Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Of course, this is a time zoom pix to do an update for me. [laughter] If it was easy, everyone would do it. All right. All right, everybody. Um, you are live on YouTube. All right. Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you. um call a Franklin Township Planning Commission meeting of December 4th, 2025. Uh call it to order. Um before we get to the first item of business, public comment, just to remind everybody that um that's not familiar with how we proceed. Um the planning commission and um is addressed first and has the opportunity to ask all the questions. Uh we then usually open it up to the uh representative of the plan that's being discussed and then we open it up for any public comment or question. If you are um a member of the public, uh you'll need to state your name and if you're a resident of the township. Uh so uh first order of business, any public comment about items not on the agenda? [snorts] Moving on, we'll look to u review and um approve the meeting minutes. I think it's October 12th or October 2nd, 2025.

Yes, that's correct. And Stacy did a wonderful job of putting those minutes together. I looked at them. I don't think I had much to say. Um and I sent them forward. So, unless there's no comments, we can move forward with the approval of that. I think Stacy made the one correction that I asked you earlier. Yes. After we spoke, they're corrected. Great. So, everybody had a chance to review. Can I get a motion to approve? I'll make the motion to approve if you want. Second. I think Dr. Harris seconded. Any discussion?

All in favor say I. I I Any opposed? Great. Moving forward, uh, next order of business is 449 Chesterville Road. Um, Nate, did you have anything before we asked the representative of the property owner to review your letter?

Yeah. No, real briefly, guys, uh, Andy Evervine is here on behalf of the applicant. Um, he's the engineer for this project. I can share my screen, Jeff, if you want to give permission, uh, Andy and I can pull up the latest plan. Um, pretty straightforward. I'll let Since Andy's here, I don't want to steal his thunder, so I'll let him do his, uh, do his spiel, and then I'm here to help answer questions as necessary. But, uh, frankly, very straightforward. Um, not much to this one. So, this one, I think we can, uh, hopefully move through pretty quickly. You have permission, Nate, so you can start, right? And I think I've got it up. Let me know. Is that working good? Blank screen. Give it a second. All right, there we go.

There we go. All right, I'll turn it over to you then. Can you make that bigger, Nate? Um, maybe. I think that's as big as I got. Okay, fair enough. Maybe maybe you need a bigger monitor, too. You need better computer, too, over there, Jeeoff. I don't know. It's possible. I got a 23 inch monitor, but I got my new I got my new 30inch one here. It's pretty nice. [sighs] How are you doing on your iPad, Mark? I'm doing well. And that my ancient Dell, we're doing well. All right, go ahead. Yeah, Andy, do you just want to go ahead and just kind of explain the what's and what we're what we're doing here?

Andy. Oh, I'm sorry, Nate. I didn't hear you.

Yeah. Hi all, I'm Andy Everwine. Um, bear with me. I have a little bit of a head cold going on, so my voice will be a little froggy. So, um, [clears throat] Miss Campanelli and Mr. Thompson have a property that's a little over 22 acres on Chesterville Road. They want to create two lots. Um, one lot which will house the existing or contain the exist uh will be 2 I'm sorry, 2.2258. 2 to 5 acres. The other lot which will contain and house the existing horse um riding training facility um and the fields which will contain 20.030 acres. So um basically from the standpoint of looking at this property from Chesterville Road, you'll never know that anything's changing. It's more or less a subdivision, just a subdivide off off the house property. Keep the horse uh facility property as is. There'll be no development, no building, no anything on any of these lots. Um lot one has an existing septic. We did septic. We did test it for an alternate system and it passed. on lot two will be asking for a non-building waiver which is permitted within the confines of the D when you're not doing um any kind of development and it's a facility basically that's going to maintain its status as it is. No one's looking to build a home over there or anything else and if they did they'd have to come back to the township for approvals to do that and then do planning for sewage. So, it it's a pretty straightforward subdivision, more or less what I call financial uh split up. It's not physically changing anything out there. And um in a nutshell, that's what we got.

Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Before we go, I I think the next thing, Nate, would be to go through your review letter, but before that, does the planning commission have any general questions about the plan? I assume that if there's going to be any sort of um toilet needs that they'll be done with portaotties because you've got a facility there. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Well, that's I have the same question. Um on the horse, we can we can get a porta potty.

I mean, unless I have to do I have to get a permit for a porta potty? There aren't there aren't any there now. I mean, we're not asking to change anything that's functioning on that property now. Well, yeah. So, my question is what happens? We don't want portaotties. Want a porta the house and go to the bathroom. But yeah, I guess that's a good point.

Yeah. My my concern is that the house is no longer part of the property. And I mean is why is this exempt from I mean it it appears to be a business maybe.

Well right now it's a hobby farm. Um I I had to stop my business because of the last subdivision debacle with my neighbors. Um that was a big lawsuit. Not that you all need to know about that, but um so this is just subdividing the property. If I do decide to to do something in the future, I I could I could submit, you know, that. But I mean to to what would I where would I perk it and where would I put put the toilet on a perk test for no house? I don't understand. I mean, I I could get a portaot if you think that I would need one. [clears throat]

Is is the use the use isn't changing though. So it's still going to be a hobby. And if there aren't facilities there now, where do people go to the bathroom now, Miss Cavanelli? They they use your house. The house? Yeah. So, but you use the house because it's your house. Yeah, but I don't have any people here. These are my horses right now. Okay. That's what I wanted to to get out in the open. And that's proposed to remain. If if anything like that would change, I would think that we would have to she would have to go through the process of percolating the property and putting a a bath facility in or getting a permit or some kind of approval to put a portaotti, but there's no plan to do that at this time. Is it the same ownership?

Yes. Both properties? Yes. Okay. So, I guess my question would be what if this property sells and it doesn't have it doesn't have septic? I mean, is that does that meet our ordinances, guys? I I think and Andy, I don't want to step on your toes, but my understanding and talking to Stan is this is not an existing essentially it's not an existing dwelling unit now. So, any conversion to a dwelling unit, any transition to a commercial operation would kick back in DP planning modules and septic planning and all that. So that's not happening as of now. If that were to happen in the future, that would be required.

I'm also curious, is there any uh facility for plumbing or you know, forget the septic part of it. Is there any facility for water supply or anything? Yeah. Or a well. That's I'm sorry, but my I locked up. I don't know. I couldn't hear anything. Yes, the well to the house does supply the barn and the um out fields. fields outside. Um, as soon as this gets approved, I have a well permit sitting on my table to have an agricultural well put in for this. So, but I didn't want to do anything until I knew that this was going to go.

Okay. I just was wondering if you know it, just thinking forward if it did convert into something that needed that, whether the infrastructure was already there or not. Yes, it does. And I've already spoken to to Chester County agricultural people about that. And um that's a pretty straightforward thing to do. The agricultural well for the barn and the fields to shut off the water coming from the house. Okay. It's just it's just a shut off valve. Nate, would that I mean should we have that on the drawing the location? You would have to find water first.

Yeah. Yeah. Typically what happens is the well is going to be permitted by the county separately. So that that permit is issued by Chester County. Typically, I mean it generically, yes, Chuck, like you show a circle on a plan somewhere. The reality of it is it's it's dictated by site conditions, the county, the well driller, etc. meeting their provisions. When you've got a 20 plus acre tract, you know, if this was a oneacre track, that'd be that'd be a different scenario. Does that kind of make sense? Yeah. Yeah. I'm just I'm just, you know, asking the question, making sure that it's just a little odd that we have

we now have a piece of property with a with a building on it. I know it's not a dwelling, but with a building on it, and there's no water or sewer as part of this division. And normally, I don't think we would do that, but I I'm just double checking. Right. It

Chuck, I think the difference here is, at least in my mind, how I separate that is we're talking a non-dwelling unit situation, right? If this was a dwelling unit or a commercial business unit, that's a whole different ballgame with D in the county. Since that's not here in talking to Stan and AOM, we're over in this bucket, which is what's called a non building waiver, which they're allowed to get. Um, same thing with the well situation that that's a county permit. So again, the only way I can explain it is that and that if if if Paula here if she was going to in the future create a dwelling unit, create a commercial business, all of those various things, you know, would snowball and become applicable. It wouldn't require necessarily land development again, but it it would require at least those permits prior to building permits being issued, things like that.

Yes. And there is there is a certification um that needs to get placed on the drawing that basically states that. So the recorded drawing will state that there's nothing property relative to sewage or or sewage use without getting approval from the D in the township. It's it was in a package I sent to the town and it gets submitted with the non-building waiver. So that will be recorded with the drawings and you guys then have it um [snorts] you know in perpetuity that way. So there's an enforcement uh opportunity if has to be if it has to be. Okay, I'm happy. Good question, guys. [clears throat]

So, uh, Nate, do you want to go through your letter?

Yeah. [clears throat] So, there's really just I think there's the the two correspondence I have in front of me right now is I've got the comments from Stan. Um, essentially, again, just clarifying uh the sewage requirements, the well aspect. So, again, Stan's always got that covered, guys. He does a really nice job. He knows those rules and regs real good. We always work together on that. Um, so, you know, clarifying that and addressing these conditions. My letter guys, again, I note the waivers. Waivers are going to be sidewalk. Again, we're not talking land development, anything like that. I think it's belts and suspenders requesting a waiver. Um, along with doing this is like a joint preliminary final plan. Uh, so that waiver would be there as well. Um the notes there there's one impervious calculation note where she does have to remove a shed uh relocate a shed to make sure she stays under the impervious coverage number. Um that's noted on the plan. I believe she's working towards that already. Um so that's pretty straightforward. I appreciate that. That just makes it easy. We don't have to go to zoning if that's going to be a condition of approval. Um

hey, hold on one sec. Yep. Sorry. You went past sidewalks. I think this is a perfect property to uh show where a future path would be along Chesterville Road. What do you know how fast people drive down Chesterville Road? Right there. Right. Right here along the property line. Where? Right where the setback is. You want to put a sidewalk there? No, we don't want you to put a sidewalk. We want the drawing put one, but I was going to say, do you want to put one there? We want the drawing to reflect

that there that there is a location for a a path in the future or that there's there's a path there. We want the drawing to reflect that. Well, why wouldn't you put it at the back of the property? Oh, because it really wouldn't have accessibility from anywhere. I mean, if you wanted to run it around your property, that's a whole whole whole different conversation. But at the very least, um, let me let me walking from I don't where where is the sidewalk connecting to? Who is it connecting to?

Paul, let me jump in the middle. Let me slightly mediate if I can. I think I think I know where Chuck's getting to is that I think what Chuck's saying is from a planning perspective trying to get some sort of maybe easement that if a trail or other connectivity was happening in the future the municipality might have the flexibility in the future if anything were ever to happen to continue along this area of Chester basically for for open space utilization. Yes. And it's in the it's in the right of way. No, if Well, do you want it in the right of way or you want it where the setback is? Where that yellow line is is on on the property.

It's on the property in the pasture. I I think I should do it right right along. We should have five feet right along the uh setback line. In front of the setback line. Well, how about next to the fence? Well, the fence is over the setback. Well, it is. Yes. Yeah. I I would show it right. I would show it right. I wouldn't show it in front of the fence. Am I wrong in thinking the fence shouldn't be in the Isn't that the whole point of a rightway?

No. No. The rideway is for them to be able to build a road in the future. the fence is there as an existing entity and and can stay as such because um Pendot isn't going to come in there and tell her to take it down unless they come and widen that road. If they come and widen Chesterville Road, they have the ability to do whatever they want within that area. They're not of the in the business usually to do that, but they can. Yeah. They do not have to remove it. If some if at some future time they widen the road and it becomes a four-lane highway, uh yeah, they would remove that fence, but it would just be a couple feet inside, but not until that such time, and I don't think that's ever going to happen, right?

So, so, so, so Chuck, wait, I just want to pin this down then. So, is your suggestion that because I mean, right now, right now, I guess I'm just going to interpret this real quick, right? So, right now, the the edge of edge of the road is here. you know, you've got a fence here and then the property line here. So, you've got and I I just I can't say I drive this word every day, guys, so I don't want to pretend like I know what I'm talking about, right? But you've got you've got, you know, 30ish feet of legal rightway for future trail [clears throat] or uh path construction in this area that exists. So, Chuck, are you suggesting that we would need maybe some additional on private property to be safe or or or now that I explained it, does that make sense? Chuck, before you before you answer that, Jeff, if you maybe could enlighten everybody on PennDOT's position of how their [clears throat] rightway is used and whether they would want a path in their rightway. I think we've run into this issue like in the village when we've talked about, you know, improving pedestrian movement throughout the village and um That's [clears throat] why I think Chuck's getting to the point,

yeah, maybe somebody would put a path in that right away, but if Pendot does utilize that right away, we still want to be able to put a path just over that right away for five feet into the the property. So, PennDOT is going to, if it ever comes to fruition, PennDOT will always have the ability to trump the township because it is a state road. Always. So, does that mean we're concerned that if it's in the right away that it would it potentially could be lost in the future? It could. Yeah.

Well, you you also have to look at the the the the size of the rideway along that road. A 40 foot legal rideway along Chesterville Road is enormous. Most Pendot rideways are 16 and 12 ft from center line. They don't normally have such large rideways. So if they've even if they widen this road another 12 15 feet, you'll still have room for a sidewalk. But you don't need to have an easement or have it shown because it's in a rideway. It's already part of a rideway. It's already within the township's ability to show to build that if they ever wanted to do it in the future without an easement.

We still want it. So Andy, the short version is, you know, would you guys be willing to consider a, you know, a 10- foot offset easement off the rightway for future ability to construct [laughter] a trailer, sidewalk, something along those lines, I think is what the planning commission is getting at installing it, right? You'd have to ask my client. Well, let me um let me ask the other planning commissioners if we're in line with Chuck. Excuse me, Paula. Miss Miss Campanelli, if um the other planning commissioners could comment on this concept.

I mean, it's my impression that if we're just talking about the need for it to be on the plan itself, I don't particularly see the harm. The question of the existing 40ft setback seems like it would include enough space um for that. That's is my impression.

I don't I don't know if we need to show it on the right. I don't know if we need to show it because that kind of defines an area which may or may not work in the future. I think we just have a statement on there that's saying within the rightway there could be a a pathway which is [clears throat] available to the township to use and and it may maybe five or six feet or whatever we're going to say as part of that rightway space but not necessarily show it. and then clear the problem in case we want to move it in the future. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean show it as in like necessarily on the plan. Just show it somewhere in the the documentation.

Yeah, it could just be, you know, it just could be a statement that's saying that, you know, the township has the ability in the future to um use five or seven feet or where we want number is um as a pathway in case a for a future pathway is going to be put through this area. But there's no no requirement to do anything right now other than make a statement in the text on the document. I think that's a more reasonable approach in my opinion, but um I leave that up to y'all to decide

for what my two cents is worth. Um I I I think we got a lot of right away there. Um I know famous last words. I I I I can't imagine PennDOT ever coming in and using the entire 40 foot right away in the in our lifetimes, but um I I think maybe we could just get away with a note on the plan saying that one could be placed within the right of way. I I don't think we need I'm not saying anyone is suggesting this, but I don't see the need for Mrs. Campanelli to move her fence. I agree with you

and we're confident that we a township can do improvements within a pen dot right away. Again, Dave, it's I'm not going to kid you. It's it's going to be uh it it would be a challenge. You're going to need a permit and you're gonna have to approach PENDOT, Dave. It's not that's yeah you know it's it's not as simple as that but you know it would be a project but yes it's feasible and I think we should show it on beyond the the uh right away meaning guarantee that it's possible yes otherwise it otherwise I mean otherwise we're never going to get there I

mean you are correct pendot may say absolutely not we want our right away and you know you're never going to have one inch of it. I don't think Pandot's going to say that. Nate, you can jump in at the time. Pandot doesn't doesn't make it easy to do anything. Um, but they would you could you as a township could initiate a sidewalk plan um within this area within the rideway and PennDOT would review it and they would approve it under the guise of the Pennsylvania laws. Uh, and they couldn't deny it based upon just willy-nilly. They have to uh allow it. It's just the process of the Pennsylvania law.

Yeah, guys, I think Danny's sort of right there. I mean, it's it's and Jeff kind of said it probably even best. Like having 40 ft of right away from the center line here is a ridiculous amount of ride right away for this type of road. Um I'm not saying it's feasible, constructable. I I know nobody's graded it out, but yeah, I think it would be a pain because Pend's just not easy to work with, right? I also don't think we're putting in sidewalk tomorrow. Pendant's not going to come back and say, "Well, that's our rightway. You can't put it in in this location." They're going to say, "You need a permit, you need a design, you know, those types of things, Chuck." But they're not going to say, "No, you can't do it." If it's part of a trail plan or sidewalk plan, Penn's not going to deny it in this location just because it's in the rightway. If you were to put it outside of the rideway on private property, you may not need you would not need any pendant permissions, per se, right? But again, that's a whole different, you know, whole different path. I know we all sit here and say 40 seems unreasonable, but didn't the county say it should be 80? So, I mean, that's how ridiculous sometimes you can be when you go outside of local jurisdiction.

I I want a clarification on that. I think the county was saying it is 80. I think they were 40 on both sides. Yeah, I think I think they were I think they were Yeah. Yeah. I think that isn't an 80. um 40 that's shown on the plan is shown to the center line of the road. So it's 40 on both sides in theory.

So the 80 foot rideway for the road would mean 40 on both sides of the center line. Nate's correct in this instance. This existing legal rideway is 40 foot from the center line. So it's complying with that requirement. Um across the street I don't know. I don't know the plans are ever submitted. My suspicion is it's 16 and a half feet from center line as it exists today. I I would think that, you know, that's just the way it is to keep keep this discussion moving and trying to move forward. Is there a way to say that the township would do its best efforts to be within the rightway, but if not, it would be just inside the rightway, just outside the rightway. Is there that way?

Yeah, I don't see that as an issue. I think um Miss Miss Campanelli, you you'd have to say yes to it, but I don't think that's an issue because it's not going to affect your property. It's not going to affect anything. You're not taking land. You're not losing area. It it's just that at some point 20 years from now, the township decides to put a trail system in, they can do it. No, I don't have a problem with it as long as I don't have to move my fence line. And um yeah, I don't think it would involve moving at all. And this said sidewalk is going to go up through Nicole Nun's property and all the other properties all the way to the intersection of Chesterville and um North Creek. Is that where the side proposed sidewalk is going to go? Um

so you're going to take 40 you're going to ask Nicole and all the neighbors going up the road to also have 40 feet from the center line to their property. We're we're asking everybody that comes for um a change to their property lines. Okay. But even if you do have this said sidewalk, where who's where's it going to connect to? Well, that's the whole thing. We have to start making them so we can connect them together, right? So, you're going to have to require everyone to give up 40 ft of the front of their property, which a lot of these people don't even have that. I mean, I have a huge amount of property. A lot of these people don't have that. We're not we're not talking about any change right now if it's already the state has already taken the 40T.

Right. So, this is a this is a state issue here. Well, I think it's an issue where the township's saying that they want to start planning for potential ability to put paths and car and walkways in their township and this is an opportunity to note on the drawing so that in the future if they can ever obtain the rideways on the other sides of your property to put a cohesive sidewalk network in that they would be able to do that. Okay. So, and that applies to the the other side of the road also.

As I'm reading, as I'm understanding, Mr. Phillips, it's anybody who comes in for a subdivision or land development, they're asking them to to do the same. So, I don't know that it's it's exclusive to you. It's just that you're in front of them right now. No. Yeah, I'm just just seeing what what everybody else would have to also do. It's not just, you know, where you're going to connect these sidewalks to doesn't it's just not registering to right. Probably right now they wouldn't have to do anything. I'm sorry, Mr. Hoffman. I didn't mean to jump in on you. No, I just said as an example, you can stay on the meeting for another hour and a half and see that we're going to have the same discussion on the next plan that's that's coming before us.

No. Well, okay. As long as they have the rightway, they're good. I have the rightway, so I'm fine. So long as I don't have to move my fence, you can make your notation without me having to have poor Mr. Everworth there draw new plans with your um sidewalk set all that. No, I was just going to add a note to this one. I won't take that'd be great. That sounds good. Um I pasted in but I want to go back to um what Chuck said. So, do I need a permit to get a portaott? No. Okay.

Can I go back to that issue real briefly? I pasted in the chat on the Zoom uh a section of the code section 22723. Um it does actually call out that um each dwelling and non-residential building on an individual lot or subdivision shall have an adequate supply of portable water of domestic use supplied and that the uh system needs to be annotated on the plan. I can show a well location. It may or may not be there, but I I'll show a location called uh potential proposed well and it's there. It's fine. It's just a circle on a drawing, right?

I mean, it's either that or ask for a waiver for the ordinance. I mean, it's Well, I think at this point it'd be easier to show a circle on a drawing and ask for the waiver. It's not going to tie her down. It's going to say potential well. And if the well water's there, that's great. If not, she'll miss, you know, Miss Camo will find a place to drill it. And then the other there's a lot of the other issue that was brought up earlier talks about the requirement for an individual property to have some sort of septic or sewer. Um the code is a little ambiguous. um sections 22722 [clears throat] uh section one uh it describes that um

Zach just to interject that's essentially what this this non-building waiver uh declaration that D requires essentially covers that what they're saying is this is what D will accept to allow that. Okay. And and Zach, this comes from Stan with his recommendation that we do sign it. So, correct. As Nate said, Stan's pretty No, I'm again, I'm just I I found a section of the code that seemed relevant. I just want And I just learned how to use the chat. Awesome. Now we're in trouble. No, I I appreciate what you what you've done here, Zach. [clears throat]

to to complete the discussion on the waiver. So, we we addressed the sidewalk. Thank you everybody. [clears throat] Just so that we have it documented um that we're giving a waiver to preliminary plan, but this is a preliminary and final and we don't have any issues with that. Is that correct? The rest of the commission? Yeah. Good.

Nate, do you know where you left off on your letter? I was probably, as I tend to do, I was probably running through it somewhat quickly, so I apologize. Let me just flip back to it real quick. Um, I think we got stopped. Well, we talked about uh there will be a driveway a share driveway easement. So, that's, you know, typically something that gets handled as part of the record plan process, obviously. Number six, we talked about sidewalks. Um, seven is survey pin monuments. They showed that on the plan. Now, um, eight was this classic right away discussion. they clarify that actually is legal right away. So, we're good there. Uh, and then nine and 10 just kind of t tackle. I try to just cover all of our bases there just so nothing gets missed. So, you can kind of see some of the language there on some of the other, you know, third party external type stuff. Uh, I don't believe there was anything of note in the Chester County planning letter. Um, and like I said, AECOM Stan, um, I did confirm with him today that he's got that he is recommending the planning commission, um, also, uh, approve the non assigning the non-building waiver to get that to DB.

Any questions from the planning commission? No. um to keep things moving. If we don't have any questions, does anybody want to make a recommendation or make a motion to recommend [clears throat] to the board of supervisors?

Sure, I'll do it. Um, make a motion that the planning commission conditionally approve the subdivision plan for the Campanella Thompson property at 449 Chesterville Road, Landenburgg, Pennsylvania tax parcel 72 TAC 5 TAC9 based on the most recent review letters submitted by Nate Klein of Penoni Associates and Stan Corbett of AECOM. Zach, do you mind putting in there that we um with the waiver? Oh, and that the board recommends approval of the non-building waiver.

No, sorry. The um Did you get the copy of my proposed amendment to Jeff's the two sections of Salo that we need to I'm sorry, Zach. Do you mind withdrawing your recommendation right now? I got it just came to mind. Are we given a waiver to the sidewalks as long as there's a note? Oh, I I found it. Sorry, I I was looking at the earlier version of the motion. So, yeah, I withdraw my motion.

Great. So, we were the the proposed motion was to include a waiver obviously for the preliminary and final plan to be combined and then that there would be no sidewalks. Now, there aren't any sidewalks. There's an easement for a potential future trail. Um, are we still comfortable giving a waiver? I'm recommending that we still give a waiver to the requirement of sidewalks as long as we add in the conditional approval that a note is added for the trail. I think we say in lie of Yeah. Okay. You're still you're still up, Zach.

Oh, [laughter] okay. Starting over. Uh now I have the actual text. Uh, I make a motion that the planning commission conditionally approve subdivision plan for the Campelli Thompson property at 449 Chesterville Road, Landburg, Pennsylvania. Tax parcel number 72, TAC 5, TAC 9, last reviewed 10th of November, 2025 with the following two waivers. waiver one to section 2241B2 requiring a preliminary plan submission and to section 22710.1 requiring sidewalk installations at the discretion of the board of supervisors and the outstanding items for the most recent review letters submitted by Nate Klein and Pony Associates and Stan Corbin of Ecom be resolved at all township escrow accounts will need to be settled before the plan can be recorded and released to the applicant. This is also with the understanding that the requirement for the sidewalks be mentioned in the plan but not uh enforced in terms of building.

I have a second. I'll second it. Any discussion on the motion? Being no discussion, all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you guys. Thank you very much. Nate, just to finish up for 449, we need to uh also address the non the um deceptic. Yes. Is that what you wanted to do, Jeff? Yes, sir. You read my mind, doctor.

So, uh, Stan recommends that we sign section D of this, um, document and we need a motion to do that and then I would go sign it tomorrow at the township. Okay. Well, I'll do that one, too. [laughter] Make a motion to execute section D of the planning agency concurrence on PADP's request for a planning waiver and non-building declaration for 449 Chesterville Road, Landenburg, Pennsylvania. Tax parcel 72 tac 2 tac 9.

I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I I any opposed? Great. Hey guys, real quick, I just want to clarify. I highlighted that language there that I think is helpful for everybody just again to understand the reasoning where D comes from and that's kind of what their guiding principle is here and why that's applicable in this case. So getting into the weeds a little bit there for you, but I just wanted to point that out while I had everybody. Thank you. Thank you. And and Dr. Hoffman and and Miss Campanelli, if you wouldn't mind if you could come in Monday to sign that document, that would be great. The office is going to be closed tomorrow. That's fine.

Is that okay, Dr. Hoffman? Sure, Jeff. I got to change my notes now for tomorrow morning. Sorry. [clears throat] All right, I think we're done. Thank you, um, Miss Camp and Alli and Andy. Thank you. Thank you guys. Have a great holiday. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, moving on to uh Woods Edge. Uh, Who do we have uh speaking for the applicant? I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. Uh this is Mike Choice. I'm with Chester Valley Engineers. Uh we're the site civil engineer for for the project. Hi, Mike. Hi. Um maybe we just start with the general explanation of the um of the site and the plan. Sure. So, uh, subject site or Nate, I don't know if you had anything wanted to lead with or I should just get into it.

I I have the plan up. I'll let you take the lead and I'm here to help as needed, but I'll let you take the lead for now.

Okay, great. Oh, yeah. The the parcel is a 44.8 acre track in the northwest corner of the township. It's bordered by London Grove Township to the north and New London Township to the west. Uh access to the parcel currently comes from Blair Road from New London Township. Uh paved portion of Blair Road continues into the property uh where it turns north and uh transitions to a gravel driveway that's serving the parcel to the north uh in London Grove Township. Uh this plan is in essence uh a recreation of of a plan that was previously approved as noted in Nate's letter. I think it was 2008. uh and such as creating 22 single family home lots and a culde-sac road and and an additional call it a loop road that would begin within the property but tying to the asphalt the existing asphalt of Blair Road. Uh plans currently show Blair Road continuing up to a essentially a dead end at the boundary to the north. Uh we're proposing on lot uh septic treatment and in addition to uh uh the roads you see in terms of emergency access, we're also currently providing uh secondary access around uh the lots to the south starting between 17 and 18 as Nate's highlighting. Uh and this would just this would be in the event that the the culde-sac road is is is uh access to that is cut off during an emergency.

Uh and in terms of the existing site uh such as the northern third or you know 40% of the site is is wooded southern half of the site is uh agricultural uh and majority of the open space would be uh within that area to the south and we the plan seeks to uh preserve as much of the woodlands as possible obviously in in accordance with the township's environmental protection standards. And in terms of storm water management, it will be a combination of onlot uh call it seepage beds or on lot you know underground facilities training to uh three separate surface basins within the open space areas. uh and and beyond that you know we we we have the review letters uh you know I think the intent is provide a buy plan so obviously we you know having gone through the letters I I don't see any issues addressing comments from Nate and uh as far as the the comments from AECOM uh the applicant is uh using a separate consultant for the for the online septic design so uh we'll need to coordinate those updates as Uh I guess beyond the town the Franklin Township comments, we understand that New London will want to have a formal uh application since access to the site solely comes from Flair Road and uh impact of traffic as a result of this development will need to be uh uh examined

before we get uh Thank you, I before we get Nate uh getting detailed review um any general comments from the planning commission or questions I should say at this point. This is James Gilson. I'm just curious what drove you to focus the uh subdivision plan in the wooded area and not shift it down where it's more open to minimize the tree removals and everything. That's a fair point.

I would to defer to to the applicant, but in essence, the the the intent was to essentially resubmit a plan that had been approved. So that was really the the uh the initial thought that this this layout was approved. So you know he thought he would you know see if that could be approved again. Mike just for everybody's understanding is the applicant the same applicant that was in 2008. No. Okay.

The uh I don't know the the uh the date of transfer of ownership of the parcel but uh no he was not he was not the owner at that time. the applicant consider replanting some trees where the agricultural is right now the blank the open space the open area in the southern southern part of that lot

yes and I think it'll scroll to the the landscape plan and you know we have his comments regarding the proposed buffering but uh yeah there's extensive landscaping around the the perimeter So, we would I think to Nate's comments, we would want to uh get away from the more this sort of regimented layout in in certain areas and sort of uh provide a more staggered uh layout for the trees to, you know, one create a more natural uh feel to it and and provide the the year- round screening as needed. Yeah, I think we'll have more on landscaping as we go through

the letter. Um, but I think the first thing, Nate, is your first comment, and I think it's fair for us to address that first comment, is a plan like this, um, by all our requirements should be a preliminary plan, not a joint preliminary final. I think I I certainly would suggest that a plan of this of this magnitude would only be considered, you know, in a in the vein of preliminary nature. Uh Mike, I assume your team would not have any objections to that. Um obviously that, you know, we got a ways to go in a bunch of different things. So I would anticipate any resubmission would be kind of termed a preliminary submission. Is that is that fair, Mike?

Yeah, agreed. That makes sense. Um, good. Yeah. What what what's your thoughts, Dave? How do you want to go through things? I mean, do you want me to do you kind of want to go through it all? Do you want me to try to hit the highlights? I'm happy to do whatever's easiest for the group. I know there's a a lot of moving parts here. There are a lot of moving parts and it is kind of unique that we're working off of a plan that was once approved and nothing needs to be assumed that it would be approved now. Um, but it does give us a lot of [clears throat] details that could be worked on now,

uh, with to give the applicants some guidance um, instead of maybe just hitting key notes and then still making them work on a lot of smaller stuff in preliminary. Unless anybody has an objection that is much good planning commission effort tonight than extending it over three or four. I'm with you. We're here. I don't think there's uh there's there's no games on tonight, right? So, let's just grind through this and kind of put it all out there. No important ones. Just that blue and gold uh team down um in uh big Texas.

All right. No, I'm trying to think the easiest way. I got my letter off. Can everybody see that? We can see it. It is small. I think even if you had a 36 inch screen, I got I Is that doing a little bit better? That's great. Okay. So, yeah. So, look, I want to go I'll go through a couple things and and let's just we'll go through the letter, Mike, and then we'll kind of just bounce around. And I I'll be honest, Mike, um the easiest way to do this is maybe I'll just kind of bring it up and talk about it, but if it's something that you're like, "Hey, we'll comply. We'll address just say as much and we can kind of keep it moving a little bit is kind of where my head goes, Mike." So,

um and then just for everybody's sake, because I I don't know that everybody was necessarily there, but uh Jeff had a great idea, coordinated a site meeting a few weeks back. Um and we had a lot of good dialogue out there. So, a lot of the stuff that was discussed out there, I believe, is also represented in here. So, you know, not really changing gears or anything like that, but we we did cover some of that there. So, I think they're aware of some of these things before this letter even came out. So, just so everybody's on that same page. I know a few of you guys were out there and we had some conversations. So, Nate, before you get started talking real fast, Dave, do do you want I apologize. No, no, no, no. That's fine. Um, do we want to jump in on the individual subjects that I think

or do you want to let them go all the way through and then we circle back? I I think we just Let's tick through it. I think there's going to be a few of these that we're certainly going to want to talk longer on and we can pause and talk longer on those and go back about, but maybe to keep it organized, I think maybe let's just try to go through it and and I'll do my best to kind of keep it moving and and just just shout out and we'll pause and we'll go through something a little bit more detailed. Yeah, Nate, what I'll do is you get at the point Mike has opportunity to say we're complying and then hopefully the planning commission says, "Great, you're complying. Let's move to the next one." But I will what you you bring up the point, Mike makes his comment, and then I'll ask the commissioners to comment on that item. I think that would be best, right, Chuck? I mean,

I can't keep track. Yeah. Otherwise, Yeah. Yeah. We're rolling around too much. Exactly. I think look one two and three are very good examples of that guys right so and I do talk fast and I get all energized so please just yell at me if I am going too fast it's not the first time will not be the last time so don't don't hesitate um number one Mike I mean that's just cleaning up some of the lot west I presume you can when you make modifications you'll take care of that correct correct correct uh number two school buses uh Jeff was kind enough to already reach out to the school district team provide them the plan we are waiting for feedback Again, Mike, if the school district gives us certain feedback, I presume you'll be able to accommodate that. Yes.

Okay. I do think that's got that ties into a comment that we'll get into a little bit later, which is Blair Road and Blair Road improvements in New London Township. So, I'm going to set that aside, leave it to the school district, which is we're waiting on feedback from the school district, anticipating that Mike and his team will be able to address their comments as they come in. Um, and then as this project proceeds, we may need to noodle that slightly. How does a bus access it? Can it turn around? What's temporary phasing? But again, that's on my list of things to keep on, and I think we're all aware of that. Um, I I do think where we get into the nitty-gritty pretty quick here is probably on number three. Um, I I don't know that I need to go in through each one of these. We've already kind of generically touched on that. Uh, the county I thought wrote it up very well as well in their letter. And Mike, I think that the main takeaway is a little bit of pause by all parties saying, "Hey, why are we using the the wooded area and not maybe the open area or is there a better layout to this site that could work?" So, as opposed to us going down a thousand different paths here, Mike, I think the question I'm going to the way I'm going to pose it to you is is your team are you guys reconsidering layout based on that feedback? uh not actively but I I think you know if if coming out of this meeting that the temperature is that we you know collectively I think it makes more sense to do that then you know I'll go to my client and you know we'll have that discussion. So I would say it's not the door's not closed but we're not we're not actively considering it. So

you have a sketch in front of you of an alternative layout or anything like that. Correct. Okay. So I I think I do want to pose this then as kind of a discussion item real quick guys is to take the temperature of the planning commission here of what you guys feel. I mean is that something that planning commission feels strongly that they are in agreement about that there there is something to be said for that or some sort of middle ground or I'd be curious people's thoughts on that.

Well go ahead John. All right. The the culde-sac is pretty long and we've got then a road coming off of the culde-sac in order to get access in case there's an accident blocking the culde-sac. Is there any way of increasing that loop so that the culde-sac is much shorter? Um you go ahead Nate.

Yeah, I want to let's I want to keep it focused if I can. I apologize. I I think the road and the axis is a certain aspect of it. John, I think what I want to focus on is, you know, the wooded versus the meadow and how the site is utilizing. And I'm going to go back to the GIS map if everybody can see that. I want to focus on this part of it a little bit, the natural features of the site and the layout of the site being in the wooded area versus maybe the open area. Does that make sense? I kind of want to keep it in that lane for now. I thought you were opening it up with your comment. Yeah. So I am but just I want to stay in this focus of this part of if the the natural resources and the best use of the land for the development if that makes sense. So I'll go first. My go ahead

one time. I want to go first. Hot. Yeah. Sorry about that. I was gonna I was going to wait to I So consider me hot. Yes. We really should reconsider where the development goes and leaving the trees alone. Not happy with the tree that all the trees that are being torn down.

I guess straightforward from Chuck's perspective. Anybody else want to chime in? I I I surprisingly remember this plan from 2008 and I'd like the balance actually. I [clears throat] don't think every tree needs to be saved at the sacrifice of agricultural land. And so the only thing that disturbed me was what we are calling open space as two large retention basins which will never be farmed. So I go now I'm like, "Well, maybe we should move out of the woods because there's probably not going to be any farming on that open space anyways. Any other thoughts, opinions on this one?"

I mean, we can leave it there for now. I just I think well one of the if if I may um there's a lot of open space but it's not well accessed via trails and if that's also the point of I believe of of the ordinance um the a better integration of trails into the open space I think would be both an asset for the neighborhood frankly and um ultimately generate something that could be linked up um to something else.

So, and again, I think I do have that somewhat covered later, too. And I think that's something we want to do with all three municipalities, have that conversation. Um, but I think what, you know, what I'd like to do is Mike being able to walk away from this conversation with a little bit of clarity and direction of is, you know, is he going back to the well on this layout and shifting things south or trying to move some of these lots around? Is is that the direction this planning commission is giving him kind of based on Chuck's feedback initially, but I I think Mike needs needs a little bit of direction on that to help him facilitate next steps. And and look, if we don't have consensus or we don't know, that's fine, too. I just I want to make sure I'm trying to cover my bases here.

Open I just want to point out that tree the the trees are considered open space also. So, um, it's not like just just the field is open space. In our in the definitions of of our code, open space includes forested areas. So, it's it it applies to both. It applies to everything. Um, yeah,

I had a bit of an esoteric question. Um the proposed emergency vehicle loop that runs between lots 17 and 18 and extends to the the intersection of 12 and 13. Um has uh anybody reached out to I think I I think he was at the meeting so probably yes. Uh but just to address the requirement for uh an emergency vehicle width, uh the width of the the larger apparatus is 108 in. So the cartway would need to be at least that big. And it seems like it's right on the edge of the rightmost retention pond.

Yeah, Zach, I think um we're going to get to that. Yeah, we're going to get to that. That's a big item, too. Yep. Yep. No, I I appreciate it. But yeah, I've got I've got a laundry list of these things, guys. It's all in my letter. So, I I don't know.

Does Does any other planning commission or alternate have an opinion on the houses being in the woods, out of the woods? What percentage do we want to try to influence anything? Are we overall okay with the fact that some's in the woods, some's out? That's what we're talking about right now. I I think it's anybody who hasn't had a chance to take a look at the section on on the open space uh in our in our code doing going out the woods like this is not what our open space um ordinance says. It's it's the exact opposite. the or the ordinance tells us to stay away from mature trees,

to stay away from wooded areas, to stay away from habitat, to stay away from all those things. And I think it's important that we stick to what our code says and and and enforce that. Um, so if anybody hasn't had a chance to take a look at that, it's it's um do do we want to pull it up? I was going to pull up the county comment real quick, Chuck, if I can. So, there's here's the county's comment more or less right here. If you look at number um uh 3A, uh I believe I've got this wide enough for everybody. So, again, again, I think they're kind of doubling down kind of I think Chuck's representing similar here in in how this is laid out and you know, is this the best way to lay this type of of site out? Um, even though we are using the open space design, you know, I think again if you go down to their comment, I think in my opinion, the county does a nice job here, you know, talking about some sort of compromise. You know, is there something about sliding some things around? Is there a better way to lay this out that that could maybe help move the needle a little bit um in that regard? So, I think I agree with Chuck. I I I remember this plan when it came in back in 2007208. So, yeah, like Dave, I'm familiar with it from that long ago. Um, and I just I think it rubbed me the wrong way back then and it still does now. And I think that moving the development, the houses out of the woods for me would be something that I would like to see.

Yeah, this is James Gillson, Commission Alternate. I I agree. I think we should try to minimize the tree disturbance. Uh the agricultural land is already disturbed and uh we can minimize that by shifting things south a little bit. I think we should try for my two cents.

All right. Well, if anybody if anybody else wants to chime in, I'll take it too. I think, you know, I think Mike, just based on the feedback here, the feedback from the county, the way the code is worded, you know, I think the potential for you needing relief or exceptions from the code exist. So, I I do think there's something there about taking a closer look at this layout and seeing if there is a way to find, you know, a little bit better way to preserve some of these wooded areas. I I think does make a lot of sense and checks a lot of boxes. Okay. All right. We're gonna we're gonna come back to the trees again later, Nate. Yes. Uh, I think so. Maybe I don't have it memorized, but if we don't, we can't. You mean landscaping in general or uh the the new the new trees. Yeah, we I think we'll touch on that briefly. Yep.

Okay. All right. All right. Okay. So, I'm going to put a pin in that specific issue for now, guys, and we'll we'll keep chipping away here then. So, um number four is again just kind of setbacks for lots lots and houses from the track boundary. Mike, I presume this is something when you clean this up, you can make sure you address. Yes. And number five, obviously an easy one, building height. Just a clear note on the plan so there's no confusion there. Yep. Uh number six, regarding all access to open spaces, a minimum width of 25. Um again, all that is those little offshoots. Instead of being 10 feet, 15 feet, they should be 25 ft wide. Again, if we're going to consider some revised layouts, not hyperritical, just be aware of that. Is that is that fair?

Uh that's that's fair. But I uh I guess to that point when when we get into access for the for the storm water and it could be a trail and and a trail connection would Okay. If it could be doubled up. All right. I I Yeah, I think there's probably some flexibility there. Yep. Yep. [snorts] Um seven any open space was going to have to have just a deed restriction. You can't subdivide that further. I assume that's not an issue, right? It gets a little tricky, Mike. And I think somebody else picked this up earlier. you know, the storm water basins in the open space and doing the math on that could be a little challenging. Um, so I think you're going to need to sharpen your pencil on that one.

Yeah. Yeah. We've started looking at that and you know, I think we'll be in touch uh offline in terms of uh you know where we're where we're calculating to, I guess, in essence. So Nate, Nate, I have a question about number eight. Number eight. Yep. Can you bring up the plane and bring up that northern basin, please, sir? Yes, I can. Of course. So there's Can you Yep. Yep. Yep. I'm going to zoom in just slightly so I keep the whole thing. So just for everybody's sake real quick, I'll just kind of pause here briefly. So in essence, right now the concept and I guess Mike, it's fair to call this a preliminary concept, right? Yeah.

Yeah. So right now the preliminary concept consists of kind of three large basins and then in addition um Mike you've got multiple lots. If you see anything like this, multiple lots with onlot storm water. Am I highlighting the right area? Yes. Yes. Some of these lots also have onl lot storm water. So, just to give everybody a framework of where where we're going with this, but then I'll go back to Jeff. You were saying that northern basin and I have a I have a hard time with depth perception and looking at things that that seems awful close to the uh property line there. How how far is that off the property line?

Well, Jeff, that is also a comment later in my letter. Okay, I apologize. I got you, brother. I got you. Come on. Okay, but yes, that was something I noted as well. We certainly did not want to be grading on to or near to these, you know, property lines obviously and Mike when we get there, but I think that goes without saying. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Let's see. But great. You guys all have such good questions. Uh let's see here. All right. That gets us to um nine and 10 I'm going to put together. Those are somewhat generic kind of just record plan agreement documentation um Mike that the attorneys and everybody will figure out a little bit later date. Right.

Okay. Uh 11 is kind of doubling down on the previous discussion regarding woodland disturbance. Um again I think Chuck referenced you know various code sections. This is another one um that you know really buttresses the argument about trying to look at a different layout Mike. And I think it's very challenging from a, you know, you may need potential relief from this section if you could not. So I I just wanted to highlight this again, not to double down on things, but I did want to point this one out and that's why I kept it in my letter. Sure. Okay.

Okay. Um, further than when you get down to number 12. Um, the code's actually somewhat interesting. And then again, if if in short version is, and I think Mike, you can take care of this, but in short version is if we're protecting some of these woodland areas and they're on private properties, essentially what it's trying to say is these private property owners can't come in and then just clearcut them themselves. Um, so again, if we need easements or something for these woodland areas, depending on the revised layouts, I presume, again, that's something you guys could accommodate, right? Yeah. Does everybody kind of know where I'm everyone following me so far?

Yep. Okay. um 13. I presume at a minimum there'll be a home homeowners association for the let let me let me state let me restate that there would the potential exists for a homeowners association for the open space storm water basins things of that nature presuming the township the board ultimately I guess doesn't want to take this as open space or dedication in some other fashion and that might be a conversation for another day. Um the road network we'll get to as well would also potentially be private this internal road network. So the short version is Mike is if it's anticipated that the road internal road network I'm not speaking to Blair but the internal neighborhood road network and the open space storm waters would be all part of an HOA. Again something that would get addressed a little bit later on the process not unusual. Does that all check okay on your end?

Yes. Okay. And Jeeoff, I say that in that in that comment, in that way because I certainly do not want to presume what maybe the board is thinking or there's some municipalities that want to take on the ownership and maintenance of open space and everybody's different. So there's some flexibility in the code for multiple different scenarios there. So I just don't want to presume any one just yet. Is that fair?

No, I I totally agree. the the one thing I would ask the planning commission to consider and and the applicant is that um the road network be HOA owned. But that's that's just my opinion. It's just so far out of our network to try and get around and be able to maintain it. Um that would be my suggestion.

You know, I I I included a specific comment to that too later, Jeff, but as we're on that topic, I think it's fair. But yeah, just the way this ends up being located somewhat outside of your, you know, standard uh, you know, snow plowing routes and maintenance routes and things like that, it's going to be a little bit of an oddball for the township to own and maintain. So, I think at a minimum, you would think these roads would want to be private, and I would tend to agree with that recommendation, but again, open space might be a discussion for another day depending on other feedback and thoughts on that. So, agreed, sir. Okay. Um, all right, Mike, you good so far then? Yes.

Okay. uh 14 we already chatted on. I think we're all in agreement. We would prefer to see this as a preliminary going forward in the near future. And Mike, I think to your end, um I would suggest that um my suggestion to you is by giving us the flexibility of being preliminary, I think we are also reciprocating that flexibility of please do not overengineer and overdesign things until maybe we're a little bit further along. So I think that's how I see preliminary. I know it gets a little confusing out there in the world, but my point to you is like within reason, I I want you to be able to have some flexibility so that you're not redesigning this five times. Sure. Yeah, that makes sense.

Okay. Uh 15 speaks to lighting. Um I don't want to get too far into the weeds on lighting. I I don't know the township's position on neighborhood lighting. Um but I presume, you know, we're we're in a rural area here. Do you guys do street lights typically for neighbors of these of this magnitude or I I don't think so, but I don't know for a fact. I don't think we have. We have none. Okay. So, probably leaning towards it might technically need a waiver, but again, I think we can accommodate either way there. Does that make sense? Yes.

Okay. Um obviously all third party permits are going to be outstanding. Um Mike, have you approached um any of these entities in number 16 as of yet with any permits? No, the the applicant wanted to at least get through a first township meeting to kind of gauge where things are heading before getting too involved in that.

Absolutely. Um I would do exactly the same thing. Um the two red flags I just want to the two things I just want to throw out there and I think again I have it a little bit later. One, just please always include Franklin um and myself on on any submissions to to the conservation district D. Um that way we're in the loop. If you have a preapp meeting, things of that nature, um we'd like to partake in those. Um, I think it just helps facilitate for everybody. Um, I will not necessarily get involved with the Chester County Health Department. Um, but I am curious if you've had any contact with them regarding your existing test data and if they're going to allow you to reuse it or retest or again, if we're relaying things out anyways, it might be a little bit of a moot point, I guess.

Yeah, I think I think it's the latter. And yeah, when we when we were submitting the plans, you know, Jeff noted that as well. It's it's 20-y old data. So, it's going to be question for the uh health department. uh 17. Sorry, Nate. Hold on. We're talking uh septic right now. So, do we want to wait till late there's there's more data later on that says some of these might actually be mounds? Yeah. Uh which I Yes, that's possible. I would presume, Chuck, from previous data, I believe it was. I think I that sounds familiar. Did Stan comment on that?

Yeah, I believe it was. That's That's where it came from. I think that's where it came from. I'm not sure. There is number one at the bottom. Oh, down here. Yep. Yep. Yeah. So So sandbounds are permitted, Chuck. um they've got some different design components, you know, so it's it's it's not it's not atypical, but yeah, Stan's comment was depending on the lot layouts and the testing, you know, that's all part of the matrix of decision-m here. Yeah. And their their uh approach to set things totally different than it was in 2008. Uh yeah, it's a good question. I don't think it's I don't think it's more strict.

I would say totally, but there they consider different options now. Yeah. Yeah. There's there's there's more flex there's more more options is what I would say now. So, um does that cover what you want to Chuck? Yeah. I just wanted to bring it up. Bring it. Yeah. I think it's at some point, Mike, once you get further along in that part of the process, certainly we want to have that it's going to have to ultimately be clarified and updated on the plans. Right. Understood.

Okay. Uh let's see here. So 17 specifically requires uh parklands to be dedicated to the township or a fee in loo. Um looking back at the previous plan, it was actually a fee and Lou offered. Um so again reading between the lines, I I think that might be the path the township ends up choosing, but again I just want to put that out there now so that's not something that shows up in the 11th hour. Mike, no understood.

Okay. Um 18 is probably one of the bigger picture items here, guys. uh for everybody that was at the site meeting um I'll double down a little bit on some of the comments out there. Short version is in my opinion is really two things here is um first of all this is a significant issue as far as I'm concerned as a professional engineer um you know putting my planners hat on you know representing communities you know we're talking a I think it's 22 lot neighborhood at the end of a of a narrow you know under underbuilt street in a different municipality. Um the emergency management professionals have concerns. I know New London has concerns. Uh so you know we've got probably two or three things related to this topic. So one is um New London, right? And I I believe Ron is on the call for for New London. I'm not putting him on the spot. I think he's just listening in tonight. Um ultimately I believe Mike the game plan would be for you guys as discussed at the meeting was essentially sub making a submission to New London Township. So, has that happened yet or again just kind of waiting for this call?

Just waiting for this for this meeting. Y that's fair. Okay, that's fine. Just do me a favor and just at some point in the near future make sure you're communicating with New London just so there's no miscommunication or they don't think you're avoiding them if if you don't mind. Sure. Absolutely.

Okay. So, that's one part. Um the second part of that guys is I frankly will probably lean very heavily on New London's recommendation for what is necessary for Blair Road. in addition to the fire emergency personnel. So again, that's, you know, Ron as a township engineer for New London, if I've got all my municipalities correct, uh, we will be leaning on a little bit. I'm happy certainly to collaborate, but ultimately I I I will defer them to a point because that road is in their municipality. It's on their liquid fuels. They have to own and maintain it. So I really looking for feedback from them and the emergency management professionals on that. Which then goes to maybe the third and probably the trickiest part, which is secondary access to this neighborhood. doesn't exist. And you know, I think that's a potential red flag for for for all three municipalities, for the fire and emergency personnel. Um, we talked about at the field meeting out there. I might also have it separately in this letter, but um, I do feel very strongly about that. I think we all do. Um, and Mike, again, we we we did discuss it at the meeting, so this is nothing new. Um, but I just again want to double down on that being a potential issue here. Again, you know, we've got essentially what's acting as a thousands feet long glorified culde-sac. Um, you know, I don't want to get into a legal argument just yet, but you know, a lot of red flags on that aspect of it as far as I think we are all concerned. I felt like that discussion was fairly uh unified when we were in the field with all municipalities as well. So,

understood. Okay. Um, so planning commission, I'll I'll kick it back over to you guys. Anybody want to say anything differently than what I just represented or comment further? Okay, I'll wait this time. Dave,

I will say the only thing maybe that should be um noted because if you're not from this particular area, you may not know it. By the time this is executed, um the two stations that serve this uh local area, there's townships 22 and 23 are combining into one entity. Um so I would just say make sure that in the discussions that you're having with uh the townships they are aware of that and uh there will be some well let me rephrase there will most likely be some leadership changes within those two organizations once we're combined. So just bear that in mind.

That's a good comment Zach. I am aware of that. Um Jeff has been kind enough to connect us with um both Guy Swift and I apologize I can't think of the other Feler. Yes, thank you. Um so they've been kind of collaborating as my understanding. Um and we do anticipate I did request essentially formal comments from them for everybody's sake. Uh we have not received those. Jeeoff, we should probably just double up double down with those guys. It probably be good to get those. We had some comments back before the submission came in just big picture, but I think we should get some on the formal comments here just to have for everybody. So, but Zach, that's that's a a point well taken. We want to make sure we're talking to the right people, but Jeff's all over that one. Chuck Dave,

I think to be fair to Mike, it we reiterate what you're saying is we lean heavily on the advice of emergency response and [clears throat] if there's that concern of limited access for that many units, um we need to see something of a resolution to that. Yeah, I I agree. You know, it's it it's in my mind it's up to the emergency services people. Uh if they deem it okay, then it's okay. If they don't, we have a problem.

No, I appreciate that, guys. And I feel the same way. I I lean on those guys. I've known a lot of these people uh in that field that have been that are lifers, and I respect their opinions significantly. They're the ones dealing with the emergencies, and they're familiar with the emergencies. So, I am certainly going to do exactly that, as well as as lean on New London. So, um, Mike, just to give you that feedback and then while we're kind of talking emergency u access, I I did want to double down slightly. Zach had brought it up, but you know, I think unfort I just think this emergency access kind of loop kind of missed the mark. I think that was well intended, but not really again what we're getting at. What we're getting at is, you know, the community at large, you know, that's not really moving the needle. What we need is something for the community at large. Does that make sense, Mike?

Yep. Okay, Nate, if I will too, that that bottom loop maybe maybe it does um satisfy a blockage of that culde-sac road, but what about lots 9, 10, 11, how you going to get to those there at the at the northern part? I mean, there's no there's no back entrance to that either. So, we're sort of limited was my point, right? It's a lot of work and a lot of construction to not really provide a lot of value there, you know. Okay. Okay. Um All right. Let me flip back. Uh we'll be on here. So that's that one. Okay. So, um 19 is street construction. Mike, that's easy. You'll get the the details squared away. We'll coordinate that. Again, I'm going to defer to Blair Road to New London. So, that's straightforward. Um 2021 and a little bit 22. I do want to just touch on briefly. You know, I think there was there was some discussion at our field meeting. Um again about the you know rural context of the of the neighborhood and of the area and the proposed development versus the uh suburban context and you know does it make sense to have sidewalks all around and curbs and 24 ft wide or would the planning commission and everybody rather see something maybe softer a little bit more rural in the layout of this neighborhood. So I think these kind of group those all together. Ultimately it might lead to some waiverss or maybe that's where some flexibility is provided. But um is the plan commission kind of having the same vibe in regards to again sidewalks, curbs. I know the emergency management people are a little bit hey you know we're we're getting exhausted by curbs and islands and all that but curious what your guys take on that is. I mean, I thought their comment on the curves a rolled curve instead of um whatever horizontal uh or the you know

blunt curves that we think of if that a rolled curb or you know yeah seem to could be a better option a little less yeah a little less urbanized type look you know

and then I think on the sidewalk perspective again it's like you know in a neighborhood of this do we need sidewalks you know people walking in the road or that's enough. And I think it goes to kind of the next comment of my letter which is again kind of that regional trail connectivity hat and make sure we're thinking about that big picture-wise too and having that flexibility. So I think it all ties together a little bit. So, I think my feedback to Mike was I I know the county's got a good bunch of good resources um on how to lay out neighborhoods in this kind of context, but if the planning commission is on that same vibe, give him a little bit of flexibility because what it's going to do is if if he's got again road improvements, emergency access, but maybe you can make the infrastructure, you know, less severe, less costly. I think it's a a little bit helps that whole process, you know.

So, as far as sidewalks, I I fully agree. We should be running a loop around the outside of this property, let people walk down the street like they do in, you know, in in um suburban settings. So Rachel Lane and uh Julian Drive end up people walk down that, but then they can branch out and walk all the way around this property, which ultimately would hook up to anything that is adjacent to it. Um, and there we have great examples of that in this area where there's, you know, there's ring patuminous uh paths that go around the outside. Um, and people use them all the time. They're highly successful.

Chuck, I mean, I think you're you're exactly hit where my head's at on it, just seeing these things all over the county. So, I I really align really strongly with that in my my opinion. But again, I'm just the engineer, so I don't want to step on anybody else's toes here, but I think you said it very well. I support that view as well. I think that makes sense. I don't think we need sidewalks in there, but a path would be worthwhile. Keep in mind ultimately we might need some waiverss, right, because of that, but I think it's a give and take. So, I just want to make sure I'm clear on that. Yeah, Dr. Hoffman, this is former supervisor John Arbach. The comment I had made related to the sidewalks is that the decision for sidewalks and street lighting is a board decision, not a planning commission decision.

We make the recommendation to that. Ultimately [clears throat] [clears throat] any waiverss will be have to get granted by the board. John's absolutely correct. Ultimately, you know, the board does not have to agree with that. Uh the board can certainly go in a different direction. So there's a little bit, I guess, at risk on behalf of the applicant. Planning commission is making recommendations and providing advice. So um so John is absolutely correct on that. Yeah. Did you want to say something? No. Okay. Um All right. Well, look, I think Mike, just again, if you're looking at it in in kind of a new vision, maybe that just gives you a little bit of feedback just to consider as part of that.

Yeah, that makes sense. And you know, we we have the the prior plans and it it showed up essentially a trail network uh like like it's being described. So, I think that's something that gives us a starting point. And I think, you know, again, I think even to John's point, right, like I don't know where this all goes yet, right? But you know it might be something where in a preliminary nature again again this is why I think a preliminary plan is going to be good right give the board an opportunity to review and comment before you go to a final plan and final engineering and all that. So I think John's point is well taken that a preliminary planer might be good because of some of these those specific issues. Right.

Okay. All right. So on my end I feel like that kind of covers us for for 21 through 23. Um, and I will suggest again I don't know exactly the full multi-municipal trail plan, but I think I think Chuck maybe said it again, having some flexibility ultimately if it's an HOA that owns the open space, not having to go back for permission to connect to the other municipality. So, I think we just want to maximize flexibility and opportunities is is how I would term that, Mike. Okay. All right. Who wants to get into the weed on storm water? Anybody? I think Jeff does. [laughter] All right. So, I think I'm just trying to think my

Before you start before you start, I just kind of want to have a a precursor to it. Um I I believe that the Church Hill Road failure uh is a result of the um the development at the top of the hill. And I and so therefore I I really feel it's very important that we get it right, not only on plan, but that it's executed correctly. Uh for those who don't know, Church Hill had uh this summer we had a a big wash out. the water ran across instead of going through the culvert, it ran across the road and then eroded the road on the low side and wiped out a uh wiped out a lane. Um it's going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix. Um, so now now we see what the result is if storm water is not carefully and we have hundreds of pages of documents here. But ultimately, I'm sure there was hundreds of pages of documents on that other um subdivision, but the but the guy that's driving the u the bulldozer also needs to execute his portion correct also. So that that's just kind of my pre precursor to it.

Yeah. And and um I think that's well said. I've been well verssed in Church Hill Road and Jeeoff and I have spent many a minute out there trying to come up with solutions and trying to be cost effective but yeah potentially costly ones for sure. Chuck um I think two things I just want to say on on storm water certainly on our team. I've got guys frankly I I give that to my stormwater gurus in my office. I kind of oversee it, but like I got the guys that are doing our storm water reviews are the same guys that are designing the projects for, you know, Longwood Gardens and Villanova and Glaco Smith client. So, I got my pros on any sort of storm water thing, which is good. And then keep in mind, um, they're going to need a permit from DP conservation district and NPDS permit, which in Chester County, uh, we are very fortunate that we've got a very good conservation district that does very thorough reviews as well. That being said, I'm in the middle of a dozen construction projects, you know, an inch of rain, no storms, it's constant. So, there's, you know, there's, you know, it's it's it can certainly be a challenge and it's something we're all going have to be aware of. Um, at this point, you know, I don't know how much we need to go into the weeds here, Mike. You know, I certainly going to need a lot more testing out here. That's probably one of the big takeaways I would say from from my letter. Um, otherwise, you know, [clears throat] backing things off the property line. um you know some some some converting some outlet pipes to to level spreaders um you know some things like that but you know those are probably the big picture items but I think at this point until you kind of relay things out and get into the nitty-gritty you know it's pretty pretty high level type stuff

agreed the board's going to have a lot of questions on the TMDL requirements for this for this as well so yeah interesting I wonder if it's a good point um Yeah. I wonder. So, I guess Michael, what we're think what he's thinking is, you know, if there's a way for us to kind of work with you on some of these designs such that the township gets some credit for their programs. Could be a win-win type situation out there. It's just something to keep in the back of our minds. That's a good point. Okay.

All right. I'm just making I'm making a note so I don't forget to talk about that with my crew tomorrow. I like that idea. I gotta check because Jeff, I think some of it Oh, that's We don't need to go down those weeds right now. Um, so I I kind of term it traffic. It's probably a little bit of a loose term. You know, I I don't know that we necessarily need a traffic study, per se. Um, it's a little bit of a tweener in that regard. Again, I'm going to defer to New London. It's their intersection. It's their road. If they feel that they, you know, what they need for their requirements and what they need to evaluate, I'm going to just defer to them in this case because they're their roads and their municipality. So, that's kind of where my head is at. Um otherwise again we kind of get into emergency vehicles turning radius um um the emergency access fairly straightforward thing. So Mike, anything here jumping out at you? Are these all pretty straightforward in that regard? I uh yeah, I think with with 37 and then 39. Uh well, first 37 I this may be more uh question for the for the attorneys, but I you know our our intent at least preliminarily was we're we're picking things up within the property teddy into the road. So it I you know the spirit of it I understand but I I think there's that um interpretation of it um as far as technically the improvements are starting from an existing road that's within the property within the township and I mean it's continuing to within the property. So, and that's that's I I just I think that's the the argument the attorney would make. And again, I'm not it's not it's not my uh Bailey Wick. So, I would I think it's probably a separate discussion, but um obviously New London has asked, you know, we're going to we're going to provide them the

submission as well. So I think their feedback is uh and and their comments are going to uh you know have a big influence on on how the planning commission and the board uh view this as well. So we'll we'll you know we'll we understand that.

Say say no more Mike. I think I you know I'm going to compliment you. I think that was well said because you know the way I phrased it was like you're good with all these comments no big deal kind of thing and you're like well time out like there's going to be a longer disc. So I think that's fair. I think you're serving your client well there and I totally understand. I'm not overcommitting you to anything. I think you're you're seeing where we're coming from. I think there's a lot more information that needs to be get, you know, out there. Um, and certainly, you know, depending on the outcomes of that and those paths, you know, could be whatever legal, you know, so we say no more. I think we're on the same page. Okay. And I think

Oh, go ahead. Um, I don't know if it's the appropriate time for this question or not, but Ron Regan's ears may perk up a little. Um, we're in a very unique situation here. Again, I'm hoping that these roads can be owned by the HOA, but the township does have an impact fee per lot. I don't know how that's going to play in on a lane that goes into a or road that goes into an adjoining township. really good question that I don't know that I know the answer to. Um, I did flag that in here just so we didn't lose track of it, but I think that's a unique question that might need a little bit of further investigation.

Yes, that's interesting. I mean, Jeeoff, that's I hadn't really thought of that. It's interesting. I'll have to I'll have to look into I'm not sure how that code's written, so we'll take a closer look at that. Okay, Nate, it's Ron. Can I join you? All is sorry, Ron. You got dragged into it. No problem. I just wanted I guess uh the uh traffic fee uh impact fee if that's part of a 209 study I think those have to be used for specific projects that were identified in the 209 study. Correct.

So now to come in and say okay we want to widen a road uh or improve a road in a neighboring township. I doubt that was in the 209 study. So it may not be that those funds can be used for that. But uh certainly I think we're getting to a point where before the developer and his engineer move much farther uh on the project itself the access uh emergency and just daytoday and ownership of the roads and all of that is is extremely critical to get nailed down. And the school, Jeff, you said you uh I think Nate said you had talked to the school about buses and access.

Correct. They have the plan and we're waiting a response. So when I get back to the office on Monday, I'm going to reach out to the school district again as well as Chief Feler

because normally they won't go school buses won't go into private developments and they won't go on cul, you know, go into culde-sac. So, we got a situation where kids could be having to go clear out to the intersection of Blair and Pedic Bridge to get on a bus. I don't know, but it's we need to work that out. Uh buses, emergency vehicles, and just the township road. And I think the township's position is going to be that this road is the subdivision doesn't front on the side of the road, but it does front on the end of the road. So you need access to that road and make some improvements to that. So but but get the plan to us. Uh we thought we would get it before now u and u and make your formal application and I just wanted to apologize to everybody that I couldn't be at the field meeting. I had a doctor's appointment and your your planning commission knows how difficult it is to reschedu appointments with doctors. So uh I'll uh I'll leave that at that. So, thanks [laughter]

Ron. Ron to that point that uh people uh not people having to they would drive their kids out uh on that road. So, you're going to need even a wider road because every morning there's going to be a queue of 10 to 15 cars on that road.

Jack, I I think there's a lot of it starts snowballing away from us a little bit. I think you're exactly right and that's why we reached out to them. That's why we want to bring it up as an issue because you've got multiple factors. Like I said earlier, it's, you know, is it private? Is it public? Is it uh is there a culdeac? Does it stop? Does it start? Is is Blair improved or not improved? How does it where does it pick them up? Where do the people park now? They're blocking the road. All these things start, you know. And Nate just just to give you an example of another development has a single uh egress and you know one way in one way out uh they are dedicated township roads but the school bus companies will not go in the development because of how it's situated. So, I'm just sh I'm just saying there's an example of dedicated township roads where the school buses will not go into the the parents have to drive them to Parson's road.

Sometimes I've seen even with I won't name the school district, but sometimes it becomes like a a time thing where they're like we're not going to go all the way down there and come back like you meet us here because it's all part of their math game. So, yeah. So, understood and I think that's going to be a big part of it. So, I appreciate you chiming in, Ron. Mike, I think obviously some more work to do on all that. And again, after this call, I think you guys got to make a decision on how, when, and who you get in touch with New London because we're going to be a little bit stuck in neutral until we get some feedback from them, you know. Yep. Understood.

Um, all right. I'm going to keep plugging away then, guys, if that's okay. Um, I did have a chunk of landscaping here. Um, nothing too crazy. Um, just so everybody again is aware. Um, I've got I think just in my office alone, I've got three registered landscape architects. So, I always have them involved in projects of this size. Um, a couple small comments here. Generally, a pretty robust planting plan to be honest with you. A couple tweaks. I think we've also talked about maybe again more naturalistic which is one of our comments. Um, but again, I think you know 41 through 45 here. Mike, anything jumping out at you is not being able to be addressed? No. Okay. Chuck Chuck.

Yeah. I want to add to that that um I think habitat is important in your landscaping because your landscaping is so widened. So trees don't only um provide borders and whatnot visually, they also provide habitat for the wildlife out here. So please consider that by grouping. And I have a question or a statement too. Whether the roads are owned by the HOA or the or the township, regardless, I would like to see the street trees be planted outside of the rightway. Um the township is experiencing some problems where we weren't as vigilant in the past as we are now. Um and it's becoming a problem. You're first of all, you're not alone. That's every municipality. It's a hodgepodge out there and it's total chaos. Um it's a lot of transition over the years, different ways of doing it. But yeah, that's what I included there for number 45 in the letter so that doesn't get missed.

Yes, sir. Yeah. [clears throat] So, I I would piggyback on that. I do. We require street trees because I don't see this development needing street trees. Um

yes, the code does require them. Um, Chuck, so again, I'll go back to the landscape plan for now if I can zoom in here, but give me a half a second here. There we go. Sorry. Uh, yeah. So, the landscape plan. So, you you can obviously see the street trees on the plan. I think that's pretty clearcut where the street trees are. Uh, and the code requirement is right here. So, yeah, one per every 40 feet. How does the rest of the board feel about that? I feel like we should use those trees someplace else. I agree with you. Where else on the property on this development?

Yeah. Yeah.

Mike, maybe again take some of this feedback to your landscape guys. just kind of have them, you know, as you're relaying things out, you know, refactoring in this woodland, trying to maintain these woodlands or again, if we're going to relocate street trees and try to create habitat, things like that, are we expanding woodlands or creating woodland areas or creating meadows, you know, different things of that nature, too. So, I think that's all good feedback, Mike, for your for your landscape architect on this plan. Okay.

What one other thing I wanted to bring up, and I I may be putting the cart before the horse here. Um, one of the issues too with street trees and and some of our older developments, it was a great idea, but they they ended up being next to uh a pico pico box uh or I don't know what you want to call them, control centers or or what they are. Um, and then they they've grown over 30 years and are are causing problems with those now, too. [gasps] So, if there's some um if there's some uh way we could take that into account and maybe not plant trees if we do street trees close to those types of things.

Okay, we'll make a note of that. Yeah, it's all again real world problem that's happening all the time. [snorts] I'll tell you what's and I don't want to get too far off too far off topic, but man, like these these townhouse type communities with these small small lots, but then still have all these requirements and you're trying to jam in a driveway and a walkway and utilities and street trees and it gets very very challenging very quickly. So, it's a it's a constant issue. So, question, one thing I didn't pick up on and I might have just missed it. Are we planning above ground utilities or below ground utilities for this neighborhood? Well, I presume they would all be below ground. I don't know if I saw a note per se, but I mean I feel like that's fairly typical at this point. Would you agree? Agree. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Isn't that 100% up to Pico? We don't know that Pico. I mean, every project I've done, they've run underground, Chuck. So, I I don't see them running above ground for neighborhoods like this. Yeah. But I'm I'm just saying ultimately, isn't it their decision? I don't know, you know, I don't have to quite a lot of codes have it written there. I I can't say I recall seeing ours, so I'll double check, but I would say that's a little bit, it's become almost typical at this point. 15 20 years ago was a little bit more up in the air. At this point, underground utilities almost are are the usual.

Yeah. Given the size of these plantings um that we're talking about here, um I would just like to suggest that all native plants be considered. Your note says the majority of them are and that's good, but really if you're going to start putting this many plants in a landscape with that even a small portion of non-native are going to be sizable. And if you're going to attempt to um essentially uh initiate the development of a woodland area, uh non non-native would not really be appropriate.

Well said, Paul. Thank you. Um all right, let me flip away here real quick. So, all right, that gets us down to kind of the general stuff here. So, this is a little bit more of a hodge podge. Um 46, you know, we at this point we record all sheets, so just a heads up on that for for you and your team. That's just the cleanest way to do it. Uh 47, there was a little inconsistency with islands in the center of the culde-sac. Uh talking to the emergency management people, uh public works guys, that's not something anybody's really interested at this point. And Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong. I I would not recommend them. Okay. Uh so just be consistent, Mike, and I think we can get rid of that.

Um 48. uh speaking more towards London Grove. London Grove being to the north. Uh they were at our field meeting. Uh they were taking a little bit more of a hands-off approach um with the exception that they wanted to make sure uh there's a residence up there as well as the connection to the Chester water man that things were coordinated uh with them for both access to that resident, what this ultimate water man connection is and is not. Do they need a pump station of some sort? So just they want to be kept in a loop in that. I think that was something we all agreed to in the field. Mike, is that fair? Yep. Have you had any contact with Chester Water?

Uh not beyond the initial uh like one call coordination. We had discussions with them and they they were going out to market it out and they they confirmed that we could use that 48 inch main for service. Okay. Yeah, that was my slight concern was that was that's their main trunk line and I honestly don't know what that all entails. So I just want to make sure you're not making a bigger problem than you need for trying to connect to that. Right. Okay. So you're reaching out to them. uh London Grove and then yeah I think you referenced an easement exists. So we just want to make sure that easement does exist, right? We don't need to go on private property to access that. Correct.

Okay. And then London Grove's feedback from the field meeting was I'm sorry I'm jumping to 49. Uh right now you showed us the stub road connecting to London Grove, but London Grove was suggesting that it could be simply a driveway to that residence. Yep, that makes sense. Um does everybody follow me on that one? Sorry. Yes. Okay, everybody good? I'll just pull up real quick. Right. Right now, the plan just is showing a road all the way up here, but ultimately all that road's going to do is serve that one resident. London Grove said there was nothing else coming down the pike here. So, they felt like this stretch of road on that one side could simply be a driveway. Kind of reduce the, you know, the work happening down in this stretch. So, just

while you have it here and you have it blown up, I wasn't going to bring it up otherwise. Um, I had a nice gentleman come in the office this morning asking questions and my impression was that Mr. Robert G. Porter um is having um water issue flow problems from Chester Water Authority for his for his residents. So, I don't know how true or false that is, but I think that's something Mr. Joyce has to keep in mind. if they do end up extending that line down to the development. Okay, good to know.

I like that. Thanks for the heads up, Chuck. Uh, okay. What else we got? Um, that was 49. Uh, 50. Again, just some clarity on the infiltration testing, Mike, so I'm sure you can clean that up. Correct. Yep. Right.

Uh, 51 we've already chatted on about private roads. Um, I think we're pretty feel pretty strong on that at this point. 52, sidewalk. Clarify the detail, but it sounds like we're maybe changing direction slightly on that. So, that's more to come on that, I think. Um, 53, uh, these are all just frankly very generic kind of typical standard no cleanup things. Nothing jumping out there, I don't think. And then 54, what I attempt to do again was just to try to catch everybody else that's out there that's going to be involved in this the best I could. Uh, just so we're not missing anybody or missing any options here. So, that is my letter in a uh I think we've covered that in roughly an hour, which isn't too bad, guys. So, that's the bulk of it. Um I do have I mean, I think I don't know that it's really worth anybody's time or effort going in through a AECOM's letter at this point. That's essentially they've got to go do all their septic testing with the county and they got to do their planning modules. So, I think that's pretty straightforward. Um Mike, anything from from Aeon's letter that's that's going to be complicated or challenging? No, you know, as I mentioned, we we were holding off to to get through the township process first before we we move the ball on that. Okay.

Um um one quick question. Sorry. Um so, looking at the actual uh satellite view of the the lot in question, Mr. Potter, I think it's Mr. Potter, the the property just to the north has a what looks like a driveway cut into a field that is serving as his driveway right now. That will be eliminated and replaced by essentially a a small strip of concrete going north at the intersection and shooting north. Is that the intention? I

think we got to get some clarity maybe from London Grove exactly how they want to handle that. I think there's a little confusion on the kind of this road like you see how the GIS map shows Blair Road going all the way through. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's like there's a little bit of confusion out there. Yeah. Yeah. It's a little bit odd. So, I think, you know, we're going to kind of defer a little bit to London Grove on how they want to handle that, but at the time their initial reaction was a driveway from that residence going south would be something that they would consider. Okay. But yeah, I think I agree. Look, I think at the end of the day, London Grove, this resident needs to kind of coordinate that with the Chester Valley team for what works for for those guys. I don't know that, you know, at the end of the day, that's their I think it's a little bit their call.

When we were out there, um I believe that it was actually said that uh that road was was not in Franklin, but it is that driveway, I should say. Yep. But see how the line jogs and everything like even this the property line jogs. Don't don't don't go by the GIS, I guess, is my point, Chuck. No, not the GIS. Go back to the go back to the uh the development plan. So, yeah, I mean, do you have how much survey information do you guys have, Mike, on that?

Yeah, if you go to sheet uh let's see, it's page three is the existing conditions in that area. So that that hatch you can see the hatch uh existing road driveway. So I think instead of and that that hatch delineates to be removed, but I think we would just maintain a portion of that up maybe up to the intersection with the you know well the potentially the layout changes. But based on this current layout, like if if Rachel Lane if it if the new road if the new Blair Road ended at the intersection with Rachel Lane, then they that that gravel driveway couldn't essentially continue or that needed to be paved.

Jeff, do you know whether or not that's a township road? I think the thought was Chuck was that there's it's like a paper street or something, right Paul? Um, Jeeoff, is that what somebody has suggested? My my understanding it it is a paper street and I I can at least tell you, Chuck, for the past 35 years, we've never maintained it. It's kind of up to the homeowner, I guess.

Aper streets, um, I am not going to pretend to be an expert. I get totally confused by them. I'm dealing with one currently and it's a nightmare. Um but typically it's essentially a private property or properties that have rights to the paper street. It's never been dedicated to the township and the property owners adjacent own and m own and maintain those areas. Um typically it was intended to be dedicated but that time period is also passed which often times makes it very complicated from like a legal standpoint. So it gets a little bit haywire. So, in this case, you know, I think ultimately, and I'm going to lean on Mike survey guys to kind of do the due diligence here, but existing 33 ft, let's call it rightway or easement to this property gets extinguished, but a new one gets created to get access to this property.

So, does this property have a right of way on it? It's what this that's what that Blair Road is on this property. It's a right of way. It's not a I didn't I I didn't understand the term paper street. I'm using the term right away, but I'm doing my air quotes, right? Like you seen the paper. Is it an easement? Is it a paper street? Paper street's a essentially a rightaway that's never been dedicated to another entity. We it it needs to be sorted out, right?

Absolutely. I think ultimately I guess where I'm coming where I'm getting at too is though access to the porter residence needs to be maintained in satisfactory fashion to the to that resident and and in um London Grove Township. Okay, Mike, are we on the same wavelength? Yeah, and I you know we we include our our plan references on the on the cover sheet as far as the Do you have anything on that, Blair? If you haven't, send it over. I'd be curious to take a look at it. I think, you know, we didn't run a a title search, but I we were using the previously approved plans by Kelly Engineers.

Yeah. I mean, I think we might I think to Chuck's point, it might be worth just doing a little bit more digging on that because we certainly don't want to air on anything there if if there's confusion on that one as opposed to maybe making an assumption. Yeah, I'd recommend you do the research. All right. Oh, sorry. I just want to make a note of that to you real quick. Uh, otherwise I would think Robert Porter has some documentation on it. You would hope so. I would hope.

All right, that was that sewer. Um, I'm trying to think from the county letter real quick. I don't I think again I think we've kind of been on the same wavelength with a lot of the county letters. They had some other suggestions here and there. Um I think they were also kind of on that rural context note. Um had some other suggestions, but I don't think there's anything else too much of note there. So I I think that kind of covers everything I wanted to cover and that's kind of that checked all my notes too before we started. So I think I'm going to take a breather, but that's kind of getting through everything that we have. So uh Dr. Hoffman, I don't know if you want to turn it over to maybe the planning commission. I know we also have some residents here, so at some point I think we want to give them an opportunity. Um, but I'll I'll answer questions or defer to Mike going forward here and go from there.

Thanks, Nate. Uh, first, the planning commission. Any further questions or comments for Mike? Any input for him going forward? Not at this point for me. No, none for me.

Mike, do you have anything before we open it up to uh the public? Uh, I would just say the, you know, the emergency access is obviously a big item in addition to the status of Blair Road. Um, but you know, just in reference to comment 39 and Nate's letter, you know, leaning on the recommendation of the emergency services folks. I mean, there's not a code section that we're we're trying to come in with a byite plan to the extent that it's it's desired. you know, we we've discussed some changes possibly to sidewalks and road with things of that nature that the the township would be uh agreeable to working with the client and with the applicant in terms of waiverss. But

in terms of the emergency access, I essentially they're the owner's compelled to seek an easement through either neighboring township or well neighboring property. So I if if they hit a dead end there, they really don't have a recourse. I'm just I'm just wondering what has the township come come across this situation before and you know what and this may not be the appropriate venue for this discussion but that's just sort of where you know where my head goes to in terms of how do we address the the that secondary access which practically is you know makes sense but you know it's it's not something that at least is directly codified. Yeah, I don't think this is the right forum to address a hypothetical of what if we can't do what we would like to do or what we intend to do. Um, unless anybody Jeff or Nate has any other

Oh, no. I think I agree, Dr. Hoffman. I think, you know, Mike, I think your comments are are received. Um, I don't know that we're there yet. We haven't seen any options, alternatives, feedback, input on why something's not feasible or hasn't been, you know, expended. And I I don't you know again we don't need to get into it today but you know I think you know we can certainly take a closer look at the code regarding health safety and welfare requirements and various sections of the code uh regarding such concerns as well that I think uh we can certainly stand on as well to kind of butress that argument in addition to you know the emergency personnel culde-sac lengths things of that nature.

Yes sir. Okay. When I open it up to any public comment, please remember to state your name and um you know, being a resident of the township, any public questions or comments on this plan?

Yeah. Yeah. This is John Arbach. I'm a former supervisor and a resident for 46 years. Um just related to the overall layout where the whole thing is forced to the north. um you know, having to remove all those trees and then it leaves a um an open area to the south which really is unsuitable for agriculture because it's so small and um there are really very few straight lines where you could actually do agriculture in there. So, uh, you may want to consider rearranging the plan so that the northern area trees are preserved and the southern area is built on the A piece. Um, [clears throat] you could actually flip the site as a mirror image, taking this northern boundary and putting it on the southern boundary and then the culde-sac would point um northeast. The other comment is just related to uh winter road maintenance. I assume if the township's going to have to maintain these roads, and I know Jeff doesn't want to, that the roads would have to be entirely suitable for winter maintenance. We have um developments in a township that are unsuitable and we don't service them. Uh just related to the u sidewalk and street lighting comment I made previously related to a board decision. You might want to get an indication from the board of which way they're leaning. So if they don't want them, they can avoid a whole lot of extra engineering. And then the the last comments related to um

secondary access. Just looking at a um Chesco Views map here. It looks like on this map, Blair Road extends to the north from the intersection of the London Grove and New London Township line and north and [clears throat] B Blair Road runs approximately north along the boundaries between those townships. But if you extend that further, it reaches a road called Porter Road, which will access West Aenddale Road. That could be a a secondary path to get to a major roadway, which would be West Aendale Road, but it' be all in um it's right on the border, so I don't know whether it be London Groves or New London. Just an option you may want to look at. No other comments. Thank you, John. Any other comments from uh public attending?

Dr. Dr. Hoffman, if you don't mind, um I just wanted to make sure I I know of three specific residents that are on. So, I just want to make sure that they have the ability to ask a question if they wish. Um the f the first one I'd like to recognize is Charles Mark. If you could hear me, sir, if do you have anything you'd like to offer tonight? All right. Oh, Mr. Mark, what one last time? Do you have any questions? Remind him that he's muted.

You're muted, Mr. Mark. If you want to talk, please activate your microphone. Okay. All right. The the Vogue family, I know that there's Mr. Vog and Mr. Patone. So, if Barbara Voke can hear me, if you could take your microphone off mute and we can see if you have any questions. You're still on mute, Barbara. Okay, there you go. Okay,

can you hear me now? We can. Okay, now we had a question here earlier about the water. Where are they going to get the water from? I'll jump in there. So, the water's going to come from the north. There's an existing 48 in Chester Water Authority main just north of the property. Okay. All right. So, we don't have to worry about them taking anything out of our water table. Now, public for now public water is proposed. Water is proposed. Okay.

And you're going to have on-site septic, which means, and I heard a mound being mentioned now. Uh, is each one of those lots going to have to have a perk test? Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce. Yes. Yeah. We'll we'll have to provide the we'll have to provide the the required testing data to the county health department. County health department. So, yes. Okay. Anything else?

I can't think of anything else. Do you have any idea what the average square footage of those houses are going to be as planned? Uh the footprints as shown are more representative aren't necessarily the the end the finished product but I think these are in the neighborhood of 4,000 square feet. [clears throat] Okay. I think that's all we have to say. And anything from Mr. Anything for Mr. Patone? Mr. Patone.

I'm I'm here, Jeff. Uh I I I just want to make sure that the development does not does not dump water on my property. Make sure that the water manage system. We are in a lower end of this project. So they have to design enough drainage. They have to hold their own water. Is there a plan where they hold their own water? Mr. Julius. Mr. Jul. Yeah. Well, as part of the the township

the townships approvals and the MPDS permit approval, we need to demonstrate that we're need to demonstrate that we're at minimum not at minimum not making making the storm water situation situation. In fact, we have to reduce the volume and reduce [clears throat] the volume and peak rates peak rates.

Well, that's one of my concern. The other con the other option that I was I I had in mind you need a road to get out to get out from the from the plot either through Vog to to north to Gernzi or through our property to Penock Bridge Road. Yeah, today we haven't today we haven't explored those options yet. Options yet, but yeah, based on what we're looking at. I mean, what we're looking at I mean those two options in play would be in play.

Yeah, I I heard you were talking about getting out on up to either through Vog or North Gernzi or uh through Porter Road up to Aenddale, New London Road. They're long very long distance to to to connect. Oh yeah. There that's Is that you going? I I don't know where I'm at there now. I can't I don't I can't tell the plan that they have shown. What's that picture showing? So I pull up. This should be Panton property right here. Property right here. Oh. Okay. Yeah. Show me where it is.

Outlined in red here. Outlined in red here. Is that No, I don't see you had it. You had it before. Bring it back. I'll bring This is the plan. This is the plan they're proposing. This is the plan they're proposing that shows your property. Show your property to the south here. I don't see it. I don't I I I see no I I see nothing yet. Now you take your mouse and circle Mr. Baton's name and tax parcel number.

Turn the camera. Turn it down. Turn it down. Turn the camera. Turn it Turn the camera like you had before. There you go. There you go. Now you see it. Now you see it. Yeah. I see the two the two small retention ponds towards my property. Oh, and you're red down there, sir.

And I'm on the bottom of that. And the elevation, if you have a topo survey in there, it'll tell you that my property is a lower elevations. Everything from that property seems to lean towards our property, not on Vogue. Focus up from from the 44 acres. I am down from the 44 acres connecting to Bridge Road. North uh P North uh no pen uh penock bridge road. Penock bridge road.

Any comments, Mr. Joyce? Uh no other than that you know our storm water management design would as I noted would as I noted to minimum minimum improve the existing conditions improve the existing conditions. So there is a there's a point of drainage. There's a point of drainage onto your property as you're noting. As you're noting right where you're sending Yeah. right where you have that red square where you have that red square. Exactly. Yep. Exactly.

Okay. We're from there to your to the to the uh to the right of it is our property down in there. And it's all we are all lower elevation from that 44 acre plot. Understood. Yeah. They're going to try try and improve that so that it doesn't run off on you. No. Yeah. And if on your far left is Jim Mark's two 200 feet of it is 200. It's Jim Mark's property. Charlie Mark. Okay. Charlie. Charlie Mark. Charlie Mark the son. Yeah. [clears throat] That's Jim's son. Yeah.

Yeah. There. There. That's Mark's property. That's part of the eight acres that they purchased from uh from the Mercers. Okay. Jeff, did you um did any more questions from Mr. Patone or the Vone or the No, I don't have any. I don't have any. This is [clears throat] I couldn't get my mic done. No, I figured it out. No, I figured it out. I agree with Mr. on the storm water management. Go ahead, Mr. Mark.

I agree with Mr. Patone on the storm water management. We're also downhill of the stormwater pond to the left and we already have water issues where they installed two swailes in the current agriculture field that are dumping water on us. And I'm just curious if that's going to put more water on us or not. Can you go back to the satellite map, Nate, please? You can see the two whales on the uh satellite view that were installed probably in the last eight years, I would guess.

So, yeah, I'm just going to highlight Mr. Mark's property. I believe is this one right there in red. So, everybody can see that. Uh, and then Mr. work you how do you if I if you don't mind me asking where so this is your property it's my parents property I rent the farm and operate it okay so do you also own property adj or they somebody also owns property adjacent to this uh yes we own the little green sliver there you see below it that's along Mr. Patones and goes up behind Brackens and everybody there along Penock. Okay. And then I live right there at 780 Penock. Okay.

Also, I was wondering if there's improvements to Blair Road that are required, are they going to be responsible for taking all the trees and the hedro down if they widen the road? And who would take those costs on? I don't know that we're there yet. I don't know that we know what New London wants to see there. So I think that's an unknown question at this point in time. Um but yeah, I mean that's a tight road vegetation, a lot of complications there. So I think that's a question that's out there in the world, Mr. Mark, that does not have an answer just yet.

And also I had a question about the EMS stuff. Uh previously this year, Mr. Porter had a chimney fire and I luckily saw the smoke and ran up there and notified him and it caused a real traffic jam for the fire company to get in there and get his chimney fire put out. So hopefully they're referencing that when they're thinking about how to access this property. They actually tried to drive through our corn field and up a swale through the corn to get to his house. Google Maps tends to send people on crazy ways. And I mean, I've lived here 39 years my whole life. And as far as I knew, Blair Road ended at the end of the road. And it was former Porter Road all the way out to Aenddale, New London. But that's been closed almost my entire lifetime.

Interesting. And there was no asphalt. I mean, I plow Mr. porter out and make sure because New London Township doesn't usually set that as a priority in their plow route because there's only two residents, the Ellingsworth, I believe, and Mr. Porter. This is Justin Porter. I'm I thought it was all gravel. I mean,

this is Justin Porter. I'm Robert Porter's grandson. And um for far as I've known this is his mailbox is at the end of that on the corner of Blair Road and what you perceive to turn left onto B Blair Road. Um for that reason because it's always been viewed as a driveway. We've maintained it um along with with the help of Charlie fortunately. Um but I mean if there's been potholes we've we've thrown the stone in it. You know it's always been a driveway to us. Um, so I'm I'm kind of a little bit taken aback and a little bit surprised that we're all of a sudden calling this a main township road. Um, because it's never been maintained. It's never been it's not even it's not even asphalt. So, um, just that that's something that worries me.

Well, yeah. Excuse Mr. Porter, thank you for jumping on. I appreciate that feedback. That's interesting. Um, yeah, I don't think anybody is representing Blair Road uh north of that turn as a township road. I think we're saying the opposite. We're saying we've always interpreted that to be a, you know, glorified driveway for lack of a better term. So, I think we're on the same page there. Can I ask a question, Mr. Mark, please?

Yeah, Jeff. Um, I'm not going to use the right terminology, but what I'll call those three agriculture trenches Nate can point to with his mouse. Has there been any problem from um the water exiting that property? Have those trenches helped? Have they made it worse? Question for Mr. Mark and Mr. Patone. I would say they made it worse on our side of the fence. I've got a trench that runs down my fence line now. They basically go right to the property line to our property line.

Mr. Mark, they upper left. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Is there It looks I mean this they're showing like a little blue stream kind of up here on the corner. I mean, is that does that exist out there? Yeah. So, there's a spring if you look Yeah. Okay. Okay. Were you zoomed in there? About where that red line kicks at like a 30 or 45 degree angle. That's kind of where it starts up.

Yeah. That ground all up in there usually stays fairly wet. Like when I bail hay, it takes a little longer to dry. Not just because of the shade, because of the ground moisture. But there's a spring in there that if it gets real dry, it'll dry up. But it's a small creek that runs through our woods and then connects to that creek down about where Rick Brackens is and then flows through my cow pasture. Yeah, this area I think to what do we have here? The west branch of the white clay or Yeah, I think so. Further down below my parents house.

Yeah, there's two or three little kind of nooks that kind of go through here that kind of match up to those swailes on the property. The way the contours all go, those three kind of fingers go down to these stream corridors seems to be kind of the context that I'm seeing. Yeah. And it feeds I mean it feeds into there and then flows down to the creek there below our house. It that whole creek there, you know, southwest of my farm basically starts in that woods either up in that corner and then over near Rick Brackens where there's like a swamp. Okay, that's that's helpful information.

Yeah, I just don't want to see it get wetter, flood more. Well, and I think what we want to make sure is that the water is getting directed to the streams and not being directed to p private properties, you know, on on the lawns and backyards. We we want to direct it to the existing stream corridors. Um, and that that's some of the stuff that some of the comments in our letter, I don't know if you were listening the whole time, but, you know, speaking to some changes to the storm water design to kind of help that facilitate that. Um, certainly don't want to overpromise anything, but, you know, something we'll keep an eye on. Yeah, I mean, it does it's not a steady stream that flows all the time. If it gets dry out, it will dry up. But as long as with we have our regular rains, it usually tends to stay pretty wet from that upper corner all the way down.

All right, anybody else? There's a gentleman um online. He's under Zoom user has a blue polo shirt on. I'm not sure who he is, but I just wanted to see if he had any questions. Hey, I'm just uh I'm Brandon Riley uh just north of the Vulks and I like what you guys had to say with like the storm water is definitely right up on the line of our property. I don't know what the setback would be or what uh whatever the technical term would be, but that seems like it'd be way too close where it is. And uh we also deal with water issues. So it it seems like this whole area is a bit of a a sponge with too much rain.

We're all downhill. We're all downhill from that one lot. And I've got videos of streams running through the field as if they just sprung out of God's creation. I don't know when it rains hard. But uh yeah, so we have that issue and then I don't see how the they would get that emergency access road cuz obviously we wouldn't give it to them and then I have a doubt anybody else would. But that that's just my my few concerns and thoughts on the whole matter. Thank you. Yeah, we made comment on that storm water already. We're trying.

Um, I have a question for Mr. Joyce. Couple questions actually. Sure. Um, the current review clock runs out on January 20th. So, I had asked for an extension letter to the end of April. Are we going to receive that?

Yeah. So, yeah, I'll I'll and I brought it up. I spoke with the the applicant earlier this week and and mentioned that he you know, he asked that we get through the meeting first and I'll touch base with him and I think uh you know he'll need to make a decision which way the project is going, but assuming he's going forward then yes, he would he would grant the the extension. Okay. What I would like is Mr. Joyce is if we could have that extension letter on or before December 10th so I can put that in the board books for December 17th. It just I'm trying to stay on top of things. Okay. Make that a priority.

Yep. The other thing um our next planning commission meeting is scheduled for January 8th. Do I'm asking this to the group. Do do we realistically think we're going to have anything for the January 8th meeting or do we just want to say we'll meet again on February 5th? You have any comments, Mr. Joyce? I think it's probably realistic to to assume February 5th.

Okay, I'm done. I promise. [laughter] And we don't have any uh anything else that we I have something I'd like to um Sorry. I I'll wait and ask after Paul has his question.

Yeah. So, I was just reviewing again the um plantings. And I noticed something. Um one of the proposed trees is a is a what's called a seedless sweet gum. It's a liquid amber. I can't remember all of it. Um, ratunda floria, ratunda folia, I think. Um, I [clears throat] actually have this tree on my property and it's gotten to be about um 40 feet in height and it's starting to drop boughs for unexplained reasons. This may not be the most ideal tree for this area.

What's it called again, Paul? Uh, can you bring up the last sheet of the plan which shows the um the layout of the plantings? Yep. Yep. Give me one second. So, yeah. And then focus in on the tree. Uh, focus on the specifications for the plants. Talk about this here. Yeah. There you go. This one.

This one. Liquid amber. Um, ratundaloba sweet gum seedless. Well, first off, it if I have the same tree, it's not necessarily seedless, which is to say it does drop the traditional gumballs that are associated with um these trees, the spiny little round pingpong sized things. But at the same time, um I've got uh basically a snag hanging up at the top of my tree currently that um broke recently. Another big uh bow came down um also about the same time and I had another one fall last year. I would not be planting this tree again in my own yard.

Okay. For this reason. Yeah. I think look, I think there's plenty of alternatives out there, Paul. So, I think we can certainly look at that with Mike and find something that's a suitable replacement for that. I just think it should be reconsidered frankly from my experience. No, I appreciate the feedback. That's good to know. All right. Anyone else from the public have any questions before we wrap up for this evening? Yep. This is Justin Porter. Will these plans become available to us to review because you guys have been clicking through pretty quickly? Um I'll have a chance to actually sit down and look at it myself.

Um you you bring up an interesting question and I wanted to ask Mr. Joyce this. So, thank you. Um, what I would like to do, Mr. Joyce, is actually put this plan on our website for people to review. Now that we've had the meeting, I I consider this to be a public document. I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any objections to that. No. So, sir, if you have the internet, you you'll be able to access it next week. If you don't call the township office next week and I'll make sure you get a paper copy. Thank you.

And just to clarify, there's paper copies available at the township for anybody to review as well. Correct. Going once, twice.

Hey, Jeff. Or actually for Mike, I just have one quick question. Um the the um Nate or Nate's letter has uh has I'm sorry lost the I'm looking for it has um the where we've been referring to the applicant um all the time here but the letter says Beaver Hill Realy just Google just says that it's likely been dissolved and uh not operating as an entity. Um is that the case? Are we I mean we should

uh as far as as far as ownership of the property I I don't think the it's been transferred but I I mean I could say John John Bakish is uh the owner and he's operating under Woodstone Homes. Oh yeah, I as we were putting the plans together, I you know, I was looking into that as well, but uh the the deed information is still Beaver Hill realy and that's the entity he used as well with establishing the uh escrow account with the township

and and I will say Mr. Johnston. Um we we we do have uh a very good escrow account um with a developer that that's that's funded. So between Melissa Ortega or comproller and myself, we'll we'll make sure that that is kept an eye on very closely. I might have some more questions when it comes to the board for that.

Sure. All right. So, for right now, we're we're all thinking this is going to come at the February planning commission meeting is the next meeting, and we are not anticipating this going before the board before then.

Seeing no objections, Dr. Hoffman, are you uh already announcing we're not having a January meeting? Well, we we we might not. We might not. Yeah, let's uh wait to We have to wait and see. Timeline. [snorts] Um All right. I appreciate everybody's input and time tonight and uh hopefully uh Mr. Joyce has gotten some good feedback from us and appreciate the residents taking interest. Uh, do I have a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Chuck. Uh, 9:25. It's been a while since we've gone this long. [clears throat] Like to say I was happy to help there, but I'll blame it on Mike. Yeah. Sorry about that. You did you did your best, Nate, to talk fast. Talk fast, guys. All right, everybody. Have a good holiday. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Bye.