this plan, reviewed the Planning Commission's comments. MOTION by Comm Stathas to approve the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Good Hope Middle School, property located at 451 Skyport Road, Mechanicsburg, 31.031 acres, owned by Cumberland Valley School District, submitted by Derck and Edson Associates. Planning Commission File No. 95-02-05 with a time limit deadline of May 30, 1995. Approval contingent upon (1) plan being reduced to 18" x 24," signed by the owner, and notarized; (2) DER Sewage Planning Module approval; (3) bonding; and (4) Township Engineer approval. Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Question on the Motion i....,: Comm Stat has asked if work would commence this coming summer, and Curt Schaeffer, project architect, said it was his understanding the first phase of construction would begin on June 12, with the'snajority of the first-phase work being completed by September 12. Comm Stat has asked if there would be 01 conflict with the COG auction, and Mr. Schaeffer said the majority of the construction equipment and trailers would be located in the parking lot between the elemenmry and middle schools, not the other side of the middle school. Comm Rendler asked wh;Jt was the purpose of the ;Jddition, and Mr. Cavan;Jugh said the addition would provide six new science rooms, a special- education room, a band room, two new computer rooms, and an HVAC room. Comm Rendler asked if there would be ;Jdequate p.lrking, 'lnd Engineer Spe;Jse s.lid, as far as he knew, there would be. Comm McCallin ;Jsked if the anticip;Jted increase in population due to the development of Good Hope Farms South hOld been t;Jken into consider;Jtion by the school district. Solicitor Snelbaker SOlid planning by the school district was dependent upon Department of Education standards, which were not necessarily re;Jsonable or rel;Jted in any way to what was accu'llly taking place. 1--.. President Finkelstein asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. -13. , r ., ....... HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 7:30 p.m. C:111 to Order by President Finkelstein President Finkelstein called the Agenda Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Proof of Publication W:1S available for public inspection. Present were President Finkelstein, Commissioners Rendler, Funk, and McCallin, Solicitor Snelbaker, Manager Bradley, Engineer Spease, and Recording Secretary Browne. Vice-President Stathas was absent. Present:1tion by Grove Miller Engineering on the Creekview/Orr's Bridge RO:1d Intersection Improvement Project ._..~ Dennis Miller presented and explained the layout of a plan showing the proposed improvements to the Creekview/Orr's Bridge Road intersection. He said the plan was essentially the same as the last time it was presented to the Board. He said construction :1ctivity would involve removing approximately three feet of existing road surface which would require closure of the road while maintaining an opening for emergency access. He said the detour woulq be structured in two phases with the most severe being while the northern part of the intersection was under construction. He said the second phase of construction would involve a shorter detour using Memory Lane. He said construction easements were required in order to lay back the embankment :1nd widen and lower the pavement structure. Mr. Miller said, if it was the Board's desire, the project could be constructed this year and that it would be beneficial to do that while school was not in session. He said the current construction cost estimate was around $325,000 and the project could be constructed in about three months. Comm Rendler asked how far north and south of the intersection the construction extended, and Mr. Miller said the entire length of the project was approximately 2/10 mile. Comm Rendler asked how much of the project would be curbed, and Mr. Miller showed on the drawing where new curbing would be installed. Discussion followed concerning curbing on the Beaumont Square property and the northwest corner of the intersection. 1_- 1.- Comm McCallin asked that the area be posted well in advance of the closure so the residents in the area would be informed ahead of time. Agenda Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 Manager Bradley asked the Board for permission to go to bid on the project and to authorize the Solicitor to prepare the necessary deeds of easement. MOTION by Comm Funk to authorize the advertisement for bids and have the Solicitor prepare the necessary deeds of easement for the Creekview/Orr's Bridge Road Intersection Improvement Project. Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Motion carried unanimously. A d' p'" U lence artlclp:1t1on Final Subdivision Plan of Charles Kemberling William Swanick, Hartman and Associates, Inc., was present to speak on behalf of the submission. Mr. Swanick said a revised plan had been submitted subsequent to the Board's denial of the waiver request for a private street on the western side of the properly. He said the revised plan red\!ced the number of lots from three to two with the rear lot accessing the park access drive, and he confirmed the applicant was requesting a waiver from frontage required on a public street or road. \'" ...... Comm Funk asked where the rear lot would access the park access drive, and Mr. Swanick said the access was on the southern side of the lot. Comm Funk :1sked if there was :1ny requirement for the applicant to Vnprove the access drive, and Manager Bradley said that could not be done because it was not a public street. Manager Bradley said he did not think it was even a private street, that it was a driveway. Comm McCallin asked what would need to be done to make it a public street, and Manager Bradley said it would have to be brought up to Township standards. Comm McCallin asked if that was a viable option to provide the desired access without a waiver, and Manager Bradley said it certainly was a legal option. Comm McCallin asked Mr. Swanick if that option had been discussed with his client, and Mr. Swanick said his client was not in favor of having to do that and believed the road met Township standards. Comm McCaIlin asked if it was correct that, even though the applicant had the legal right to use the park access drive, a plan to subdivide would have to meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, and Manager Bradley said that was correct. President Finkelstein asked if the Planning Commission had reviewed the revised plan, and Manager Bradley said it had not because of the time limit deadline. .2. r- Agenda Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 MOTION by Comm Rendler to deny the request for a waiver from frontage required on a public street or road. Motion seconded by Comm Funk. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Comm Rendler to disapprove the Final Subdivision Plan of Charles Kemberling, property located at 4800 Creekview Road, Mechanicsburg, 1.2227 acres, 2 lots, zoned R-S, owned by Charles Kemberling, submitted by Hartman & Associates, Inc Planning Commission File No. 95.01-03 with a time limit deadline of April 12, 1995. Disapproval per Chapter 22, Section 509, Paragraph 1, a proposed lot being created does not have immediate access to a public street. Motion seconded by Comm Funk. Question on the Motion Comm McCallin asked if a new plan would be required if the applicant were to agree to work with the Township and upgrade the road to a public street, and Solicitor Snelbaker said, if this plan were denied, a new plan would have to be submitted. ...... .,:'.. President Finkelstein asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously. .\ Hampden Hearth Traffic Control Signs Michael Hyser said he and seven of his neighbors from Hampden Hearth were present that evening to present a petition to the Board asking that the "No Parking Anytime" signs along Locust Lane be removed and replaced with less restrictive no-parking signs. He said both stOp signs and no parking signs were installed on the street on March 13, and he asked if a traffic study had been conducted to warrant the no parking signs. Engineer Spease confirmed that a traffic study had been conducted and, because of the site distance and the speed of vehicles, the SlOp signs and no parking signs were warranted. Discussion followed with members of the audience and the Board participating. Following that discussion, the Board concluded nothing would be changed at this time, but that it would be receptive to conducting another traffic study once the interconnector was completed. Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Mountain View Village Phase V jo..JL Rob Gabriel of Rettew Associ,ltes was present to speak on behalf of the submission. Engineer Spease said the plan was for development of the last phase of .3. r.... f. Agenda Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 loot,:,olO Mountain View Village, a condominium association W,IS being proposed, and the Planning Commission had recommended approval contingent upon four items. Comm Rendler stated the developer was installing a temporary cul-de-s,\C, and he asked who would install curbing, if the road was extended at a later time. He suggested that adequate funding, to be determined by the Township Engineer, be provided by the developer for the future installation of that curbing. Discussion followed. .-. MOTION by Comm Rendler to approve the Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan for Mountain View Village Phase V, property located at the west end of Orr's Bridge Road at the intersection of Mountain View Road, Mountain View Village, western portion of site, Mechanicsburg, 12.71 acres, 82 units, zoned R-T, owned by Capitol View Construction, submitted by Rettew Associates, Inc. Planning Commission File No. 95-03-01 with a time limit deadline of June 7, 1995. Approval contingent upon (1) approval/review by (a) the Hampden Township Sewer Authority, (b) thc Cumberland County Soil Conservation District, and (c) DER for Stormwater Dischargc; (2) plan being signed by the owncr and notarized; (3) bonding; (4) Township Engineer approval; and (5) developer agreeing to deposit with the Township a sum of money, to bc determincd by the Township Engineer, for future iqstallation of curbing when the temporary cul-de-sac is removed. Motion seconded by Comm Funk. Motion carried unanimously. .. . 0,_,., Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Woodley Heights (formerly Grandon Farm) H. Edward Black and James Grandon were present to speak on behalf of the submission. Mr. Black said he felt the comments from the Township planning commission and the Tri-County Planning Commission concerning the plan had been addressed and that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the waiver requests. He reviewed a letter dated March 28. 1995 addressed to the Board requesting a number of waivers, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. I :~_ Mr. Black said the main road, identified as Road A, would be a 30.foot wide cartway and would have sidewalks and curbing. He said all other streets were proposed to have a 28.foot wide cartway with no sidewalks or curbing. He said a waiver was being requested to allow the creation of lots fronting on the collector strect because each lot would have a turnaround area in adriition to the driveway area. He said a waiver allowing less than 800 feet between intersections was also being -4- Agenda Mecting Minutes March 30, 1995 ''#;\1 requested since loop streets with one-way in and one-w.IY Ollt were being proposed. He said the rcason for requesting the wilivcrs was bccause the dcveloper was tnaly attempting to create iI grcen-sp,lce development, and hc showed on the plan how much of the arca would be retained in green space. Concerning thc request for waiver of sidewalks, Mr. Blilck said the Planning Commission had recommended pathways leading from the streets to the green spaces which would allow circulation away from the streets. Concerning thc requcst for the. waiver of curbing, Mr. Black said it was felt that, without curbing, storm water would drain evenly off the road and seep into the ground in lesser concentrations. Comm Rendler asked if any of the streets would hilve more than a three percent slope along the centerline, and Mr. Black said some streets would. Comm Rendler said, became of the requirement for curbing along streets with greater than a three degree slope, an additional waiver might be required. ..- Comm Rendlcr asked if parking would be permitted on the narrower streets, and Mr. Black said parking would not be prohibited but, as was fashionable in today's ~ociety, it was anticipated the garages would be used and parking by the residents would take place off.street. Mr. Grandon stated that all lots would have two-car garages. Mr. Black described the types of living units as single-family detached with a two-car garage; duplex with a two.car garage, shared driveway, and parking court; and detached townhome with a ~l:1red driveway and two.car garage. In response to Comm McCallin's comment, Mr. Black said there may be on-street parking from time to time and that the Planning Commission had recommended the Township require reinforcement of the pavement edge. Discussion followed. I.. .~~ \':~~j Comm Rendler asked if there was any provision for a bike path through the development, and Mr. Black said green space would be offered for dedication to the Township. Concerning Comm Rendlcr's question about the southern end of Road A, Mr. Black said access to Sears Run Road would be retained. Solicitor Snelbaker asked who would own the land at the access, ilnd Mr. Black said it would be deeded to the homeowners' association. Concerning Fire Company President Robert Lunger's question about paving for emergency vehicle access, Mr. Black said a stabilized surface with knock-away bollards would be provided. Solicitor Snelbaker said the Township would want a covenant from the homeowners' association stating that it would, on request, turn the land over for access purposes. Comm Rendler asked if it was correct that who ever developed to the south would have to extend the street and put in a bridge, and Mr. Black said that was correct. I'd -5- r- Agenda Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 ~., Conccrning Comlll Rendler's question about topography, Mr. Black said Road A followed the higher topography ane! that the land to the e.15t rolled down towards Sears Run and on the weM to Good Hope Road. In rcsponse to Comm Rendler's question concerning sewcr service, Mr. Black said as much of thc sewage as possible would be directed to the east, although there were some lOG\: ions where that was not possible. 1.le said, in those cases, the sewer authority had suggested the sewage be directed toward Mill Road and the plan had bcen revised accordingly. Mr. Black refcrred to another area in which the sewage could not be directed to the east and said grinder pumps would be used in that area. Comm Rendler asked how much additional right-of.way on Good Hope Road the developer was willing to give to the Township, and Engineer Spease said thc developer would provide 30 feet from the centerline of Good Hope Road, on both sides where both sides were owned. -~ Comm McCallin asked if reducing the width of the streets would create plowing problems for the Township. Manager Bradley said, concerning thc request for a waiver for loop streets rather than cul.de-s'lcs, he personally preferred the loop streets from a snowplowing viewpoint. He said, as far as lots fronting on a collector street, he did not have a problem with that a.< long as the residents entered the collector street front first instead of backing out, which the turnaround areas would accommodate. Engineer Spease stated that, had this plan been submitted under the new Land Development Ordinance, a waiver would not be required for lots fronting on a collector street, since driveways with turnarounds were permitted on collector streets under the new ordinance. - Manager Bradley said he did not feel the width of the streets would make any difference when plowing. He said he did have a concern about the request to waive curbing because curbing, in addition to other advantages, also served the purpose of guiding a snowplow. He said anothcr advantage was that it held thc edgc of the roadway, and even though it was suggested the edgc of the pavement could be reinforced, years from now that wouldn't make a difference. Comm McCallin asked if Manager Bradley had any concerns about waiving the requirement for sidewalks, and Manager Bradley said that was a judgment call and he felt sidewalks were an amenity for the community and belonged to the residents. Mr. Black reminded thc Board therc would be sidewalks on the main street. 1..- l Manager Bradley said one thing that did not appear on the agenda was that the land to be dedicated to the Township would be decided upon final approval. He suggested the lands proposed for dedication be "walked" to determine what the Township was willing to accept. .(,. r:;-:I Agenda Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 MOTION by Comm Funk to grant the waivers requested in conjunction with the Prelimin,lry Subdivision PI'1lI for Woodley Heights (formerly Grandon Farm). Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Question on the Motion Comm Rendlcr asked Mr. Black how storm water would be controlled without curbing. Mr. Black s,lid, duc to the topography, the storm water would roll , off both ways from the high point and, becausc therc were few dips and concentrated areas, the water would shed until it got to Sears Run or to the collection system along Good Hope Road. He said, by spreading the stormwater out, more would perk back into the soil, thereby reducing the net amount of runoff. He said the stormwater would be concentrated on the main thoroughfare and would be piped to the green spaces to allow for discharge. He said Engineer Spease had requested easements for the stormwater discharge which would be provided. Mr. Grandon stated that the soil was vertical shale, and disCllssion followed. "('..'.:"1 Comm McCaIlin said, basically, he was opposed to waivers but that he would vote for the motion because of the open-space concept and that he will be interested in seeing how it works out. Mr. Black said, because of the new concept of green.space planning, most conventional ordinances did not take into account what needed to be done. '\ President Finkelstein asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried 3 . 1. Comm Rendler voted against the motion. Comm Rendler said the reason he was opposed to the motion was because he felt that many waivers should not be granted to such a large development when changes could be made. I ' MOTION by Comm Funk to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Woodley Heights (formerly Grandon Farm), property located northeast of the intersection of Good Hope Road with Se,lrS Run Road, Mechanicsburg, 136.6 acres, 169 lots, zoned R-T, owned by James and Jean Grandon, submitted by H. Edward Black & Associates. Phlllning Commission File No. 95-02-01 with a time limit deadline of May 6, 1995. Approval contingent upon (1) approval/review by (a) Hampden Township Sewer Authority, (b) Cumberbnd County Soil Conservation District, 'Ind (c) DER Sewage Phlllning Module; (2) owners, SIIrveyor, and engineer signing the plan; (3) completion of a traffic study showing impact to Creekview RO'ld and other nearby roads and intersections; (4) existing storm water being shown along -7- r Agend'l Meeting Minutes March 30, 1995 ~ , ~-,' Creekview ROOld and PADoT approval to connect to its storm water system, (5) semi.improved pathw,lYs or accesses being included in the green space area; (6) Township Engineer approval; (7) edges of cartways being reinforced; (8) note being added to the plan stating "Road D is to be extended into Lot No. 163, creating an intersection at Roads Band D"j and (9) a mechanicall11eans being provided for the transfer of title for purpose of access to the south side of Sears Run Road. Motion seconded by Comm McCallin. Question on the Motion Comm Rendler stated that no provisions were made in the comments for what might occur after the traffic study was completed. He suggested a condition of approval be included that would provide for implementation of any improvements recommended by the traffic study. .:' ~. ...... AMENDED MOTION by Comm Funk to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Woodley Heights (formerly Grandon Farm), property located northeast of the intersection of Good Hope Road with Sears Run Road, Mechanicsburg, 136.6 acres, 169 lots, zoned R.T, owned by James and Jean Grandon, submitted by H. Edward Black & Associates. Planning Commission File No. 95-02-01 with a time limit deadline of May 6,1995. Approval contingept upon (I) approval/review by (a) Hampden Township Sewer Authority, (b) Cumberland County Soil Conservation District, and (c) DER Sewage Planning Modulej (2) owners, surveyor, and engineer signing the plan, (3) completion of a traffic study showing the impact to Creek view Road and other nearby roads and intersections and implememion of any improvements that traffic study might recommendj (4) existing storm water being shown along Creekview Road and PADoT approval to connect to its storm water system, (5) semi-improved p'lthways or accesses being included in the green space area; (6) Township Engineer approval; (7) edges of canways being reinforced; (8) note being 'Idded to the plan Slating "Ro'ld 0 is to be extended into Lot No. 163, cre,lting an intersection at Roads Band D"; and (9) a mecllilnical means being provided for the transfer of title for purpose of access to the south side of Sears Run ROOld. Amended motion seconded by Comm McCOlllin. Motion carried unanimously. \'"~ ~ Mr. Black said Mr. Gr,\J\don wished to remind the Commissioners that the name of the subdivision would, in all probability, change again. -8.