Mrs. Csete announced The Planning Commission Tour on Saturday, November 17th, 2012 from 8am to noon. It was recently updated to include the Paul Gluchanicz property.
Mrs. Leland announced two scheduled information sessions of The Friends of East Whiteland Fire Association at the Desmond Hotel.
Thursday, November 15, 2012- Complimentary Cocktails and Light Refreshments 5:30-7:30pm
Friday, November 16, 2012- Complimentary Breakfast 7:30-8:30am
Mr. Allen stated he had attended a meeting with Tom Comitta of Thomas Comitta Associates, Inc. to review billing for the Spring Oak development and the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Allen also mentioned a meeting on November 5, 2012 regarding Impact Fee Contributions, as a result of development in transportation area.
Mr. Allen stated he also attended a November 6, 2012 meeting with Mr. Stubbe and Mr. Mallach regarding the Lighting Ordinance.
Several changes to the October 10, 2012 minutes were made.
1-Page 2 under Stormwater Facilities beginning with the fourth line regarding aesthetic blending, that should be moved to the Sand Mound segment.
2-Page 3 under Water Origin it was suggested replacing the phrase beginning with “pipe(s)” with “main water line is already in on Whitehorse Road.”
3-Page 4 in the first paragraph, replace the third sentence with “Mr. Westhafer suggested they may provide guidelines for colors and textures, but not styles.”
4-Page 4 under Motion #2 the phrase “she would discuss with Mrs. Csete” is to be removed and replaced with “copies of minutes are distributed after approval”.
5-Page 5 in the paragraph regarding a meeting with PECO, it should read “Mr. Allen had a phone conversation with a PECO regarding meter locations” and removal of the rest of the sentences in that paragraph.
Mr. Allen moved to approve the minutes of October 10, 2012, pending completion of the changes, Mr. Motel seconded. Mrs. Leland called for discussion and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.
Paul Gluchanicz was present to discuss the revision to his November 9, 2010 approved subdivision plan. Originally he planned on keeping the existing buildings on one lot and subdividing off a new building lot. However, now he wants to separate the existing dwelling and the shop into separate lots for a 2 lot subdivision.
Mr. Gluchanicz responded to Daniel Wright’s letter dated October 5, 2012. He will correct some minor math errors, and a date error, and clarified that the driveway is already 18 feet wide as required. The building setback lines will be trimmed to the former parcel line between the two parcels.
The Commission reviewed Mr. Comitta’s letter dated November 6, 2012. Mr. Comitta assumes Mr. Gluchanicz is addressing the lack of required 50 foot side yard setback for Lot #1 with the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Gluchanicz was to attend that meeting after this appearance. Also, as requested, the abandoned driveway will be correctly noted.
The Chester County Planning Commission also suggested in a letter dated October 16, 2012 that both lots be deed restricted from further subdivision, and Mr. Gluchanicz agreed.
Mrs. Leland made a motion to grant Paul Gluchanicz Conditional Final Minor Subdivision Approval subject to the conditions set forth in the review letters of The Chester County Planning Commission dated October 16, 2012, Advanced GeoServices dated October 5, 2012, Thomas Comitta Associates, Inc., dated September 25, 2012 and pending approval of the Zoning Hearing Board Variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Motel/Mr. Churchill, then Mrs. Leland called for discussion and there was none. The vote was called and all were in favor.
Mr. Wright provided background on the Act 537 Special Study (or Plan of Study) for the Sidley Road Trunk Sewer saying East Whiteland is obligated to receive 300,000 gallons per day from Charlestown Township. Therefore that township is planning an upgrade of the collection and conveyance system. William Bohner Jr., P. E. of Arro Engineering and Environmental Consultants sent Mrs. Csete a letter requesting comments from the Township on a spreadsheet (currently incorrectly showing 2008). It lists projections (in daily gallons) for the flows originating in East Whiteland Township and those projected for Charlestown Township’s south portion.
The basis for these figures originates from a letter from Charlestown Township to the Valley Forge Sewer Authority in 2008. Mr. Wright displayed a Zoning and Sewer Service Area Map portraying flow direction. He handed out a map showing the force main owned by East Whiteland Township and another map showing greater detail of the existing sanitary sewer near Devault. Mr. Wright reminded the Planning Commission that Planning Modules are plugged into the spreadsheet only for Sidley Road and Lee Boulevard, so that is why some modules may appear to be missing. Spring Oak is reflected as a planned flow.
Mr. Churchill said the estimated daily gallons reflected on the chart were too high but felt this was advantageous. He also suggested adding parcel numbers and current descriptions to validate the locations found under the column labeled “Description”.
Mr. Motel was concerned about estimating adequate amounts for the TND and suggested the brown/tan areas be relocated into the 0 – 5 Year column. The pale green amounts projected as “Remainder” were to be moved to the 0 – 5 Year column also. He would like to see the TND better described and then added to the Zone column, to keep capacities from being incorrectly estimated. Mr. Westhafer suggested acreage data to assist in estimating.
Mr. Wright indicated that engineers will use this data to determine future capacity needs and will be inserting future planning modules as required by the DEP. He will be submitting these suggestions to Mr. Bohner. Then preparations for the Plan of Study and assessing the appropriate near-term and long-term conveyance system needs for the Lee Boulevard and Sidley Road area will be made.
Mr. Wright clarified for Mr. Allen the CCCD’s role in reviewing projects such as the review he received for the Whitehorse Estates project dated October 15, 2012. If it is necessary for a project to obtain a DEP NPDES permit, the Chester County Conservation District is given the authority to review, provide comments, and issue a “Letter of Adequacy”. The CCCD reviews the erosion and sedimentation control design and some stormwater controls overseen by the DEP. Upon receipt of the “Letter of Adequacy”, the DEP actually issues the NPDES permit.
Obtaining a NPDES permit is a rigorous process. The CCCD typically performs multiple reviews of the permit. This process typically goes on concurrently with the Township approval process. Mr. Wright typically reviews the comment letters from the CCCD to make sure that the required revisions won’t adversely impact another part of the project design. Typically the NPDES permit is obtained toward the end of the Township approval process.
Dan Mallach of Thomas Comitta Associates, Inc. addressed the Planning Commission to review the proposed amendments to the Lighting Ordinance. Changes were made to the working draft dated November 8th, 2012 and a December draft will be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting on December 11, 2012. Guidelines set originated with the guidance of Stan Stubbe and standards set by the IES, then adapted to the rural nature of Charlestown Township.
Page 1- “Board of Supervisors” was preferred over a further change to “at the discretion of a Lighting Engineer, Mr. Mallach saying this is typical. He will change Paragraph 2 to contain all zones.
Page 2- (4) non-residential should read non-residential and multi-family.
Mr. Churchill suggested adding “Average Maximum not to be exceeded”.
Deletion is to be made of “Fuel Pump under-canopy lighting at a Convenience Store”.
Mr. Motel wanted to further define Motor Vehicle Service Station for TND3.
Mr. Westhafer suggested placing Flex Space with Business/Professional Office.
Discussion about any difference between a warehouse and distribution center did not bring about any change on page 2.
Page 4- Mr. Allen suggested for paragraph “H” insert another reference to the IES standards near the uplight and glare zone, line 2.
Mrs. Leland asked Mr. Mallach to insert a diagram or chart for the Uplight Rating acronyms.
Page 5- Regarding “E”, Mr. Churchill said it would be very helpful to have examples of what is locally compliant and an example of the 2000 candelas per square meter example.
Mr. Mallach explained that glare is measured by the receptor and is a measure of cut-off. A luminance meter used by a lighting engineer is the best way to measure glare.
Deletion of convenience stores with fuel pumps phrase is to be made.
Deletion of hospitals and the addition of health care facilities are to be made.
Page 10- Deletion of “Definition of Terms” at top of page.
In conclusion, Mrs. Leland told Mr. Mallach to contact the Parks & Recreation Board to make sure their goals are fully supported before drafting the next revision for the December review. The December review should be the final one before a recommendation is made. Mr. Mallach will also try to obtain a non-conforming 2000 candelas per square meter example for Mr. Churchill. Members were pleased with the flexibility of the Lighting Ordinance, its position on nuisance glare, and the ability for the Board of Supervisors to hear any challenges.
The Planning Commission reviewed the list of sites Mrs. Csete prepared for the Planning Commission’s tour.
Mrs. Leland adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m.