7:30 p.m., Wednesday,
January 19, 2011
Members Present:
Guest: James W. Hatfield, P.E., Township Engineer.
1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Election of
Chairman and Vice Chairman: Motion: Breiseth moved to nominate
2. Public Comment: none.
3.Weir Property 49-6-7.3: no presentation this evening.
4.
Discussion regarding
January 19, 2011 Twp Engineer Review/Comment Letter:
Zoning Comment #1 Sections 250-19.C(5) and 250-20.C – Fritsch indicated that Applicant’s Attorney Edward Foley is working with Township Solicitor Ross Unruh to determine if a variance is required to allow subdivision of the Pocopson portion.
Zoning Comment #2 – Applicant requests waiver of Sections 250-17.D(1), (2) as the dwelling will be constructed in Pennsbury Township portion of Lot 2; Pocopson Township portion without construction of the dwelling will endeavor to comply with Section 250-87 – Natural Features Ordinance.
Subdivision and Land Development (SALDO) Comment #3 – Applicant requests ten (10) waivers as set forth on the Plan. Following discussion, Hatfield stated no technical objection to waiver of 190.22.B(9) (comment #3(c)) requiring data for cartway edges and right-of-way lines for proposed and/or existing streets if a deed of dedication is offered and it is recorded (in compliance with comment #5).
Waiver of 190.24 (comment
#3(e)) and waiver of 190.30.B (comment
#3(h)) – Applicant will submit a conservation plan with the building permit
application both of which will be submitted to Pennsbury.
To be determined is the administrative process that will provide for
SALDO Comment #4 – (right-of-way dedication) will be handled by the
Applicant in the same fashion as discussed in Comment #3 above.
Comments #6 and #7 and #8 – Applicant agrees to deed restrict the property from further subdivision and expansion. Applicant has not received the Pennsbury Township Engineer Review/Comment Letter. Discussion ensued regarding the shared driveway intended to support two dwellings and the Pocopson Ordinance driveway specifications. Applicant cannot provide documentation for the wearing course specs for the existing driveway but agreed to complete a core boring test and submit same to Pocopson for evaluation for Ordinance compliance.
Stormwater Management Ordinance (SWMO) – PC agreed with the Township Engineer
recommendation that copies of the final approved designs be provided to
Motion: Breiseth moved that
the Planning Commission recommend to the Pocopson Township Board of Supervisors
approval of the LeFevre Final Minor
Subdivision Plan dated December 23, 2010, prepared by Regester Associates, Inc., pursuant to Township Engineer Review/Comment
Letter dated January 19, 2011, condition upon a legal determination that the
Applicant can proceed without a zoning variance, Applicant’s compliance with
Section 250-87 regarding any natural features on the Pocopson parcel, and
compliance with all Pocopson Ordinances governing construction of a shared
driveway, including but not limited to legal agreements and driveway
specifications to be approved by Pocopson Township; seconded by Summers; motion
unanimously approved.
5. The Preserve/Toll Brothers Subdivision/Parcel 63-3-84: Amended Final Land Development Plan: Louis Colagreco, Esquire, Attorney for Toll Brothers and Mike Klein, Project Manager (Applicant), discussed the Amended Final Land Development Plan dated 2/12/2004, last revised 1/5/2011 and received by Vandemark & Lynch, Inc. on 1/6/2011. PC members noted that the Township Engineer Review/Comment Letter was not submitted for the discussion. Hatfield reviewed the substance of the draft of the Review/Comment Letter noting changes to the grading design and that most items set forth in the December 10, 2010 Review/Comment letter have been addressed. Applicant seeks recommendation for approval of the retaining wall and Amended Plan in order to proceed before the Board of Supervisors on January 24, 2011. Discussion ensued regarding the retaining wall as follows:
(1) style of wall block (three samples were provided by Toll and the Township Engineer provided catalog photographs); Applicant stated that cost differential is significant for certain materials (cost for certain materials may exceed $80,000); PC suggests a style with the natural appearance of stacked rock instead of the commercial-looking vertical line wall; AB Europa Palermo Malvern Blend is the preferred color of the three samples;
(2) style of fencing to be installed atop the wall; fencing will not include woven wire overlay if post and rail; it was noted that wood post and rail represents rural character of the Township; fence installation is a building code requirement as the retaining wall is 4' in height; homeowners association will require installation of fence for liability purposes;
(3) landscaping is a factor in wall style selection; what advantage, if any, for the Applicant to install expensive wall blocks that will be heavily screened by landscaping; Applicant could install the same wall as Riverside then soften it visually with significant landscaping including plant material that will hold leaves year round, i.e., boxwood, and will provide cover for birds and wildlife; PC recognized that it is to the Applicant’s benefit to construct a wall that is marketable to potential buyers; landscaping details should be submitted to the Township Landscape Architect for approval;
(4) drainage issues were presented for discussion by the Applicant and the Township Engineer who described the construction of the swale and technical specifications that represent stormwater management features related to the wall and the community; and
(5) maintenance responsibilities will be set forth in an amended Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and the Township will be provided with documentation regarding soil testing and technical plans prior to wall construction.
PC discussed deferring recommendation until confirmation of approval of technical engineering issues by the Township Engineer. PC agreed that when finalized and approved, engineered wall and landscape plans should be part of the recordation of the Amended Final Land Plan. Secretary is directed to request clarification of building code requirements for installation of the fencing from the Building Inspector as he will be reviewing the building permit application for construction of the wall. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the PC to make a motion regarding recommendation as the final details will be decided by the Board of Supervisors.
Motion: Simonson moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Pocopson Township Board of Supervisors approval of the Amended Final Land Development Plan for “The Preserve” prepared by Apex Engineering, Inc., dated February 12, 2004 and last revised January 5, 2011, subject to satisfactory completion of issues raised by the Township Engineer, submission of legal documentation governing retaining wall ownership and maintenance responsibilities, and submission of technical specifications for the retaining wall approved by the Township and recorded with the Amended Plan; Summers seconded; motion unanimously approved.
6. Pocopson Township
Historical Committee – Locust Grove Schoolhouse (Schoolhouse) Site Development
Plan: The following individuals appeared before the PC to discuss the
status of the site development plan for the Schoolhouse – Dale H. Frens, AIA,
Frens and Frens, LLC (Architect); H. Kirk Horstman,
P.E. (Project Engineer); Sarah Mims, Chair, Historical Committee (Applicant)
and Randy Mims, Historical Committee Member.
7. Correspondence and Announcements: none.
8. Other
Business: none.
9. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 15, 2010: Breiseth moved to approve the December 15, 2010 Minutes as submitted; Simonson seconded; motion unanimously approved.
10. Adjournment: At 9:40 p.m. Summers moved, Rafferty seconded to adjourn; motion unanimously approved.
___________________________ ___________________________________
Susan Simone, Secretary