Charlestown Township
|
The second business meeting for May was held May 15, 2006 at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154. Kevin R. Kuhn, Chairman, Michael Rodgers, Vice Chairman, Paul Hogan, Charlie Philips, Hugh Willig, Mark P. Thompson, Esq., Surender S. Kohli, P.E., Tom Comitta (arrived later) Linda M. Csete, Township Administrator, and those on the attached list were present.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M.
Mr. Kuhn announced that an executive session was held just prior to tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Kuhn announced that the Township had settlement today to purchase a permanent conservation easement on the 71.9 acre Rainbow’s End Farm. The property borders the Piliero and Coleman properties, which are also going to be placed under easement. Together, this will comprise more than 125 acres of preserved land. Mr. Philips noted these parcels are also adjacent to the 75 acre Brightside Farm.
No matters were brought forward at this time.
Mr. Rodgers moved to approve the May 1, 2006 Business Meeting minutes and Mr. Willig seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Mrs. Csete explained that an invoice for additional workers compensation premium is due prior to the next meeting and must be paid in order to continue coverage. It resulted from the audit for the July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005 coverage period due to additional payroll for masons completing the Woolen Mill project. Mr. Philips moved to approve the May 15, 2006 Operating Fund Accounts Payable Report, consisting of one check #4316 for $4,389.00 to the Simkiss Agency, and Mr. Willig seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none called the vote. All were in favor.
Mrs. Csete explained that the payments listed on this report relate to the acquisition of the Burgoon easement, for which settlement took place earlier today. Mr. Philips moved to approve the May 15, 2006 Open Space Accounts Payable Report, and Mr. Rodgers seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Thompson said the Tri-Party Agreement and Subdivision & Land Development Agreement for the Great Valley Pet Hotel were previously approved by the Board and all that is needed is for the chairman to execute them.
Mrs. Csete stated that at the last meeting, the hearing for the PRPC Comprehensive Plan was scheduled for July 17, 2006. Due to vacation schedules, the Board had previously intended to keep July to one meeting on July 10th. Therefore, the Board rescheduled this hearing for July 10th. Mr. Kuhn said the consultants for the regional group will attend all the hearings of the individual municipal members. He asked the Secretary to forward Mr. Comitta’s recently submitted comments to the consultants. Mr. Philips asked how closely the regional plan must mesh with the township’s ordinances. For example, the regional plan includes Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) but Charlestown has no TDR ordinance and may not adopt one in the future. Mr. Willig said the plan doesn’t have to match absolutely, noting that several of the other municipalities in the group are likewise lukewarm on TDRs and have no ordinances on them. Only West Vincent Township has a TDR ordinance. He said only general consistency is needed.
Mr. Kuhn said a suggestion was made by Bill Davison to plan some recognition of the firefighters that serve the township. Mr. Davison offered to make the arrangements. Mr. Kuhn thought this could be done during the Charlestown Day event planned for October 15th, and the board members were agreeable to this suggestion. Mrs. Staas will coordinate with Mr. Davison.
Mr. Thompson circulated the draft conditional use decision for the Frank A. Piliero application and provided a summary. The proposed subdivision needed conditional use approval for a conventional lot development, for portions of two driveways in steep slopes, a stormwater basin in a high ground water area, and portions of two on-lot septic systems in steep slopes. The Board had previously given verbal approval on this application, and the written decision is a formalization of that approval. Mr. Philips moved to approve the conditional use decision for Frank A. Piliero as drafted, and Mr. Rodgers seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Dave Davis, Esq., Ken Farrell, CMC Engineering, and Michael and Carolyn Desfor were present to discuss the Desfors’ land development application for an 80 x 200 foot arena with a 36 x 80 foot attachment containing stalls, a tack room, and an observation room to allow for an educational equestrian use.
Mr. Davis said a conditional use application for this project was approved in September 2005, after which time the land development plan was filed incorporating the conditions imposed in that decision. He said they have addressed and resolved most of the engineering, architectural and landscaping issues, and received a recommendation from the Planning Commission a few months ago. They are now asking for preliminary/final approval from the Supervisors, subject to obtaining their approvals from PennDOT for road occupancy, the Chester County Conservation District for the NPDES permit, and the DEP for the Sewage Facilities Planning Module. They have one waiver request pertinent to Section 302.E.2.b of the Stormwater Management Ordinance, which requires that storm sewers have a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches. They want to use 12 inch pipe and said the Planning Commission had no objection to this request. Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. Kohli if this is acceptable and he responded yes.
Mr. Davis then addressed items on Mr. Kohli’s review letter dated 3/14/06 as follows.
| Item #2 | Mr. Kohli states the calculation of the maximum
number of horses should be redone based upon the proposed fenced-in pasture area. Mr. Davis said they maintain their position that the area is permitted to have 35 horses, which was represented at the conditional use hearings. He said they’re entitled to 43 horses per the Zoning Ordinance, even though the operative language of Section 1614 applies only to lots greater than 4 acres and less than 25 acres in size. Even if it did apply to this parcel, the calculation is based on total acreage, not fenced in acreage. Mr. Kohli said that according to the Nutrient Management Plan, there are 10 pasture areas shown totaling 14.4 acres. Mr. Davis said their position doesn’t change. Mr. Willig asked if basing their calculation on total area is sensible if not all the land is good for pasture. Mr. Davis responded that the Desfors’ operation is different from one of raising horses. Eighty to ninety percent of the food for these horses is provided in the barn and includes special food and hay. They aren’t turned out in the pasture for grazing but primarily for exercise. Mr. Kuhn asked for an overview of the Nutrient Management Program. Mr. Davis introduced Eric Goodroad from the Chester County Conservation District, who is working with the Desfors on that program, which specifically details the application of nutrients for each field and any necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address nutrient runoff or leaching concerns. Under the Plan, the Desfors must apply nutrients (manure and fertilizer), and implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in the Plan. Mr. Goodroad said the Plan determines if the land can support the number of animals on it relative to their nutrient output, and if it cannot, provide a plan for removing the excess. In general, they calculate 2,000 pounds of animal-weight per acre. 1,000 pounds and under are considered a volunteer operation, which the Desfors fall under. The Plan determines the nutrients required and how many animals per acre the available pasture land can sustain. Mr. Kohli said page 1 of the Plan says there are 14.4 total acres, which can support 21.66, rounded to 22, animals. Mr. Goodroad said not necessarily, as not all horses weigh 1,000 pounds. It’s not 22 animals, but 22 animal-units. Work breeds do weigh about 1,000 pounds, but pleasure breeds weigh less. They use a formula to calculate the number of horses by taking the weight and the number of days per year they’re in the pasture into consideration. He said the Desfors’ pastures can support 35 horses. Mr. Desfor added that some of the horses are traveling part of the time and are not all at the farm at once. Mr. Philips asked, what if the 35 horses were there all the time. Mr. Goodroad responded they still have some room in the calculations to support this many horses. Mr. Kuhn said the Board would like to know what percentage of the total capacity is being used, and Mr. Goodroad said he didn’t calculate this number. Mr. Philips was concerned that the operation could change. Mr. Goodroad said the Conservation District does a status review every three years, and requires a plan update if the number of animal-units changes by 10%. Mr. Kohli asked if there is a plan showing which pastures are being used, and Mr. Goodroad showed him a map. Mr. Kohli said they’re showing one particular pasture area that won’t be available once the buildings are constructed. Mr. Davis calculated that the buildings will take about 1.3 acres from the pasture, the equivalent of 1.66 animal-units. He asked Mr. Goodroad if there is additional land available that can be developed as pasture, and Mr. Goodroad answered there’s an additional 6-10 acres that would be suitable. Mr. Kohli showed this acreage as constrained land. Mr. Davis asked if the number of horses proposed by the Desfors complies with the Nutrient Management Plan. Mr. Goodroad answered yes, that they don’t even have enough manure to spread on all the pastures now. Mr. Kuhn asked if the program is voluntary for the Desfors, and Mr. Davis said yes, although it’s required now by the Township since it was one of the conditional use conditions. Mr. Kuhn asked if all the controls are in place. Mr. Goodroad said the Best Management Practice schedule includes soil testing, manure testing, and breaks down what nutrients are in the manure. Mr. Kuhn asked if there is any additional testing required due to the proximity of the Pigeon Run Creek. Mr. Goodroad said no, as there are no runoff concerns since manure is stored in locations following the state’s recommendations. Mr. Davis said this is all addressed in the Nutrient Management Plan. Mr. Philips suggested addressing any remaining issues off-line with Mr. Kohli if necessary. |
| Item #3 | Mr. Kohli’s letter recommended that the Board review the gravel driveway relative to dust control enforcement. Mr. Thompson suggested adding a note to the plan that ties dust control to a township ordinance so a violation can be cited. |
| Item #4 | Mr. Kohli notes that Planning Module approval is still pending from the DEP. Mr. Farrell will follow up on the status. |
| Item #5 | Mr. Kohli states that the Nutrient Management Program
and a notarized copy of the property boundary containing the terms and conditions of the Conditional
Use Approval be provided to the Township prior to Final Plan approval. Mr. Davis said they still
have issues with item #6a of the conditional use decision regarding plantings along Merlin and
Yellow Springs Road. The Planning Commission agreed to waive the requirement for a row of street
trees in favor of a more varied, naturalistic grouping as depicted in the applicant’s landscape
renderings. Mr. Kuhn acknowledged the Board was comfortable with having Mr. Theurkauf work out
the landscape plan with the applicant. Mr. Willig agreed, saying the 5 foot line of trees would
be held as a maximum, not as a requirement. The Board was in agreement. This will provide a
more decorative and effective buffer. A second issue with the decision, item #14, requires a bridge over the creek. The Planning Commission agreed that the bridge didn’t need to be constructed but should be shown as left in reserve if needed. In the meantime, horses would cross over the Yellow Springs Road bridge, which they do now without problems. Mr. Kohli said an existing path through the woods is being used which is in high ground water areas and wetlands. Mr. Desfor said visitors are not restricted from this area and third parties frequently ride through as well, and are not under their control. He said a path outside of this area will be delineated for the Desfors’ clients, and the proposed fencing will keep them out of the stream. |
| Item #6 | Mr. Kohli said methods to ensure that the stormwater draining to the infiltration trench will actually enter the trench should be provided. Mr. Farrell said there is detail shown on sheet #6 of the plans and inlets are provided to send the water to the trench. Mr. Kohli said 1-2 structures are needed on the swale, and Mr. Farrell said it’s not a problem to add them. |
| Item #7 | Regarding methods to trap sediment before it reaches the infiltration facilities, Mr. Farrell said note #5 on the plan indicates the trench will be kept clean, and strainers will be added if needed. |
| Item #8 | Mr. Kohli said a maintenance plan for each stormwater management BMP must be provided. Mr. Farrell agreed to change the language as needed to satisfy Mr. Kohli and added they will comply with items 6-8. |
Mr. Rodgers asked if the Desfors were still planning to place a conservation easement on the property. Mr. Davis answered yes, after they receive final approval and use and occupancy approval for the riding school. Mr. Philips said that was fair, and thanked them.
The applicant will revise the plans in accordance with this evening’s comments and return to the Supervisors on June 5th.
Mr. Philips moved to adopt Resolution #663-06 signifying the Board’s commitment of matching funds for a grant application for the Burgoon and Coleman easement acquisition through Chester County’s Landscapes 21st Century Fund program. Mr. Rodgers seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Kuhn said that he recently received a call from reporter Nancy Peterson asking why Charlestown wasn’t contributing to support the County Library System. This was brought to her attention by resident Lisa Scottoline. Mr. Kuhn said he investigated and discovered that in fact the Township had turned down a request from the Library several years ago. He since learned that the majority of municipalities contribute to the system, and the typical contribution is $1.00 per capita, which translates to about $4,500 per year for Charlestown. At his request, he received a letter dated 5/8/06 asking for support from the Phoenixville Public Library. He explained that the County assigns a library to each municipality and Charlestown is in the Phoenixville Library group. By contributing directly to that library, the state provides them with a direct match. Mr. Kuhn suggested a donation of $10,000 for 2006, to make some amends for the previous years’ lack of support, then for subsequent years, budget for the per capita figure. Mr. Hogan moved to donate $10,000 to the Phoenixville Public Library and to amend the budget by increasing the line item for donations by $10,000, and increasing revenue from transfer taxes by the same amount. Mrs. Csete confirmed that the transfer taxes received so far this year are in excess of what was originally budgeted by more than $10,000. Mr. Willig seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none called the vote. Four were in favor. Mr. Rodgers was opposed, stating he would support a donation for the per capita amount, but not more. Mr. Kuhn said the Board appreciates Ms. Scottoline bringing this matter to their attention.
Mr. Kuhn referenced a memo dated 5/5/06 from Sue Staas, chair of the Horseshoe Trail Committee, in which the Committee recommended that the Trail be relocated off dangerous road sections and onto the road right of way. Mrs. Staas said there are two critical areas: a portion of Union Hill Road in the area of the curve, and Pikeland Road. Mrs. Staas said they suggest moving the trail onto the road shoulders within the road rights of way, as the Horseshoe Trail Club does elsewhere in the state where it’s needed. Mrs. Staas said the Committee needs help in contacting the right person at PennDOT to make this request. Mr. Kuhn noted that only Pikeland Road is a state road; Union Hill is a township road. He asked for the solicitor’s opinion. Mr. Thompson said there is no taking involved since this trail would be in the road right of way. He said he would look into it to see what is involved. Mr. Philips asked who will fund the preparation and maintenance of the trail, and Mrs. Staas said the Horseshoe Trail Club will do this. Mr. Kuhn suggested focusing on Pikeland Road first.
Mr. Thompson opened the hearing for the Robert Joos conditional use application and the proceedings were recorded by Tom Corcoran, court reporter. No testimony was given. The hearing was continued to June 19, 2006, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson opened the hearing for the Allan A. Myers curative amendment application and the proceedings were recorded by Tom Corcoran, court reporter. No testimony was given. The hearing was continued to June 19, 2006, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson opened the hearing for the Bala Investments conditional use application and the proceedings were recorded by Tom Corcoran, court reporter. No testimony was given. The hearing was continued to June 19, 2006, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson opened the hearing for the Robal Associates conditional use application and the proceedings were recorded by Tom Corcoran, court reporter. No testimony was given. The hearing was continued to June 19, 2006, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson opened the hearing for the Springs Development conditional use application and the proceedings were recorded by Tom Corcoran, court reporter.
The following witness gave testimony:
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Applicant:
The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Township:
| • | T-1 | Proof of Publication in the Daily Local News |
The hearing was closed. Mr. Hogan moved to approve the conditional use application for Springs Development, and Mr. Philips seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none called the vote. All were in favor.
Planning Commission Chairman Andy Motel gave a slide presentation on Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) which the Planning Commission is studying for possible application in the Residential Cluster District, particularly for the Spring Oaks Tract. Mr. Motel introduced the other Planning Commission members present including Michael Allen, Michael Churchill, Sarah Peck, June Gorman, and Rick Reis. Wendy Leland was not present due to a military commitment.
Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission is making the presentation to the Board of Supervisors to communicate their observations and recommendations for the 65 acre Quigley Farm (“Spring Oaks”) at Whitehorse and Rees Roads. He acknowledged many neighbors in attendance, including several from the adjacent Whitehorse @ Charlestown development.
Mr. Motel said that Spring Oaks is presently zoned Residential Cluster (RC), which allows a density of 2.5 units per acre with 40% open space. A plan has been submitted by J. Loew & Associates that, with minor modifications, will meet the RC requirements. This plan is for 126 townhouses and single homes with slightly over 40% open space. He said that since last fall when the plan was first submitted, the Planning Commission has had numerous sessions with Tim Townes from J. Loew & Associates to try to improve the plan. The Planning Commission came to realize that an optimal design could not be achieved under RC zoning but could be done as a TND.
Mr. Motel said that the Chairman at that time, Michael Allen, elicited comments from the Planning Commission to get a sense of their preferences, including road layout, unit types, unit varieties and other features of TNDs. They invited developers to present TND plan examples to them to continue educating themselves on TNDs. They visited the sites of several TNDs already constructed, including Eagleview in Upper Uwchlan Township, Weatherstone at Rt. 100 and 401, and others in Bucks County.
Mr. Motel said that prior to 2000, a municipality had little control over aesthetics in a development, but in 2000, the Municipalities Planning Code authorized TNDs, which allow better control over design elements. The question for Spring Oaks is whether to stay with the RC plan, or develop a TND ordinance to allow for a TND plan. He said a similar result to a TND cannot be obtained by simply tweaking the existing RC plan.
Mr. Motel displayed about 12 slides depicting various TNDs, and said they are characterized by a variety of design elements, such as diversity of housing including singles, townhouses, twins, and live-work units. Lot sizes are smaller and the development features internal green areas, interconnected streets, alleys and sidewalks to produce a “walkable community”. The automobile is de-emphasized through the use of alleys and recessed garages.
Mr. Motel said all the pictures are of TNDs that are already built. Not all elements shown are required. Charlestown can develop a TND that selects those elements it wants and exclude the others.
(Mr. Comitta arrived at this time.)
Mr. Motel said what the Planning Commission is looking for this evening is an endorsement of the process from the Board of Supervisors to explore TNDs further for the Spring Oaks tract. If they receive it, the Planning Commission would work with J. Loew & Associates over the next 60 -90 days and come back to the Board with a draft ordinance and sketch plan. He said Mr. Comitta’s firm has written many TND ordinances.
Comments and questions were as follows.
Michael Allen said the Planning Commission has the opportunity to do something exciting in the Devault area but is restricted by the current ordinance. The new MPC regulations allowing TNDs gives them the opportunity to go further than is possible with the RC zoning, and yet the result is not a big stretch from RC. Mr. Motel added that since there are many TNDs already built, they can visualize what would result; they’re not experimenting.
Mr. Philips asked if they see the TND zoning as replacing the RC zoning, or if it would be an overlay. Mr. Motel said he favors an overlay, with TND as the by-right.
Mr. Philips asked what the percentage of open space would be in a TND plan, and in what configuration. Mr. Motel said they don’t know yet. The RC zoning requires 40% open space, but TND zoning would have more green space internally and in a different configuration that may translate to another percentage. Mr. Philips asked if the township can include whatever percentage it wants, and Mr. Comitta said the requirements are broad, focusing on principals rather than numeric values. Mr. Allen added that it is the quality of the green space rather than the quantity, some of which may add little value to the community.
Mr. Kuhn said J. Loew’s plan complied with the present ordinance but Mr. Townes said he could do a better plan if allowed some leeway. Mr. Willig asked about the number of units in the current plan and their mix. Mr. Motel said the invitation letter to the neighbors to this evening’s meeting may have included a ratio of single homes to townhomes that was inaccurate. Mr. Townes confirmed the mix is closer to 50/50 now after several modifications were made to the plans. Mr. Willig asked what kind of density is needed to make a TND plan work; is 126 units enough or are more needed? Mr. Motel said that’s a question that the process itself will answer. He says if there is an increase in the number of units it would be modest, and hesitates to get into the numbers at this time. Mr. Allen said the net density may be similar, even though lots are smaller with a TND plan because there will be more green spaces spread throughout. Mr. Kuhn said density may change depending on the mix of unit types. For example, if there was commercial or retail, more units would be needed to support it. Sarah Peck said there is a trade-off needed to induce the developer to do a TND while providing community amenities and enhancing architectural and design details. Mr. Motel added that the Planning Commission gave the Board a list of preferences in December after they reached some consensus on elements they wished to include in a TND. He said the Planning Commission would like to proceed in examining the issue and return to the Board periodically for feedback.
Mr. Philips asked if the Planning Commission has thought about how a TND would connect to other areas of Devault, such as the Post Office. Mr. Allen said yes, and they feel these connections are a key consideration. Mr. Motel said if they do the Spring Oaks tract right, it can only enhance the possibilities for other areas, including the Tyler Griffin site.
Mr. Philips asked if the Planning Commission was considering inclusion of live-work units, with commercial or retail space on the ground floor and residential units above. Mr. Motel didn’t respond directly, but added that whether this type of unit would depend upon outside traffic for clientele must be considered. Mr. Churchill said the essential question is how a TND would integrate with surrounding parcels. He understands that the neighbors are concerned with it attracting a lot of outsiders from a nuisance and traffic standpoint, yet without the diversity there are fewer amenities. He feels this is worth exploring, since the alternate plan, the RC plan, is not desirable. He added that the Whitehorse @ Charlestown development is over 200 acres in size, yet has no community amenities. If amenities are built into Spring Oaks, the Whitehorse @ Charlestown residents will avail themselves of them.
Gail Stewart, Union Hill Road, suggested putting a TND elsewhere in the Township, such as Charlestown Village. Mr. Churchill pointed out that the Spring Oaks tract already has 126 units coming regardless of whether it’s an RC or TND community.
Gil Mariano, Rees Road, asked if the RC zoning that the Planning Commission says is too restrictive is from the newest adopted ordinance, and also asked if J. Loew & Associates can proceed with the plan they have filed. Mr. Motel answered yes to both questions, adding that the J. Loew RC cluster plan can go forward with minor revisions. Mr. Townes said his company has kept an open mind on the development for Spring Oaks, and that he presented a draft TND ordinance last fall. He said if there’s a way to make a better development and it makes business sense for them, they will do it. Mr. Willig asked, hypothetically, if a large company was interested in the approved business park plan, would they go back to that, and Mr. Townes said yes.
Tom Alleva, Rees Road, said the RC development will have access onto Rees Road, and he’s concerned about adding 250 to the 500 daily cars they get now. He asked why the developer can’t do a project similar to Whitehorse @ Charlestown, with larger lots. Otherwise, he foresees a need for widening of Rees Road. Since his house is close to the road, this would be very undesirable to him. . Mr. Kuhn pointed out that the business park plan, for which this tract is already approved under the previous zoning, also had an access onto Rees Road. Mr. Alleva said he’d rather see office buildings than residential on the site. Another neighbor said the TND plans shown in the slides look like they belong in the city.
Mr. Kuhn said the challenge facing the township is whether there is a better way to put in the same amount of development. He said he is willing to consider a TND. Mr. Rodgers said one of the Board’s dilemmas is that they have to accept the RC cluster plan that has been filed. Mr. Mariano said he’s concerned about a TND plan increasing the number of units. Mr. Motel said the Planning Commission has to answer the question of unit numbers further into the process. Mr. Mariano said even a modest increase will impact roads and schools, and for many of the neighbors, any increase is not viewed as an improvement, regardless of design. Mr. Motel said the question of density would be worked out before the ordinance could be adopted.
Janet Colleran asked if the Spring Oaks parcel is the only one where TND is being considered. Mr. Motel said there is one other presently zoned RC that would be included, but right now they’re focusing solely on the Spring Oaks tract. Mr. Philips said there’s a time clock running on the submitted plan and there’s no time to examine the entire area at once.
A resident said the Board is obligated to consider the surrounding neighbors and suggested putting large lots around the perimeters with the density toward the middle in order to temper the appearance of the development for the existing neighbors.
Mr. Motel invited the residents to attend the upcoming Planning Commission meetings, and to check the website or township office for dates and times and to see when it’s listed on the agendas. Mr. Allen said it’s safe to assume it will be discussed at every meeting through September starting with the June 27th meeting.
The Board of Supervisors unanimously endorsed the Planning Commission’s efforts to further explore TND for the Spring Oaks tract.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for June 5, 2006, 7:30 P.M. in Room 154 of the Great Valley Middle School.