NORTH HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Monday August 29, 2016 @ 7:00 P.M. (September s Meeting) 11279 Center Highway, North Huntingdon, PA 15642 Presiding Officer William Chapman, President CALL TO ORDER Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL William Chapman Present Also Present: Virginia Stump Present Andrew Blenko Thomas Kerber Present Ryan Fonzi James McHugh Absent Donald Housley Stephen Cross Present Joe Dykta Absent Nicholas Liparulo Absent Nancy Bolden, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Mr. Cross Motioned to approve minutes. (Meeting of August 1, 2016) Second: Mr. Kerber Motion Carried: 4 ~ 0 ~ 0 OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS S-11-2016: Brook Haven III & IV Plan - Proposed 33 new single family lots near Oak Hollow Park. Mr. Blenko said this is the first time the Planning Commission has seen this plan but Mr. Housley and myself have been reviewing it for a few weeks. It was 1
submitted unofficially in June with the idea of trying to eliminate any issues before it came before the Planning Commission. I feel we have been able to do that. Mr. Blenko read his memo: This is an application for a subdivision plan to create 27 single-family lots fronting on Durst and Timothy Roads, Morris Avenue and a proposed new cul-de-sac street on the south side of Morris Avenue, which will access six (6) single-family lots in Phase IV (33 lots total). An additional 39 lots are part of Phases I & II located in Penn Township and already approved and under construction. There is minimal infrastructure proposed as the majority of the lots will front on existing roads. Sanitary sewers will be constructed to serve all the new homes, and those are under review by NHTMA. (Since the date of this memo, the township has received a letter from NHTMA approving the design.) Sewage planning for all phases of the development has already been approved by PADEP. Flows will be conveyed by gravity to the WWMA treatment plant on SR 993. Some lots will drain to a stormwater detention pond (to be conveyed to the Township), while others will have on-lot sumps to manage runoff from the dwellings and paved driveways. The methodology is to over detain runoff from the lots that drain to the detention pond in order to compensate for the lots that are un-detained. Approval of the stormwater management and erosion control plans by the Westmoreland Conservation District must be a condition of approval. (I understand that they have also been approved. We received that officially after the memo was written last week.) PADOT approval is needed for the driveways that will access Morris Avenue, as well as Riley Way. This must be a condition of approval. Don Housley of R.F. Mitall Engineers has reviewed the proposed plans and his review is attached. Multiple plan revisions have taken place in the last two months so at this point the plans are in pretty good shape. A condition of approval must be that all remaining engineering comments are addressed. The developer has requested a number of waivers and modifications as set forth here: SALDO 304.7 - Submission of a formal Environmental Constraints Study SALDO 414.7 - Installation of sidewalks (90% of the lots exceed 100 foot frontage and exceed 25,000 SF) SALDO 416 Submission of a Traffic Impact Study (less than 50 lots proposed in NHT) Asphalt wedge curb shall be constructed with wearing course material 4-inch underdrain shall be installed on the high side of the road only 2
All lots except Lots 344, 466, 469, 470 & 471 shall have one or more non-radial lot lines. I recommend approval of this plan with the following conditions: The sanitary sewer design shall be approved by NHTMA (This is resolved.) The stormwater management and erosion control plans by the Westmoreland Conservation District. (This is resolved.) PADOT must approve the proposed driveways and intersection with Riley Way. Resolution of all remaining engineering comments. Mr. Chad Stafford, Pentara Engineering, project manager and engineer for this project. We have a lot of dedication to stormwater. We do need the highway occupancy for the eight lots along Morris Avenue as well as the new roadway, Riley Way, a cul-desac. Riley Way, Brook Haven Phase IV, will have very large lots. A large portion of each of these lots are offered as a conservation easement so the land will be protected. In Phase III, between Morris Avenue and Durst Road, there are two very large lots. The stormwater basin is the track in the middle. We did receive approvals from NHTMA and Westmoreland Conservation District. We have two modifications that have to do with the roadway constructing regarding to the binder and asphalt of the wedge curb and only the high side stormwater pipe that runs along the road instead of on both sides. I believe all the administrative and surveying items have been taken care of and are asking for your recommendation for approval. Mr. Blenko asked about the 7-8 lots that need driveway access to Morris Avenue. Have you looked at sight distances and do they all work? Mr. Stafford said under a separate submission we did provide a plan that shows locations of proposed driveways and structures as well as the sight distance and the table. For purposes of PADot, we spray painted the locations of the driveways. They do meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Blenko said other than the formality of getting the permits, it should work. I had also raised a question about the water line and trying to get a fire hydrant within 600 of every home. Mr. Stafford said that won t be a problem. In reality the water authority will design that water system. Our plans specifically show the water coming to the cul-de-sac but we don t have any specific language to the other water that will be extended to service all the other lots. We will coordinate with the water authority in their design that every 600 there needs to be a fire hydrant. 3
Mr. Housley said the oddity on PADot is they will not issue them a permit, in District 11 & 12, until the property is subdivided. They are proposing a subdivision with lots fronting on a state road needing permits but they won t give the permits until the subdivision has been recorded. We ask the applicant s consultant to prove that these driveways will work. Also there are two ways to do a subdivision. You can, ahead of time, set forth your meets and bounds for all of the storm and sanitary easements and then hope that your contractor stays within those small easements. The alternative is the meets and bounds are not shown, the subdivision is recorded with a dash line intended for the easements. When you do the As Builts the surveyors locate the manholes and we can do a determination and set forth where those lines actually are and then record a simple subdivision which should be an administrative process and we define the easements. I agree they can be recorded later. Mr. Robert Shuster, 8958 Hill Drive, said we are going to almost immediately start putting the sewer lines in. At that point, we will do the As Builts and by the time they are all done the township will have everything and there won t be any reason to have this go through two times. You can take our model, when we use it to put those lines in and find everything. Mr. Housley said we are actually going to work that into future subdivisions. Either not to record those easements and do it the way Mr. Shuster is doing it or require a second recordation. If they have to record up front for finance purposes, then we will have to do a second subdivision. Mr. Cross asked if the second subdivision has to come before the Planning Commission? Mr. Housley said it probably does but it is going to be an administrative issue. We are going to verify that A matches B; it will almost be a line item. It may be able to just go back to the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Blenko said the retention pond will over detain for the lots that front on Timothy Drive. The lots on Timothy will run off un-detained but it will be over-detained on the other side of the creek. It beats having to have two detention ponds and two systems to maintain. In Phase IV on the other side of the road the lots will have on-lot sumps to handle the downspouts and driveways. Mr. Fonzi asked if the stormwater parcel was land locked? Mr. Blenko said it is landlocked from the standpoint of frontage but there will be an easement to bring a road in coming off of Durst Drive. 4
Mrs. Stump asked will the properties that are on Morris Avenue have turn-arounds in the driveways so they are not backing out onto this roadway? Mr. Stafford said not turn-arounds but these homes will have side-load garages and the driveways will be large enough for vehicles to turn around and come out onto the roadway facing forward. Mrs. Stump asked if there was a PNDI search and if so, did it reveal anything? Mr. Stafford said there were no hits on the PNDI. That is one of the items we have to do in order to process the NPDES permit. That was cleared. Mrs. Stump asked is the conservation easements that are going across Phase IV for floodplain purposes? Mr. Stafford said the conservation easement is also in Phase III since the stream is also located there. The purpose is to help with stormwater analysis so essentially you design the property and take a certain amount of credit, water quality, by putting in this type of easement. They can never be encroached upon, built on, etc. It gets you some points as you do your design work to bump up your water quality credits. Mrs. Stump asked will there be something recorded in the deeds that people won t be permitted to place anything (i.e. shed) on this area? Mr. Stafford said that is correct and we have specific language on the plans as relates to the individual deeds. Mrs. Stump asked if you checked the overburden for any underground mining? Mr. Stafford said yes it is noted on the plan. PUBLIC COMMENT Darlene Simpson, 45 Durst Road, said our lot is surrounded by this subdivision. Is sewage something that will be happening very soon? Mr. Stafford said we have worked with NHTMA and we have extended a right-of-way to your property. There would be a location where you could connect into that rightof-way and extend that sewer so they can grab the flow below. 5
Ms. Simpson asked will we be required to do that soon? How will we know that we have to tap in? Mr. Blenko said I believe the sewage authority could order you to tap in if you have a manhole within 300. If they will is anyone s guess. Are you in favor or opposed to the sewage? Ms. Simpson said as of today our septic system is working great, so I am not in favor of tapping in now but when it fails, I would be in favor. Are we looking at 2017 construction dates? Mr. Shuster said I hope so, yes. Ms. Simpson said I had noticed in the past that there was talk about patio homes. Will the present plan for the homes be like the model home that is in this plan now? Mr. Shuster said yes. The average lot is 5 acres. Ms. Simpson asked as far as grandfathering, you were talking about not building on the conservation portion of these properties. Will we be subject to changing the sheds, etc. that are on our property now? Mr. Blenko said no, your land is not part of this subdivision. Ms. Simpson asked if the access road to the detention pond will be on the west side of her property? Mr. Stafford said yes. It will be a specified built graveled driveway. Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to approve the subdivision with the conditions: 1) PaDot needs to approve the proposed driveways and the intersection with Riley; 2) a resolution of any remaining engineering comments; and 3) recommendation for the six modifications and waivers that were requested. Second: Mrs. Stump Motion Carried: 4 ~ 0 ~ 0 6
S-12-2016: Adam & Carley Painter Plan - Proposed subdivision on Southampton Drive. Mr. Fonzi read his memo: This is a minor subdivision located on a 3.219 acre parcel that Adam & Carley Painter own at 2261 Mickanin Road. The Painters would like to create one new buildable lot with frontage on Southampton Drive that will be 1.697 acres in size, leaving their existing home site on a 1.522 acre lot. Both lots still meet the minimum dimensional requirements for an R-3 zoning district. There needs to be some clarification on the Southampton Drive ROW as there was a discrepancy on the recorded plan for the Chestnut Hill subdivision that created this road. We may need more explanation from the surveyor on this topic. Any approval of this plan will be contingent upon a sewage planning module exemption from DEP. There are also a couple of labeling errors on this plan. Once the surveyor corrects these issues and clears up the ROW situation, I can recommend this subdivision for approval. Mr. Fonzi said Denny Rosetti, surveyor, is here. I have not received the corrections. Tonight would be a good time to talk about the right-of-way issue from Chestnut Hill Subdivision. Mr. Denny Rosetti said when I looked at this South Hampton plan initially, it didn t appear by the deeds that it was a 50 right-of-way. I have since uncovered a couple older deeds where the Mickanin s had conveyed property a few times, one of them being the Coal Land Partners that developed the whole South Hampton Drive site. I will get those deeds and a worksheet to the township tomorrow. There was a 40 strip of ground that was conveyed initially. If you look at how the plan is recorded, there is actually a jog in the right-of-way that would make it 40 from Chestnut Hill Lot 74 down to Mickanin Road. Beyond that was a 25 x 500 piece of ground that was conveyed between the Mickanin s at some point in time. Subsequently there was a deed for a 10 strip to make it 50 because the Planning Commission would not approve a subdivision plan with a 40 right-of-way. Mr. Housley said to fully understand what we are doing; the original plan indicated 50, was recorded at 40 but then there was a 10 dedication. Mr. Rosetti said I think the dedications by deed occurred prior to the subdivision being recorded. Mr. Housley said then the error is in the drafting of the plan. Mr. Rosetti said yes, I have noticed several drafting errors in that plan. 7
Mr. Housley said you are showing the additional footage which will allow South Hampton Drive to be 50. Mr. Rosetti said yes. Mr. Housley said that will resolve the prior recording problem if that property is dedicated or deeded over to the township. Does your clients have control of that or you are saying that was conveyed prior to their ownership? Mr. Rosetti said it was and I also have a survey plan that I have prepared for the Painter s showing these different conveyances and when they occurred. When the property was conveyed to them, there was actually two descriptions that conveyed the entire 50 right-of-way to them which I believe was incorrect. We are currently in discussion with the title company pertaining to that. I don t believe they have title to it but based on the deeds that I have found and the sequence that they occurred, I don t believe that those two descriptions should have ever been part of their title in their deed when their conveyance occurred. Mr. Kerber said Mr. Mickanin did not want to give up the 10. The original plan had the 40 right-of-way and it was turned down. He finally caved in to make the deal go through. Mr. Blenko said the issue with Chestnut Hills is they went back and relabeled the right-of-way for South Hampton as 50 but if you measure it, it is not. All they did was change the text but did not change the width. Mr. Rosetti said he believes he can demonstrate there is 50 there. Initially there was a 40 strip the south side of South Hampton and prior to that, there was a 25 strip conveyed that was in line with the 40 strip. That additional footage was conveyed. Mr. Housley asked the 10 was eventually conveyed? Mr. Rosetti said yes. Mr. Housely said then that was conveyed to the gentleman that did the land subdivision behind it. Mr. Rosetti said there were a lot of weird things that happened with conveyances and title. I did a lot of research on this property. 8
Mr. Fonzi asked to clarify part of the revisions spoken about between us, it will all be shown on the revision, correct? Mr. Rosetti said the dash line was one of the deed lines and I will remove it. I will show the outer boundary of where it ends on Mickanin Road. Mr. Housley asked the 25 that was dedicated on the north side of South Hampton Drive has been brought back to a 10 dedication? Mr. Rosetti said the original strip may not have been 40 but 35. I will have it clear on the map. Mr. Blenko said we also need a sewage planning post card exemption for the one additional lot. Mr. Rosetti said in his opinion, you may want to have Chestnut Hill Subdivision be rerecorded. Mr. Housley said with us working together, we can make this plan resolve the issue and get it behind everybody. Motion: Mr. Cross Motioned approve this plan with the contingencies of receiving a revised plan showing the 50 right-of-way and the sewage planning post card exemption with DEP s approval. Second: Mrs. Stump Motion Carried: 4 ~ 0 ~ 0 ADVISORY HEARINGS None DISCUSSION ITEMS None CHAIRMAN S REPORT None 9
COMMENTS William Essay, 560 Oakhurst Drive, said information has come to the residents in Lincoln Pointe about Mr. Shuster s, who purchased the St. George Acres next door, preliminary access road. The upper portion of the subdivision has access to Church Street and we think there is only a 25-35 easement. We heard Mr. Shuster is proposing 18 duplexes for this upper portion and his preliminary access would be Oakhurst Drive. A variance had to be acquired for the upper portion of this road in Lincoln Pointe for the 15% (?) grade it has. The salt trucks have to back up this road due to the grade. If you go to add an intersection, where a variance had to be acquired because of the steepness, it is going to be extremely dangerous. It is a rather sharp bend negatively affecting the sight distance. Someone pulling out of the new proposed plan will have limited sight distance. My quick calculations of 18 structures, 36 homes, 2 cars each, taking eight trips a day, equals 576 movements at this intersection. We would like to make the point that some time you purchase a piece of property knowing that it might not be able to be developed. He has a right to develop this property under the township laws. Please consider the residents of Lincoln Pointe and the safety of both plans. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to adjourn. (7:45 P.M.) Second: Mrs. Stump Motion Carried: 4 ~ 0 ~ 0 10