The second business meeting for February was held February 23, 2004, at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154. Kevin R. Kuhn, Chairman, Hugh Willig, Mike Rodgers, Paul Hogan, Surender Kohli, P.E., Jim McErlane, Esq., Mark Thompson, Esq., Gary Bender, Esq., Tom Comitta, Tom Corcoran, Court Reporter, Linda M. Csete, Township Administrator, Melanie M. Lammers, Recording Secretary, and those on the attached list were present.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Kuhn announced Executive Sessions were held on February 2, 2004 and just prior to this meeting, to discuss legal matters.
There were no Citizen’s Forum/Non-Agenda Items discussed.
Mr. Rodgers moved to approve the February 2, 2004 minutes as written, and Mr. Hogan seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Rodgers moved to approve the February 11, 2004 minutes as written, and Mr. Hogan seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Testimony was heard by the following witnesses:
Mr. Bender asked for clarification on some prior testimony. He questioned the location of power lines to be run and said he would like an understanding from Roussey Associates, consultant for the utility company, as to why power lines are to be run from Yellow Springs Road as opposed to from the proposed billboard property. Elizabeth Witmer, Esq., said she believes this justification already exists in the record. Mr. Bender said he would look in the record for a satisfactory recommendation, and in the event that recommendation does not appear in the record, Mr. Bender requested he receive something in writing from the utility commission as to why the location of this power line was recommended. Mr. McErlane suggested the record be left open until March 15 or closed earlier if this matter can be resolved via documentation.
Ms. Witmer stated she will not be providing rebuttal testimony to these witnesses.
Both Ms. Witmer and Mr. Bender expressed they would like the opportunity to file proposed findings and a brief.
Mr. McErlane asked if any other parties to the proceedings had questions. Ms. Nancy Auwaerter, a non-party resident, asked if anything has been done to minimize the chance the billboards could become an attractive nuisance to children. She voiced her concern over children potentially being encouraged to deface the billboards. Mr. Bender indicated there was prior testimony regarding how the defacing of billboards would be handled.
Mr. Bender said there was a commitment on the part of Mr. David Curry, during his prior testimony, to take an inventory of, and then stake, the number of trees to be removed in the Turnpike right-of-way. Mr. Bender referenced Page 200 of the record, dated December 15, 2003, in which Mr. Curry agreed to identify the trees in the Turnpike right-of-way to be removed and stake that area, as well as to stake where the foundations for the billboards will go. Mr. Curry said he would have his consultant go out and provide an estimated count; he added that the billboard foundations have already been staked.
Ms. Witmer said her client agrees to stake the area of right-of-way where trees will be cut down by putting yellow tape at both ends of the area of trees to be removed. She said the trees will be cut down, but the stumps will remain. Ms. Witmer questioned what else her client is being asked to do. Mr. Kohli said there are some private property trees affected as well. Ms. Witmer agreed and said they would provide a count of those trees. She said the count will have to be approximate due to the heavy brush currently existing there.
To clarify, Mr. Bender said the applicant agrees to stake the turnpike right-of-way and inventory and mark all other trees that are going to be cut. Ms. Witmer said they will give an approximate count, but will not mark them. Mr. Hogan requested the trees be marked so the diameter of the trees to be replaced can be determined. Mr. Bender asked that just the trees larger than six inches be marked. Ms. Witmer said their engineer indicated, that due to the heavy brush, that would be very difficult to do. Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. Comitta if the trees would need to inventoried for replacements, and he replied that they would. Ms. Witmer felt this was not necessary at this time, as they were not yet submitting a land development plan. Mr. Bender asked if she was planning to submit a land development plan, and she responded that she was not.
Ms. Durkan provided two screening estimates to Mr. Curry for her property.
The attorneys for the Township and the applicant agreed to work out a schedule for submission of findings once the transcript is completed. Mr. McErlane closed the record, allowing the attorneys the option to re-open it at a later date.
Joseph P. Ryan, Esq. withdrew the Altemose “Beau Manoir’ application and will confirm the withdrawal in writing to Mr. McErlane. The record was closed.
Mr. McErlane marked the Proof of Publication as Exhibit B1
Mr. Ryan summarized the history of the Altemose applications.
Mr. Ryan marked the following exhibits:
The following were made a party to the proceedings:
Mr. DelBello asked permission for Mr. Main to make a short address. Mr. Main notified the Board that he believes Mr. and Mrs. Vaughn Drum would like to become a party to the proceedings but couldn’t be present this evening. Mr. Ryan said he had no problem allowing others to become a party to the proceedings at the next meeting.
Mr. Ryan called Mr. Ted Moduluski, Senior Partner with Architectural Concept LLP, as an expert witness in architectural design for continuing care retirement communities.
Mr. Ryan marked the following Exhibits:
Following testimony, Mr. McErlane continued the hearing to March 15, 2004.
Mr. McErlane marked the following Exhibit:
Mr. Comitta provided an overview of the status of this ordinance amendment and marked the following Exhibit:
Mr. Kuhn had the following comments:
Page 5, Section D2b – Mr. Kuhn asked if some sort of trail easement should be added to the homestead, at least an ingress and egress. It was decided to be added to Section C5, and to reference 1504, so as to give it a more broad application. Section C5 should also be amended to include “existing or future adjacent open space.”
Page 6, Section F2 – Mr. Kuhn asked if the Township should strike the deed restrictions and only leave conservation easements, or if there was a deed restriction, would it only be enforceable by the property owner or could the Township have enforcement rights to that deed restriction. Mr. Willig pointed out the ordinance amendment indicated the approval of the Township was required.
Mr. Willig referenced the term ‘net lot area’ on page 5, Section D1a. He asked if that term had been defined anywhere, and Mr. Comitta said it had been defined in Article II. The hearing was then closed.
Mr. McErlane recommended this be approved subject to language consistent with that above. Mr. Willig said he would prefer to have a clean, final draft before voting. Mr. Rodgers moved to approve the ordinance amendments subject to Mr. McErlane’s recommendation, and Mr. Hogan seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. Two were in favor and two were opposed. The matter was tabled to March 1, 2004.
Mr. Comitta said he would have a final draft to Mrs. Csete by next Thursday.
Mr. McErlane marked the following Exhibits:
Mr. Willig had the following comments:
On the uses that are based on road classifications, he asked how the roads are classified, by PennDOT or the Township. Mr. Comitta said they took PennDOT's road classification and looked at it to see if they agreed with it. He added they also got more recent average daily traffic figures. The map from the Comprehensive Plan was used as a basis for the one being looked at tonight.
Mr. Willig asked if the designation of the road should change, would that affect the way this is written or should something be added to clarify that these uses are attached to the classifications of the roads as they exist now, not as they may become. Mr. Comitta said, to be safe, there should be something added to say, “as shown in this map.” He said on the top of page 2, it says dated March 4, so it does specifically refer to the map as shown here. Following are some proposed corrections:
Mr. Rodgers moved to close the hearing, and Mr. Willig seconded. Mr. Kuhn called the vote and all were in favor.
Mr. Rodgers moved to adopt the ordinance, and Mr. Hogan seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Hogan requested check #2408 for $944 to Porters Sawmill be approved and sent. Mr. Kuhn moved to approve the check, and Mr. Rodgers seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Rodgers wanted to have it made clear who is responsible for what. Mrs. Csete indicated she is not the right person for the job of Township Representative. Mr. Hogan was made the Township Representative on this project.
Mrs. Csete asked if everyone was satisfied with the employment agreement. Mr. Kuhn said he did not remember seeing the latest revisions. Mr. Hogan said he would deliver it to Levi on Friday and return the signed copy to Mrs. Csete.
Mr. Willig asked if Mr. Alston should officially be designated as the Safety Officer for the project. Mr. Hogan moved to appoint Mr. Alston as Safety Officer for the project, and Mr. Rodgers seconded. Mr. Kuhn called the vote and all were in favor. Mr. Hogan added that he would like to purchase some hard hats and fire extinguishers, and to rent a portable latrine. Mr. Willig suggested they also rent some storage space to store equipment in.
Mr. Rodgers moved to authorize the advertisement for a zoning change to the PRD1 zoning district, and Mr. Hogan seconded. Mr. Kuhn called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. The next meeting will be held on March 1, 2004, 7:30 P.M. at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154.