Great Valley Middle School, Room 154
255 North Phoenixville Pike, Malvern, PA
Tuesday, August 9, 2022


Planning Commission:
Mike Richter, Chairman, Andy Motel, Andre von Hoyer, and Bill Westhafer. Matt Rogers, Vice Chairman. Michael Churchill, Dan Walker, and Daniel Ghosh, were absent.
Dan Wright, Thomas Comitta (via phone), and Wendy McLean, Esq.
Michael Allen, Lisa Gardner, Chris Heleniak, and Linda Csete.

Call to Order:

7:00 p.m.


Mr. Richter welcomed Mr. Heleniak, the new Township Manager for Charlestown Township.

There are newsletters available tonight.

The September Board of Supervisors Meeting is Tuesday the 6th due to the Labor Day holiday.

Charlestown Day is September 24th.

Approval of Minutes


Mr. von Hoyer moved to approve the minutes of June 14, 2022, and Mr. Richter seconded. Mr. Richter called for discussion, and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.

General Planning Items

Zoning Ordinance Amendment- Tree Protection Ordinance

Mr. Comitta discussed the most recent July 12th revision to the draft Tree Protection Zoning Ordinance Amendment. He suggested sending it to the Solicitor for review, who will then send it to the Chester County Planning Commission for re-review. The recent 7/12/22 ordinance changes are the results from the PC’s subcommittee meeting reacting to the initial review comments of the Chester County Planning Commission.

Mr. Comitta stated some items focused on:

Mr. Richter moved to approve the recommendation of the Tree Protection Ordinance for review by Mr. Thompson for the Supervisors and Mr. Motel seconded. Mr. Richter called for discussion and there being none, called the vote. All were in favor.

Land Development Plans – Plan Reviews

Beyond Meat Expansion – Final Land Development Plan - Alternate Plan

Mr. Keffer, P.E. of Light-Heigel and Associates, Mr. Michael Davis, Mr. Timothy Dietrich, Esq., and Mr. Eric Strunk, were present to discuss the Beyond Meat Land Development Plan review comments by Township consultants. They are hoping for a September spot on the agenda for Preliminary Approval. However, they still have outstanding issues with the DEP and Turnpike. Mr. Boyle was also in attendance since they plan on buying a triangle-shaped lot belonging to him to increase maneuverability. The commitment to reduce potential adverse offsite impacts on the Spring Oak TND community was raised throughout the discussion.


R101B- The newest layout, included the preferred alignment and parking configured to minimize exposure to Spring Oak residents.

R101C- The approved 2005 Plan.

R101A- The existing as is site.

C05- Due to the owner not liking the electric power lines coming into the building as portrayed, new service lines are proposed from the west. But it moves a nearby driveway and moves 5 parking spots to the other side on the east against the building. The emergency access road was not adjusted.

C50- Shown since the above change caused a change in lighting on C50.

Mr. Comitta’s review letter of August 4th highlighted tonight:
  1. C50- Mr. Keffer estimated the foot candle at “1”, with the highest ratings in interior parking areas and the loading dock on the south. Perimeters measure at zero. This type of information will be on the next set of drawings.
  2. C46- Will comply- by adding plantings to the berm, Norway spruces in addition to or instead of the White Pines, and the applicant is to recheck the planting numbers. (See 6.A. and 7.A.)
  3. The buffer recommendation (#2) on page 1, is for more trees. Trees that are in addition to the (1) replacements and (2) the additional trees being planted due to sewer line work (see C-46).
  4. 10.A is a will comply (See C-50) and 10.D is a will comply also.
  5. A change out of the green stripping to a pale gray (11.B.1), will be discussed with the owner. Reps for Beyond Meat were open to a meeting with Mr. Ghosh and Mr. Wright about specifics for the R-100C drawings vs the window suggestion.
  6. 11.B.2- There will be more discussion with the owner about changing the vertical pattern by using simulated windows. This suggestion made the applicant’s solicitor question the Township’s authority. Mr. Allen said it would take one meeting and Mr. Comitta offered to arrange the meeting. This should keep them on track for a September return to the PC.
  7. Mr. Westhafer was told the parapet is 6’ from the 38’ roof to top of the wall.
  8. Mr. Rubenfield asked for the Spring Oak view. Mr. Keffer portrayed R100A (post tree installation). It is a 3D view from Spring Oak showing the plant walls beyond the trees.
  9. Mr. Allen wants a truer picture of 3 cross sections due to grade changes referencing a lot or house number. They discussed misleading or not-to-scale views on R101B and R100E. Mr. Westhafer said all scales should be the same for comparison. For example, the development’s first floor is 8-9 feet over the plant’s first floor. A southwest corner section will be generated for the Township at Mr. Allen’s request.
  10. Mr. Keffer reviewed 13.A. Truck Circulation showing traffic flow in the shared driveway to the loading dock in the south. There is a 40’ dumpster located at the dock’s edge. Mr. Richter questioned the amount of room for the trucks to maneuver. Mr. Keffer said there would be plenty in this south area.
  11. Mr. Keffer then stated that there will be no space for trucks to be idling or still, when not docked. 13.B will comply once the signs are posted “No Idling”.
  12. Other stop signs, adding the dumpster on the Plans, and deliveries, were discussed. No deliveries are scheduled that can’t be unloaded. They do not schedule deliveries 24/7 although they operate 24/7.
  13. Mr. Comitta notes that the EIA mentions potential adverse effects. Mr. Keffer stated that the plant has many industrial stipulated plans implemented by safety personnel that are fully compliant with government standards.
  14. Mr. Keffer stated that safety is regulated by the government and they are in compliance. The local Emergency Operations Manager would follow protocols if the plant would call 911. Mr. Rubenfield did not feel this was enough consideration for Spring Oak.
  15. Ms. Hoover-Frey followed by questioning the pre-demolition safety. She was concerned about what would be released into the air when (ex.) a building came down, or what would be in the ground after the sewer was reconfigured. Spring Oak children play nearby. Mr. Keffer said permit applications would deal with Ms. Hoover-Frey’s concerns. But Mr. Richter stressed the importance of communicating the construction schedule’s large impact actions to Spring Oak. Mr. Wright offered to give an update to the building code inspector and hold a mandatory preconstruction meeting sharing all updates. Ms. Lorraine Fillippo was concerned about communication and being up to date on what is happening, since she lives very close and is often startled by loud noises.

(At this time Mr. Comitta left the meeting.)

The Stubbe Consulting LLC lighting review letter was dated August 2, 2022.
  1. The light packs are dimmable and height adjustable. There will be circuits set up to manage restrictive controls.
The Montrose Environmental review letter was dated August 6, 2022.

Mr. Wright questioned Mr. Keffer about the need for the additional 5 spaces to be relocated. Since the plant parking is sufficient, the spots will be held in reserve, with stormwater data including them as active. This will keep the parking lot clearer, less congested.

  1. Curbing requirements as mentioned in #6 - will comply.
  2. A timetable will be provided (#14).
  3. They will comply with stormwater changes and a waiver will be requested. Mr. Wright wants to meet with the applicant’s hydraulic engineer to discuss other possibilities.
  4. Will comply #25 and add detail to the Plans.
  5. There will be no opposition to the waiver referred to on #33.
  6. Details will be added to the Plans on #34.
  7. #36 is a will comply by adding a standard operation and maintenance agreement for stormwater management.
  8. #42 was discussed. BMPs, a retaining wall, a design revision, or an inverted T wall are possibilities. Mr. Wright wants to meet to discuss this item.
  9. #56 the detail will be updated for compliance, including the SoilMax curtain wall.

Questions before closing:

Mr. Westhafer asked about the entrance drive safety concerns. This is a repeated topic of his concern. Beyond Meat stills says they do not own that land and discussion with the owner is not foreseeable. Per Mr. Keffer, the owner’s intent is in the way of what the Township may want Beyond Meat to accomplish.

Mr. Allen asked about C-08 that referenced a 50’ wide strip to remain undeveloped for possible Township development, but it needs to have dimensions and be documented. That was a will comply.

Ms. Fillippo wondered what the rationale was to expand when the company reflected a downturn in her latest research.

Mr. von Hoyer requested that Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. investigate the flow around the post office and Beyond Meat. Mr. Heleniak will call TPD.

Mr. Wright stated there was a real willingness for the Township to meet with Beyond Meat quickly to allow the applicant to attain their goal of Preliminary Plan Approval in September. Mr. Wright believes there will be an engineering meeting next week and an elevation and architecture meeting the following week. Much has been resolved but many details need to be worked out, some being stormwater related. Ground-breaking is estimated in spring 2023.

Further General Planning Items

Review the Proposed Change to the Conditional Use Procedures Ordinance Amendments

Mrs. Csete introduced the revised draft of the amendment to the Conditional Use Section. While the PC had made a recommendation in June, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Heleniak revisited it. They propose amending the requirement for notice before “any meeting or hearing” to be notice prior to the first appearance at the Planning Commission and the first scheduled hearing. While the old ordinance states “any meeting”, in practice the Township only required it before the first appearance at a meeting or hearing. The new revision is in keeping with that.

Mr. Motel moved to approve the revision to the language for the Conditional Use Section regarding the requirement for notice. Mr. Richter seconded and called for discussion. There being none Mr. Richter called the vote. All were in favor.


Adjournment was at 8:30 p.m.

The next meeting will be on September 13th at the Great Valley Middle School, Room 154, in Malvern PA.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Gardner
Recording Secretary
sheet, 8/9/2022