Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] We're about halfway there. Aren't we still missing two board members? So, we have Zach, you and I. That makes a quarum. John Gars can't make it. John is in Scotland. That's right. Nice. I know Mark communicated to me this afternoon about this. So, he will be joining us to my understanding. That's my understanding as well. But we can get started, go through the public comment and the uh previous minutes. Oh, here's Dr. Harris. There's Dr. Harris. Hello. Hello. Sorry for the delay. Hey, it took me a minute to get the link. It's okay. I think we've got a full house. All right. You want to start? Yes, please go ahead. All right. Well, call the to order the Franklin Township Planning Commission

meeting, June 5th at 2025 at 7:03. Uh, first order of business is what? Public comment. There being no public comment, we'll move on to the minute meetings. Could you put up the agenda? I forget what month that is. It's for April. April. Okay. Because I'm just looking at the Hillrest plan right now. Um it would be April 3rd. So, um everybody had a chance to review the April 3rd minutes. I had asked the anybody's thoughts on that one sentence um about Chuck and I working on recommendations for the step offs. I don't quite remember. It made sense in context. Yeah, I just had Chuck made a comment about marking up documents uh regarding the installation sites. Um, so I don't know if that would be on a map or um, you know, physically going out. And then you had commented uh, thanks Chuck. I'll do my best to be there with you. So I took that as you were going to be working with him in some regards. Oh, okay. I think it was if we related was with Zach agreeing to the minutes agreeing to present and Chuck was going to make an effort to be there. But yeah, and that's and that is what happened. Okay. Okay. So, I can revise that for you. Is everybody okay? Stacy just revising it to that her understanding. I think it's a minor point. I'm sorry. So,

Zach, go ahead. So, I'll just make move to approve the minutes as amended. Uh, sorry. That's not my not my role to do. Sorry. Anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes with the recommended amendment uh changes as stated by Stacy? I make a motion to approve the planning commission meeting minutes from April 3rd uh 20 uh 25. says 24 25 um with the amendments uh as stated. I'll second. Any more discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Great. So, Zach, there's a cheat sheet that they send us. Very, very useful. I just went to the cheat sheet. Yeah. I I mean, I have the agenda, but I don't have the cheat sheet. Sorry. emotions. Um, okay. So, moving on, we have uh what's the next the plan, the freeze plan. Yep. So if that's um with this being the first time that this plan's being presented to the planning commission, typically we have the applicant or their consultant present to us uh the plan the purpose. This plan's a little interesting that it also I guess refers back to a plan of 2021. So, if somebody's able to bring the planning commission up to 2025 with this submission, we'd appreciate it.

You're on, Richie. Okay. Good evening everybody. My name is Richie Natividad. I am from Tulker Associates and I will present to you this 100 Walnut Glenn Road project. Um, this was originally an approved um, plan back in 2021. And I will show you the approved plan. Here's the approved plan back in 2021. And this this plan here is our current submission. So there uh, the purpose of this plan is we're adding an additional dwelling unit within an existing structure. Basically, we are adding this dwelling unit in the existing barn located right here in this dark um shaded area. I'm going to zoom in just to um so you can see it better. This is like the detailed area where we are proposing work. Comparing it to the 2021 approved plan, we have relocated the existing barn. We've gone through the township to get that approved. If you can um confirm that, Nate. Correct. Yeah, that that occurred um 204. Uh I believe in 24 we issued a uh a revised permit for that. Uh and that's been constructed everything but uh that driveway extension. Correct. So there were some So it was constructed as an agricultural building. It was constructed as I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt Richie, but yes, it was constructed as a barn. Okay. So, sorry Richie, I can't help myself but interject. So, essentially the zoning officer determined once Mr. Freys wanted to convert this to a dwelling unit, it required land development approval per the code. So, just to skip that step a little bit, Richie, but I'm sure you were going to get there in a minute.

Okay. So, currently um we are presenting this plan to show the new location and the proposed driveway and grading. Everything's um in everything has been in regards to storm water. Everything has been accounted for the impervious that's existing and proposed as shown on the plan. Since back in 2001, we accounted an extra 8,000 square foot of impervious surface added in accounted to the storm motor management system. I think that's a really neat idea. Yes, it's a it's a great idea. Thinking ahead. Doesn't always work out this this well, but it worked out pretty well in this case. So, that's right. So, does everybody see that at the bottom of the You might want to show them where that is. The drywall. Uh, no. The uh the additional where it shows the additional uh impervious. Oh, the additional impervious. Okay. Just bear with me for a minute for a second. So currently here we have we show let me zoom in some more the impervious calculations and what we were proposing back in 2021 and as you can see down here we show future improvement of 8,000 square ft. And like I said earlier we accounted this to our storm water calculations and and that's also accounted to the size for the uh storm water management facility. And then moving ahead, like I said earlier, we relocated the barn a little bit further away. The size changed a little bit, but we are still within that proposed um impervious surface that was approved back in 2021. Correct. That's that that's correct.

So, uh Richard, you just want to explain. Yeah. So then again just kind of clarify what the purpose of this submission is just to kind of reiterate what I kind of said earlier then. Oh sorry what what did you say? You just want to kind of then reiterate what the purpose, you know, so again, we had a 21 approved plan, subdivided it, the other lot got built, had this barn as an agricultural use, storm water was installed via a township storm water permit, tweaked things at that time. That storm that storm water design essentially accommodates all this additional impervious of the driveway and the barn. However, because now they want to convert the barn from a let's again a use to an accessory dwelling unit, it does require additional land development approval. That all being said, the only thing that needs to be constructed at this point would be just that inner inner in between driveway. Barn's already up, storm water facilities already up, storm water facilities already been designed to accommodate all of this additional impervious. Correct. Is that maybe like a n a 30 second summary of kind of how we got here? Correct. Richie, can you use your mouse to indicate where the rest of the driveway that needs to be installed? So, the rest of the driveway to be installed is right here, this hatched area right here, as you can see. And then we regraded it so that um basically what's going to happen is this will be pitched to the right side of the driveway so that all this surface water will convey into this proposed swale and then tie in back into the existing swale and then down to the existing dry well. So I I reached out to Richie and we talked about that and he modified that. So this this drawing as it stands right

now actually doesn't pitch but he has a sketch plan that he would show you that and I'll bring sketch right here. So as you can see we Sorry about that. Um, we created a high point here, pitched the driveway, and super elevated the driveway so that everything flows to the right to the east side of the driveway and then down into the swale. Yeah, I thought that was a good good feedback, Chuck. I mean, I think it kind of just a little bit of belts and suspenders approach to make sure that storm water runoff's getting to that facility. Yeah, they have a a gravel driveway. Uh, and gravel driveways tend to change shape over time and I was real worried that if we try to go over top of the driveway, it's just going to start going down the driveway and that's not a good Yeah. And it it can tend to get a little bit of an erosive condition. So, I think that was good feedback and I think that was a good adjustment by Richie and to make that work because and again considering that work still has to happen. We have that flexibility which is nice too. So, it'll be a very minor change to the plan once we resubmit again. And then Richie, please, uh, I I want you to testify that the dry well is has been designed for, um, to catch uh, water off the surface. That is that is correct. Okay. So, you know, to the PC, I mean, certainly any other questions for for for Richie or myself, happy to answer. We did review this as well as AECOM. Um, there is, I guess, a sewage facilities planning module that's in process. Uh, otherwise, it's it's kind of as clean and simple as it gets, you know, especially something that doesn't have new storm water or new features or new permitting for driveways, things like that. So, fairly straightforward. It was

just a little bit of an odd duck in in this change over to that accessory dwelling unit, which was again, it's a little confusing how we got there, but um you know that that's that's kind of the backstory of how we got there. So certainly happy to answer any questions. I'm sure Richie can too if I can't. So any general questions from the PC or alternates before we ask to go through the most recent review letter and comments? I I my general questions would be I believe the reason that we're here is because it's an ADU. Normally, we wouldn't see this. And I also want to make the statement I do not believe we saw this the first time because it was not a subdivision. So, I believe that this is the first time the PC is seeing this property. Am I correct or wrong? I don't think so, Chuck. I believe the cuz if you um No, no, I don't think that's correct. It was a subdivision back in 21. I think this is before my time, frankly. But subdivision back in 21. The subdivide the lot to the Do you have the bigger plan up, Richie? Yes. Um there's a lot to the bottom left there if I recall correctly. And at that time, the barn was I believe the this property was all essentially matching up. Correct. Yes. So there was a two lot subdivision previously. It was Yes, correct. Y that's not showing. We saw we saw the we saw the smaller lot subdivision but when this this property came that's this is not a subdivision. This is not this is the existing parcel. Right. So, we never we saw we saw the the house next door, but we've never seen this. Oh, we've never seen this property. Well, there's no Again, I don't know that there's any active land development or subdivision with this property, Chuck. I'm sorry. Maybe that sounds confusing, right? No, I don't think we

should. Yeah, right. Chuck's just clarifying. He's not questioning that we missed a subdivision or land development plan. Correct. What's he asking or stating? I'm a I'm I'm just making sure that we have not seen this property previously at the planning commission. No, I'm trying to look up real quick. I just want to double check my files here. Make sure I'm not missing this. Do I have that correct, Richie? was 20 2021 was a entire parcel here before we subdivided. So it might be a right that was subdivided out. Lot two was sub there was a lot two that was subdivided out. That's yeah that's that's out of this property now. But the house and the barn were were there at the time I believe. Correct. Yeah. Correct. We're there already. Correct. So yeah, there hasn't been a land development per se for this overall tract, right? So we're seeing it, but that's just only because it's an ADU. I think that's fair. Yeah. I'm just curious. Um, I'm looking at the satellite image. The property immediately to the east looks like it's uh set up for um well, it's a use with a big barn. Is there any interference at all or is actually I'm I'm curious. Does that property belong to the same uh individual that owns uh this this one that's proposed with the barn or is that

a separate uh a separate entity? Separate. See the Amish? It looks like a stus. Okay. Uh and there's no concerns about having a an ADU that close to, you know, agricultural runoff or any of that? grading go there. Uh Richie, I mean the short ver the short version, Zach, is it conforms to to the zoning requirements, but I believe the grading is all kind of coming down towards towards our property. Yeah. Yeah. This is the high spot on this side here. Okay. I was just curious. I mean, I'm looking at at a satellite image of it. I wasn't familiar with the property just off the top of my head. So, okay. Thank you. Do we want to go through the review letter? We certainly can. Uh, do you have that up, Richie, or do you need me to pull it up or what's easiest? Um, you know what? I don't think I'm not sure if I have that up. I'll I'll you want to do that. Uh, we can certainly switch screens and I can do that if that's easier. I'll stop share here. Go ahead. Does that make sense? I'll just share that guys and we can just run through it. Okay. Yeah. Just Richie, many of these questions, you know, obviously have been answered. Uh we just need to document that we're addressing them all. So any simple ones, we don't need to spend exorted amount of time on them. So just give you I I only run I only run through things quickly, David. So please pause me or tell me to slow down as necessary. Um but I'll run through this letter if that makes sense. Um just to keep it moving. So, we did review this revised submission again with the exception of Chuck's one slight grading change, which would be something that would, you know, get addressed prior to plan recording. Um, again, just clarifying that, um, the additional

dwelling unit is permitted per zoning. Um, the next note here, number two, uh, is just there's a zoning requirement about what you're allowed to use that additional dwelling unit for. Add that note to the plan. Um I kind of also comment that I think when we get to the board having that be a condition of approval as well just to kind of again belts and suspenders regarding what that ADU is allowed to be used for. Um essentially you can't use it for short-term rentals is the short is what it is. Uh number three um again just working with everybody to get you know confirmed street addresses um to make sure that for emergency services there's no confusion there's clarity on that. Uh number four, um storm water in short was already addressed. We've kind of gone through that. So there's really nothing new to do here storm water-wise. No new impervious as part of this that hasn't been already addressed by the existing inspected installed storm water management. Uh moving to the next page, AECOM always handles the sewage. Uh they're working and I think you guys saw the planning module process. So um ultimately because of the additional dwelling unit, uh they've got to go through that process. So that's underway kind of happening in parallel and I saw some documents crossing over this week. Jeeoff, you want to chime in? Yes, the component 4B and 4C has been approved. Perfect. And then AECOM, I believe in this version of the book does have uh component 4A. Stan was nice enough to to give us a little bit of a helping hand um and filling that out and uh wanted the planning commission to review that tonight and consider approving that. Okay, we can and we can handle that probably I would handle kind of two twostep do that next Jeeoff. Okay. Uh and thanks to Stan because yeah, those are kind of painful. Um number six, obviously they're going to need a well permit prior to uh getting building permits squared away. Uh number seven, just clarifying the

terminology on the plans just so there's no confusion. Just want to be consistent with what the code says. Don't want to run into problems when we go get this plan recorded. Uh so again, just kind of clarifying that notation for the type of plan. So no waiverss necessary regarding that. Uh 8. Can you hold on one second? Absolutely. Can we see where the new well is? Uh did you show the location? I think you did. Yes. I have the plan up. actually right beside the north of the uh proposed barn proposed well you're showing up right there. Okay. And and you got your clearance and that's the other well. Good. Okay. Thank you. Y and again ultimately Chuck, we don't get too far into the weeds with that. That gets permitted by the health department. So we kind of let them handle it, but we try to check the boxes of making sure is it feasible? Does it is it located? But beyond that, we don't get too involved. Y uh going back to the letter hopefully. What's going on here? Why does this not want to come up? To quote URL, did I do that? What just happened? Go to the next one. Go to the P PC 6525 book. Yeah. No, sorry. I think like all a sudden nothing wants to pop up for me. Hold on one second guys. Let me just see if I can reboot that slightly. Yeah, I don't know what happened there. Um I understand if you smack your monitor. I know, right? Always normally pretty good. That doesn't happen to me. This doesn't happen that often. You want me to try to bring it up? Nope. I got it. Just it kind of just froze up on me there. All right, so going back to the letter. You guys can see that again. Sorry for that technical glitch. Um, eight is landscaping. You know, it essentially there's a code requirement. Look, I get

a little I don't know, maybe it's overkill, but I I like to be at least technically correct when I go through these letters. Technically, landscaping could be required here. Um, ultimately the discretion of the board. Probably overkill for a submission of this size in this type of location, but certainly at the discretion of the planning commissioner board. You know, landscaping could be required. Again, the adjacent uses is kind of an a use. are not going to be, you know, imposed by this. So, I'm not sure it's necessarily appropriate for this site, but I just want to point out that that that exists in the code just to be straightforward with everybody here. Just to add something to that, um I would like the planning commission to weigh in on this one way or the other because the board's going to be looking for the planning commission's guidance, right? Anybody anybody feel strongly either way that you know some lands you know different anything you know needs to happen here would is it easy to get to that section of the ordinance to are we going to require a waiver because it's a land development plan I I don't know that I don't necessarily feel that a waiver is required. I think it's pretty clear it says like at the discretion of the township. So I I think it's I think there's a lot of flexibility ambiguity there to be honest with you that I don't think it's a waiver type situation. uh you know, so I I don't think a waiver would be would be necessary here. Did it come out of the ADU section or did it come out of I see I think it almost came out of the ADU section. Yeah, you might be right, Chuck. And I could probably pull that up separately while we continue on, but um I can take a look at that. Don't recall off the top of my head. Let me circle back to that one. Do we want Let's let me come let's come back to that one. I guess let me ask this question though. I mean, does anybody feel that, you know, a landscaping makes sense here, per se, or has value? You know, I I don't know. I just I didn't want to go too crazy on on that, per se. Well, I think that's why

we want to see where it came from. Okay. To see how we have whether we have to or whe you know, if it is at our discretion. Um, what kind of boundary exists right now along the edge of the property? Is there a fence or existing landscaping? I will show you. So, this is the current aerial map here. Can everybody see that? So, pretty clean here looks like and and I guess I know Mr. Phys is on the call too and Richie's here, but looks like it's pretty uh pretty clean right now between those properties and kind of has has always been, you know, kind of kind of open through through the whole area there looking back, you know, five years, for example. Oops. He's foul funeral came up. Uh, can you show that that view from that vantage point with the barn there? Your uh, pull this back up your side, Jeff? Yeah, if you could. More of a bird's eye view so we can see Walnut Glenn Road. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Yep. Uh if you want to keep going, Nate, we'll come back to the screening. Just trying to do that kind of simultaneously here. Sorry, guys. Uh so yeah, we'll come back to eight and just double check that code section. Um number nine was just a utility clarification. We always want to make sure we're we're identifying those properly. Uh but again, with this, it's all existing on site, so nothing new here. Um obviously the well will have some plumbing that goes along with it, but that'll be permitted, but not really what the intent is there. That's if we're looking at, you know, a public water or public sewer type extension. Uh letter B, uh was just providing some clarity on um the storm water. Again, there was even when it came in initially to us, there was a little bit of that confusion. So, just clarifying some of

the asbuilt conditions, things of that nature. Uh so, we've we've gotten that cleaned up. Uh number 10 A, what I like to do, guys, is I like to kind of just kind of list through the typical type stuff so something doesn't really try to get missed. Uh 10A, not required. We don't need a new storm water agreement that already exists for the prior project. No substantial changes in that regard. Again, there will also be no additional fee required for that. Uh zoning that will get handled at the time that building permit gets issued. Uh same with the UNO. Technically, there's a small transportation impact fee. So, that would happen once it gets approved by the board prior to recording. That's letter E. Uh, and then number 11, just kind of go through and just kind of clarify, you know, various reviews, status, latest comments, what's required, not required. Everybody kind of see those there. Um, again, I think we've kind of flipped through most of those at this point. So, any questions on anything there? So, up until now, except for the one issue that we want to address, we're looking for approval tonight or recommendation for approval with no waiverss. Correct. I think that's what what the I mean, that's what you guys are asking for. Correct, Richie? Yes. Correct. Anybody want to fill the time while Nate's looking for where the uh it's uh section 22-610 if that helps. Yeah. No, I had the section there but the uh for some reason it kept popping up to the uh it just it wanted to go go to other townships on me and kept screwing me up there. Sorry. Uh but yeah, 22610 there. I I there's the I pinged the the address into There you go. 610 is in site design standard. So I'll bring this

back up. Uh and it was section 610 1B2. 610. So 610 is screening and landscaping. This is in general design standards one B2 applicability and it was B2 H. Sorry if I'm flipping back and forth on you guys. B2 H. Again, see how generic it was. It's where you know where otherwise required at the discretion of the board of supervisors. So, just a little bit of an opportunity in case somebody wants something there. This again, not this site necessarily, but when other projects come up too, they just, you know, know that that section's out there. Um, but doesn't appear to be directly applied to that ADU, Chuck, as far as I can tell. Okay. So, is that a function of why does that why does that come into play? It's it's just because it's a land it's a it's it's a land development project. So, additional screening or landscaping can be provided, you know, at the discretion of the board or supervisors is essentially what your code says. Okay. Very non-specific, you know what I mean? I almost hate to comment on it to be honest with you because it's so there's just nothing there to grab. Um, but again, in full disclosure, because a different type of project, it might it might be something that is is helpful or useful or or pertinent. You know what I mean? So, so my statement would be um if anything the residents would want the screening, not the A. Um so that's at their discretion if they wanted to provide it. It's it's they have full control over that situation. A yeah, I don't feel it's necessary. That's how I personally see it. Again, I just didn't want to speak for the planning commissioner board, but I think that's exactly how I think you phrased it better than I could. it doesn't really

feel applicable in this type of situation. I think it's at the like you said the flexibility of the homeowner the users if they feel they need to screen it feel free you know but the mandated or requirement feels a little bit overkill in my opinion I mean I'm in line with you too I mean where it comes from is when land development plans are submitted for commercial buildings retail buildings and yeah I almost say the I almost say like the comment I bring up again I just want to be I try to do a diligent job of being you know try not to miss stuff so appreciate that. Okay, this this is our first ADU submission to the planning commission, correct? Might be. I think it may. I believe it is. I believe it is. Did we have any questions? Um, how was it, Nate, going through that section of our new ordinance for ADUs? Mark Gordon bore the brunt of that because it was kind of handled. It was kind of that zoning aspect of it and that's where it got picked up on when they came in for that change in in use more or less. But yeah, I mean that the ADU stuff looks like it goes back to 2019 the best I can tell. So yeah, kind of fairly new. So we won't see all ADUs. We only see the ADUs that are in out buildings. I think that's how it's worded. I didn't go into that that because Mark was handling that part, but I think you're right, Chuck. Is that Yeah. your recollection. Not only is it my recollection, but I have a project. I I I think that's a Look, I I I've said it before, but I think um you know, in my in my dual role at the Chester County Planning Commission, I I think it's a very well, you know, it's a good idea. It's good. I think it's the way it should be. Um we need more of these kind of things. The more flexibility, the better. And uh I think at the end of the day, it's a good thing. By the way, based on the street view, I mean, you already have a a good bit of a, you know, natural landscaping just with a bunch of uh hedges and trees

along the the side of uh Walnut Glenn. So, it I think that might provide a decent amount of uh obstruction from the road in any case. All right, Dave, is there anything else you want to go through then or anything else you want to cover or what do you think? Any other questions from uh the PC or alternates? We're going to review the uh septic separately. Yeah, the planning the planning commission typically signs off on the component for and I forget which letter, Jeeoff, but yeah, I think they just make a recommendation separately on that from a planning uh sewage facilities planning uh perspective. Correct. My understanding is that this was originally um a four it was reported as a fourbedroom house, but it's only a three. So, they had one extra bedroom. So, the ADU will have one bedroom also. And that's what we're going to be looking at in a second. Is that correct? I was standing on that. That sounds correct to me. I'm going to pull it up too. So, it has been sized appropriately to accommodate the proposed dwelling unit. Yeah. I mean, the short version is all the all the 4A is really saying is that this is consistent with codes and planning in our township. But we'll we'll keep that separate for now. Yeah. Can I just chime in here for one second? Um, before we move on, it might be good to just have an explicit sense of all members of the planning commission at the moment that um, landscaping is not required. So, it's clear for the board of supervisors. Anybody else want to chime in? I think Chuck's commented. I've commented,

right? And but I there's not been a sort of formal That's why I'm asking for Zach and Mark. I agree. I don't I don't think it needs to be landscaped. No, it seems appropriate as is. And since we're fortunate enough to have Jim Johnson, a supervisor, why don't you let him weigh in? I've been listening to the whole conversation. I agree. if um if I was the adjacent property owner to the first of all, I like that there's a there's a option in there for the board to require it because if I was the adjacent property owner to the east and instead of a barn being there, um if someone was building if I had a pool there and someone was building a house that close to the property line with windows and I had a teenage daughter that was swimming in the pool, maybe I bought some some Leland Cypresses there, something to block their view, right? But this isn't the case and I agree with all you guys there. There there's no need for landscaping. So thanks Paul. I I think we can put a statement in the minutes that it was consensus that we don't that we would recommend not screening. All right. Anything else you guys want to cover with this? I mean, I think that's kind of just I'm just flipping through the file real quick to see if there's anything of note, but nothing else jumping out at me. Acom and then uh this is the uh we'll get to that 4A in a moment. So the the motion would not include any waiverss but conditions would be um final approval by the Chester County Health Department for septic and well is that I think David my opinion is I've got those all I think the only thing I don't have covered in my letter is um the uh the revisions to the grading suggested by Chuck. So I think I would just suggest

that you you guys can reference my letter. We check all the boxes in there with a comment about no additional landscaping is required, revisions as discussed at the planning comm, you know, reviewed and discussed in the planning commission meeting. And I think that would be sufficient because we can check those boxes as we go forward. And and what I would ask if the if the planning commission does conditionally approve this tonight, they do it based on the recommendations from Penoni's review letter of May 29th, AEC comms of May 28th, and then our meeting tonight. I' I'd like to see Richie develop a a re a revised plan, send that off to to Nate, and make sure all those boxes are checked before May 12th. June 12th. June Yeah, there you go. June 12th. That would be helpful. June 12th. and and and I mean that for that to give Nathan plenty of time to look at it and and and issue uh a clear letter by noon on June 12th and I think that's how you wrote it up I think in the in the draft too if I recall. Yeah, there it is. Richie, you're comfortable with June 12th? Yes. And we're talking about the um the minor revised rating. Yes. Yes. Yep. So basically whatever Nathan and Stan are asking for in their review letters in the planning commission tonight have that in one one submission given back to Nate. And if Nate feels it needs to go to Stan, great. I don't think it would.

But I I just want to keep it rolling if we can. Okay. I um I make a motion that Zach uh does the uh the motion. I mean, I can read. Go ahead, Zach. Okay. Uh, I make a motion for the planning commission to conditionally approve the land development plan last revised May 16, 2025 for the phrase property at 100 Walnut Glenn Road in lovely downtown Landenburgg, Pennsylvania, tax parcel 72 TAC 4, TAC 13.1 conditioned upon the applicant addressing all the outstanding items listed in Penoni's letter dated May 29th, 2025 and AECOM's letter date dated May 28th, 2025. Was there another letter, Jeff, you wanted? Yes, there is the planning Chester County planning commission letter. We can go over that, but I I think that's one of the cleanest letters I've ever seen from there's no conditions or no requirements. Nothing. It's straightforward. Yeah. Okay. We got to add the sketch plan. Yeah. And then just I would say subject to the grading revisions as discussed at the 65 planning commission meeting. You good with that, Zach? So, uh, do you need me to add that to the No, you can just say as Nate Nathan Klein said as as Nate indicated. Great. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thanks, Chuck. Any further discussion, everybody? All in favor of the motion say I. I.

I. Great. Any opposed? Motion's approved. Richie, we have a captive audience here. Yes. Any any any questions? Anything you want to go over? Uh, not at the moment. Okay, I'm good. Thank you very much. Yep. I have a quick question for Richie or or uh or Nate. Um, how does the swale drain into the drywall? Uh, Well, I guess Richie, you have the plan. Yeah, further down. Yeah. You want to switch over to your plan? Sure. Okay. Probably verbally. I don't need to see it. Oh, there's a um inlet drain basin there. Okay. It's an inlet that goes into the drywall. Okay. That's all I wanted to know. I didn't see it on the plan. Okay. Yeah, because we only showed the um the grading where we're doing the work. Okay. Good question. Um, so Jeff, I think then the next item on it, sorry David, if I'm cutting, the next item was uh the 4A for the same project. Um, my understanding is uh Stan provided at E AOM provided some direction on how to fill out this how how to fill out this form. Um, and you can see the kind of the boxes that were checked. I'll zoom in here for everybody. Um, fairly straightforward. Um, not much to this, but again, they're always looking for the planning commission typically to sign off on these. It's good practice. Um, so this is a form that's filled out essentially. Is it consistent with our codes? Are there any, you know, known issues? Things of that nature. You know, do you have an ordinance? Is it consistent? Things of that nature. So, Nate, can you bring it up? Just bring it up. I'm talking through it like it's on my screen. I was I forgot we uh I was going to switch it over to the screen there. I apologize. We're all in the same sandbox. Yeah. Yeah. Understand? So, as everybody can see here, just again, yeses and nos. Do you comply? Do

you do you have an ordinance? Does it comply? Are there any known issues? What this does is it gives the municipalities an opportunity to comment to the regulatory agencies if there were problem areas, if there were known issues, if it was not consistent with our zoning or municipal planning. Nine times out of 10, that is not that is not the case. It's it's typically pretty standard. Every once in a while, I'll mark this up with something in red saying, you know, subject to some wonky code issue or some other thing to give them heads up, but it's it's pretty rope process at this point. Um, and like I said, Stan and Jeff filled out the first sheet. Um, it then again just goes to the second sheet. Same thing, you know, do we have one of the big things is like, do we have wastewater problems or needs is what they're looking for. Again, not a known problem area, something like that. Um, and then essentially the, you know, the planning commission signs off on this and we get this out to the D. So, is this considered a I don't know what the term is. um when more than one building is attached to it is it is that why we're we're going through this as opposed to we don't typically I think it's a modification of the existing onlot permit and technically depending you know regard whatever was permitted before because they're permitting an addition and Richie might know better than me because I wasn't involved in this but because they're permitting an additional unit Chester County requires this update to the to the um sewage facilities planning module. Right. So, this is no longer a single family um septic field. Correct. I guess that's how it would be. Chuck, you know, I not sure. I'm not sure if there's like terminology changes there per se. I don't know exactly that language.

Jim, do you know if if uh this is kind of like a public No, it wouldn't be like that. No, we don't. We're not going that far. No, no, no, no, no, no. Definitely not that. But there's two dwellings using one septic tank and field. Yep. And and Nate, I don't know if it would be helpful. I believe you have this 4C section in there if you want to just go through that which would be from the health department. Right. So the Yeah, 4C is right here. So this is where the 4C is what the county uh provides. So they clarify, you know, existing wells, they've got information on the the plans, things of that nature. So the health department's already signed off on this from the D. So again, I honestly think if we if we were like I think what happens if we were to not sign off on it, they would still approve it. To be honest with you, I think it's I think it's a little bit of like proof that they've notified the township and we have an opportunity to comment. If we were to not provide this form, I believe they still would they still would approve it. So just putting that out there as well. So, totally unrelated to sewage. Are two wells required or is it just that it's easier and you need more flow that you're putting in a second well? It's a good question. I think you're adding you're adding a well, correct? Yes, we are. Right. That's what I'm asking. But we don't require two separate septic systems, but we do require two septic wells. When I say county, we're not requiring the second well, as far as I understand. Second wall's option. It's the owner. That's what I'm asking. Owner's discretion on on there. So, Nate, in that um uh C section, whatever it was, um the 4 was something about uh 4 A or 4 C. Paul, I don't know. There

was as as these things were flipping by. Sorry, I I'm flipping through quick. Paul about nitrate levels. Yeah, that was in I think the Chester County Health Department typically chimes in if they've got something uh regarding Yeah. Is there known groundwater degradation? So, they're saying yes. If yes, there are two known wells that have water test results with nitrate levels that are high. Right. So, again, it's doesn't restrict you from doing anything. It's again FYIformational. And do you know what the um considered acceptable range? I I don't I apologize. I don't know. Yeah, I'm just interested as to because it was called out. Yeah, I not I'm not familiar with that exactly. I apologize. So that's the first section 4A. Does anybody have any further questions on 4A or um uh just to answer Paul that's been on many normal the normal range for acceptable nitrates is between 3 milligrams per liter and 10 milligrams per liter. That's the acceptable range federally. Love it. Say again what those numbers again. that uh between 3 milligrams per liter and 10 milligrams per liter. So they're just on that edge. This is this seems like it's good. It's just Yeah, right about there. So it's high acceptable. Yeah, that that is I mean at least federally that's within the the D or the EPA rather. Thank you, Zach. Yep. And Nate, not not to bore the planning commission. It's up to Dr. Kaufman, but we just got in the component 4B from the

planning commission. So I the county planning commission Chester County planning commission. I apologize. So I don't know whether you want to bring that up or if the if the commission it's essentially the same thing. The county Yeah. Just wanted to mention it. Yeah. More of the same. So those are the three comp you know there it's four but there's three components. county health department, county planning, township, local planning to update the DP to give everybody an opportunity to comment or provide feedback before they issue a permit for septic and uh the planning module. That's kind of it. Pretty vanilla. I would need a motion for component 4A. If everybody's ready, I'll do it. I don't read as as as nicely as that, but I make a motion that the planning commission approve the freeze planning module component 4A as recommended by Stan Corbett of AOM in his letter dated May 28th, 2025. You did very well, Chuck. Thank you. Um, do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, Dr. Harish. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Being none. Motion passes. Um I thought I'd give you the night off, Mark. Oh, thank you. Uh what else do we have? I think I think we have public comment. Um before public comment, I I found it, you know, it's taken us almost five years to have our first additional dwelling unit proposed

um plan. And uh I think it went pretty well once uh once we got the um you know, it'll be interesting because how many plans will come in with uh planned um storm water reserve. Yeah. And uh just to keep that in mind when it is there, we still need to see how the storm water gets to that location. Yeah. Anything else? Anybody or Chuck? Believe it or not, I'm good. Are you okay, Mr. Phys? Uh yeah, I'm okay. And just a comment, uh it didn't come up, but the sewer system we have was the same as the uh groundwater. We had it overdesigned and over installed uh to accept that in anticipation that someday uh one of the kids would be moving back. So, uh it's rated at like 900 gallons a day. So, that's kind of why it's not an issue. Good forethought. Yeah. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Appreciate all your help. Any public comment? Being none, can I have a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Thanks, Zach. We'll adjourn at 7:53. Good night, everybody. Uh Jeff, do you need a signature on that 4A? I I do. So if you could come in either tomorrow or Monday if that's it would be it would be Monday for me if anybody if you needed

it before Monday. But I I I think Monday's okay. It's all right. You just need the one. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you everybody. Thank you.