CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 General Warren Blvd, Suite 1 Malvern, PA 19355 Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Present

Call to Order:

Announcements

Mr. Heleniak announced that Charlestown Day is scheduled for Saturday, September 28^th at Charlestown Park.

Approvals

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Richter moved to approve the August 13, 2024 meeting minutes and Mr. von Hoyer seconded. Mr. Walker called for discussion and there being none called the vote. All were in favor.

Plan Reviews

DVP Phoenixville Pike Sketch Plan Application

Bill Dion, Esq. and Ronald Jackson, P.E. were present to discuss the sketch plan application for 3187 Phoenixville Pike. The applicant seeks comments on a plan to construct a self-storage facility and associated improvements on the property. Mr. Dion stated the applicant currently owns approximately 9 acres and is negotiating with 2 neighboring property owners for the remaining ground. Mr. Dion stated they are looking for feedback because of the challenges on the property including the steep and very steep slopes and the setback requirements from Phoenixville Pike.

Montrose Environmental Review letter dated 8/6/2024

2. The plan will have the building height indicated once it is designed. The idea is to step the building as it comes down from the Turnpike side of the property to try to minimize the slope disturbance.

6. They will eventually dramatically reduce the number of parking spaces and there would be no outdoor storage. One idea is to eliminate the parking behind the building and placing is on the side of the building to reduce the steep slope disturbance. The only issue is that it would bring the building closer to Phoenixville Pike and potentially necessitate zoning relief for setbacks.
7. The retaining wall is within the front yard. The applicant will eventually get the topography and may need to seek relief for the retaining wall being in the front yard setback.

Mr. Weshafer commented that it is difficult to evaluate the plan when there is no stormwater management included in the plan. Mr. Dion stated that it is difficult for the property owner to spend large sums of money on the stormwater design at this stage. Mr. Westhafer responded that it could be conceptual at this point to get at least some idea of the amount of area needed for stormwater management. He further stated that they cannot get relief from the stormwater management requirements and that they are a main driver of the viability of the project.

Mr. Dion questioned the Commission if they were more comfortable with relief from the front yard setback or from steep slope disturbance section of the zoning ordinance. There could be less slope disturbance if the building is pulled closer to Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Dion stated that some measure of relief is legally permissible and that a project has to be economically viable and is a justification for a variance. Mr. Rogers stated that economic considerations are not one of the factors for a variance found in Section 910.2 of the Municipalities Planning Code.

Mr. von Hoyer commented on the room for tractor trailers to turn around on the property and only having one entrance for trucks. Mr. Dion stated they will include truck turning templates with the plans. He further stated that they believe self-storage is a more compatible use for the property than the other permitted uses in the zoning district and they may determine it is not economically viable.

Mr. Motel questioned whether the project can be done without zoning relief and Mr. Dion stated no. He also questioned whether there are any driveways on the opposite side of Phoenixville Pike from this property and Mr. Dion stated he did not believe there was. Ms. McLean stated there is the bus depot entrance and some sort of small utility facility across Phoenixville Pike. Mr. Motel questioned whether the Turnpike widening project would impact the property and Mr. Dion stated that there is a temporary construction easement, but nothing that would permanently affect the property.

Ms. Green questioned how many acres are included in the property and Mr. Dion stated DVP currently owns approximately 9.53 acres and the total would be 14 acres in total once they obtained the 2 additional lots and demolish the existing homes on those lots. The reason for obtaining the additional lots is it would be much more challenging of a plan with just the 9.53 acres. She questioned whether the existing trees would be removed and Mr. Dion stated they would. She further questioned whether the property could be residential and Mr. Heleniak stated that residential is not a permitted use in the zoning district and that the existing houses are pre-existing non-conforming uses. She asked whether the zoning could be changed and Mr. Heleniak stated that zoning could be changed, however it could be considered spot zoning that could be challenged.

There was a discussion regarding the utilities for the property and Mr. Dion stated they would have on-lot septic and well since there is no public water in the street. Denise Deluca of 3159 Phoenixville Pike and Lois Jenkinson of 3149 Phoenixville Pike both stated that there is public water in front of the property. Ms. Jenkinson questioned whether the trees closer to her property would be removed and Mr. Dion stated that he cannot commit to anything however it is likely that there would be a larger buffer than for Ms. Deluca’s property.

Mr. Dion questioned whether the Commission is in favor of the self-storage use. Mr. Richter stated he’s not against the idea of self-storage, but that it’s difficult to give feedback when no one knows whether this building can be put on that property with the stormwater management questions outstanding. Mr. Dion stated he would recommend to his client that they spend more time on stormwater and public utility conceptual plans and then submit a revised sketch plan for more detailed discussions.

General Planning Items

1. Draft Ordinance Reviews
   1. Grid-scale Solar

      Ms. McLean explained the origins of this proposed ordinance. She spoke regarding materials from Penn State and newspaper articles regarding controversies regarding these types of facilities in Broadheadsville and Chestnut Hill Township. She further talked about a facility she saw while flying into Bozeman, Montana while visiting her daughter. The proposed ordinance would allow the use to the I/O/B district on a property of at least 20 acres. The proposed ordinance is closely based on the ordinance Chestnut Hill Township adopted and also from Bethel Township, Berks County. She also stated the ordinance attempts to address the use as an accessory use, so that it could be placed on the roof of a commercial building and be used as an additional revenue source for the property.

      Mr. von Hoyer questioned the placement of these types of facilities on parcels that are not flat. Ms. McLean stated the facilities she’s seen are on gently sloping parcels.

      Mr. Richter questioned the properties that we have easements on. Ms. McLean stated the easements we have with French & Pickering do not allow this type of use. Mr. Heleniak stated that these types of facilities would only be permitted on I/O/B properties and not residential properties. He further questioned whether there was anything regarding using harsh chemicals to kill the vegetation under the panels. Ms. McLean stated the ordinance does address this with buffer requirements and having vegetation in the rows between the panels.

      Mr. Motel questioned if the solar technology advances and the size of the panel shrinks, would the more likely applicant be from an existing building with roof space to install a facility. Ms. McLean stated the proposed ordinance tries to address that by permitting it as an accessory use. Mr. Kuhn stated that if the technology improves, it is more likely that there will just be more panels and still the same footprint.

      Ms. Green questioned whether there are any properties that are generating more solar power than they need and selling it. Ms. McLean stated she is not aware of any and Mr. Heleniak stated the zoning ordinance currently permits solar panels as an accessory use in residential districts and that the primary purpose of them is to serve the residential use on the property, but it allows any excess to be sold back into the grid.

   2. Accessory Dwelling Units

      Ms. McLean described the current guest quarter section in our ordinance and the increasing popularity in planning circles for accessory dwelling units. They were previously considered in-law suites or granny flats, however they are now also for several other living arrangements, including adult disabled children, other disabled adults, life sharing arrangements, etc. She stated the Township needs to provide for this type of use to not run afoul of the ADA and the Fair Housing Act. It also assists in creating obtainable housing, which is different than affordable housing. The proposed ordinance is largely based on the current East Pikeland ordinance. There are already provisions for this type of use in the TND, however the number of them is limited.

      Mr. von Hoyer expressed his concern that these could become apartments for people to rent and not for family. Mr. Kuhn stated that the family member, especially older family members will not live there forever, and they will eventually turn into a rental either way. Mr. Heleniak stated that the proposed ordinance does require that either the primary or accessory dwelling is required to be owner-occupied, so that should prevent issues associated with renters, since the owner will not want to be living next to a problem tenant. Ms. McLean stated that zoning is supposed to govern land use and not behavior.

      Mr. Richter shared his concern with the proposed ordinance’s size limits. There are properties in the R-1 zoning district that have pretty small houses. Also, there are larger properties in the RA zoning district that have 10,000+ square foot homes and could have fairly large ADUs. There was further discussion of alternatives including stepping the maximum size depending on the size of the property. Mr. Richter further commented that he believes the total square footage calculation for the principal dwelling should be above-grade space and not include basement space. He further shared his thoughts on who is responsible for measuring the living space, since the county assessment office’s records are not always very accurate. Ms. McLean stated that the applicant would need to provide evidence of this when they apply for approval through the conditional use process. Mr. Walker questioned whether Ms. McLean had seen anyone request an ADU smaller than the minimum size requirement and she stated that she had not. He further stated that an ADU could be attached to the principal dwelling and a 750 square foot addition would be large. Ms. McLean stated that we can look at different minimum size requirements for attached ADUs.

      Ms. Green brought up temporary homes that can be connected to the main house and then moved off the property later on. Ms. McLean stated that the proposed ordinance does not permit that type of use and only permits permanent foundation structures. Ms. Green further questioned the coverage of a 750 square foot structure on a smaller property. Mr. Richter and Ms. McClean both stated that setbacks and coverage limits will still apply.

      There was a discussion regarding the requirement for common water and electric utilities but does allow for separate sewage facilities. Mr. Richter shared his opinion that when a detached ADU also has another use (i.e. garage/storage) then there should not be a shared electricity requirement. Mr. Heleniak stated that the shared electric and water requirement is another restriction that would lessen the possibility of the ADU just becoming a true rental unit, if the property owner must pay the electric bill for a tenant. Mr. Kuhn commented that shared utilities would also prevent subdivisions. Ms. McLean responded that if the property owner wanted to subdivide in the future, they would still have to meet all zoning requirements for lot size, setbacks, etc.

      Ms. McLean stated that in her time in East Pikeland and Media, she has never heard complaints about ADUs being nuisances.

   3. Agritainment

      Mr. Heleniak described the proposed ordinance and its requirements and limitations. These include a minimum of 50 acres in size and limiting the number of events to 3 per year for a maximum of 2 days each. The goal of the ordinance is to allow working farms to have a couple of events each year to supplement their farm operation, however not have it turn into the primary use of the property, like Yeagers farm has become.

      Ms. Green questioned whether there is already a 10-acre minimum for commercial agricultural operations. Mr. Heleniak stated there are size minimums for having certain types of animals.

      Mr. Westhafer questioned whether the ordinance has considerations for noise levels. Mr. Heleniak stated that the ordinance requires compliance with the existing noise and lighting sections of the zoning ordinance

Administrative Note

Any documents referred to in the minutes are available to the public upon request at the Township office.

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Walker adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The next meeting will be held on October 8, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. at the Township Building, 11 General Warren Blvd, Malvern, PA.