Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We have to do what we do not want to turn on. We're ready. Good evening. It's good to see you. So let's get started. As I've mentioned several times, I'll say it one more time. If you intend to speak to me, sign up at the table. Those who do speak, because we can see we've got a full house, we'll chat about this for a few minutes. Don't put a hook on the radio. I think that's probably enough. So here it appears there's two people attending. Should we start? Welcome to the second 2026. First order of business is approved for 7-20-26 minutes. If there are any comments, changes, speak up. I have a motion to approve for a second. Second. Second. All in favor of approval for 7-20-26? Opposed? We can vote. Hi.

I hope you can hear me.

We can't. No, we can't. Okay. Abstain. Abstain, Brendan. First item on the agenda is a business. It's PSC 26-10, Harmony with the People, 7-11. presentation, I suspect we'll have one. And the Drill State Training Affiliation.

And this project is a 12-block single-family residential development with a nearly 500 lineal feet proposed public road with sidewalks and open space, as well as stormwater management.

I'm sorry, what's the point?

Microphone.

Okay, there's a microphone.

I can be loud. Microphone must be on.

And she is one of those map.

And they use one of those. Yeah, it's just always have Yeah, we're pretty good.

Pretty loud so it might work.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It falls over the edge. Can someone hand it to me? Okay, can you hear me now? Thank you. You're welcome. My name is Katrina. Now I'm a shepherd company and I am presenting. The residential development for whole construction. The property is located at off of Harmony Drive and it will be a 500 lineal feet public road with 12 single family residential lots stormwater management, open space criteria and sidewalks.

Okay.

That was one of our attendees online, so he just muted, so it should be good there. Continue. Sorry about that.

We did receive a review letter on May 11th, that which we have addressed and submitted back. There were a couple of items that we submitted are... One of them being the loading ratio for stormwater management as that would have dictated any changes to the development that we were proposing since that has been accepted and we did hear back from Kelly a day or two ago. And so, therefore, the design is the same as it has been since we submitted in April. We've addressed the comments to just tidy up some stuff and to just answer a few questions here and there. And I mean, I did notice like there's just like a couple of little tiny things that still need to be added. Now, like signage, like for stopping, you know, stop signage. And I just wanted to work through the township or work with the town with that as well. So that's we did have two modifications. One was the two and a half from the front setback, right? Times the front setback. So we're asking for a modification for that and for the sidewalks. We had asked for modifications for the sidewalks and I know that Mr. Anish, your report actually addressed that in in like what the town could could consider um we also by sidewalks on the two private roads so you're putting side sorry the two private roads i apologize yes um the sidewalk will be within proposed within the um development um also additionally uh there was a two to one justification technical justification that needed to be provided that which we provided two to one slopes And we provided that with this last submission as well. Any questions?

We'll start with Kelly. You probably had loose comments. What can you tell us about your review?

So our review letter from May 11th, I would say the main comments that are still outstanding are related to, and they may be addressed in this packet from the 28th. I've not had a chance to do full review of it yet, but I knew we had some questions just on site distance at the exit of the neighborhood itself, getting clarification that those were met in addition to clarification on Any existing trees that are proposed to be protected on site and then clarification. In regards to the ordinance requirements for buffer yards around all sides of the site. And then, as Katrina mentioned, we wanted to better understand the intersection control given there is. Right now there is no stop sign and we wanted to ensure that anyone who would be leaving this development would be clear on the roads rules that are out there in place right now. So we have the ability to obviously control it with what they're proposing to be developed. And then, in addition to that, I will just add on. So we did discuss last meeting the loading ratio of the basins as Katrina did mention. We did receive and review a report from Moody and Associates that did discuss the. Basically, that no impact from the infiltration facilities in regards to groundwater mounting and our geotech engineer did find that to be an acceptable analysis. So that did address our item of concern last time. I wanted to mention that as well. We do have some. Stormwater management comments outstanding with what is remaining. I do not believe that they will majorly change or impact the overall design. Mainly just cleaning up of numbers to make sure things are tracking correctly as well as I believe we had a comment during the related to some offsite runoff that looked like it was going to be directed into these facilities that was not considered in the analysis. So does it need to be?

That was one of my questions is the offsite runoff.

Correct. Yeah, you do need to anticipate that runoff that from the topography is getting directed into your site. You need to make sure that your facility can have that or your site can handle it appropriately.

And you're satisfied with the information you have that may not be an issue?

Yeah, with how you would analyze that, I don't think it's going to change the overall intent of the stormwater management plan. If anything, it would do some modifications to some sizing or to how the structures within the facilities would operate. So that was, I would say the 1 comment outstanding from a sizing perspective that could be there, but I do not think that it's going to change the overall intent of what they're proposing.

And the site distance, was it analyzed? What does it meet requirements? I did not see anything on the plans that indicated that.

I can tell you that we did update it with the three and a half per the regulations and per PennDOT. We did update that. We moved the monument out of the site line because we had a proposed monument. And there was some vegetation that we had a few trees that was going around the buffer. So we moved those trees out of the way. So... That was one of the issues. The other issue is that we had analyzed at five feet, but we should have analyzed at three and a half feet. So, yes, we adjusted that, and that has been updated in the report and shows that the sight line can be met. But obviously, you'll need to do that.

I have not had a chance to look at that resubmission. Yeah, my current review would be the land development comment for related to the site distance and clear site triangles is where we were. But it sounds like they did take the steps to show.

The concern that was raised the last time is the site distance from the other three. I won't count the... private road section, but the other two public road intersections, that there were existing site distance issues with those. Is there any way to address those from the standpoint of the town looking at those?

I thought what was raised was that this property, but there were site problems at that intersection already existent, yes, but not created by this property.

They have their record that there are issues associated with it. As an anecdote, let me just tell you, I went up there to look at the site and driving down south towards Ingmar on the private section of Harmony Drive, I had someone turn into Woodside right in front of me without even acknowledging that my car was coming at them. Woodland, whatever. It appears that there are some issues with the traffic at those intersections beyond the applicants.

I think one thing that I've just observed from being in the area and the site is there's a number of properties at intersections in different areas within the town that have growth that's located within or near the right-of-way. The town has a code that essentially prohibits that growth blocking the site distance. So there's times where the town will have to initiate communications with a property owner regarding the site distance or the objection in the right of way from a tree or shrub. In that area, it seems like that is part of the issue. And that's not really pertinent to what a developer is proposing on their site. It's more of a issue on a public road that's adjacent from this proposed site that is... To see what the town can do being on the developer's responsibility.

I also had a question. I'm sorry.

I actually just wanted to address, Kelly, for the stormwater pond itself. The plan is actually to manage that upflow. It wasn't a lot, but there is a little bit coming off site with a vegetated berm. And so we could control that with like a vegetated berm like we have in a couple of other places so that the pond can stay the same. We want to be able to still, you know, feed that wetland, too. Yeah. We do have that one area where the water is coming through to continue to feed the wetland. Okay.

So just a new stormwater feature that's going to be installed to keep the stormwater path through the site similar, but to adjust it so it's not getting into your basin. It's instead feeding the wetland.

Yeah. And going or going to the other. Yeah, it can feed the wetland.

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, so that sounds like maybe the basin size isn't changing, but there's an additional feature proposed.

Yeah. Can I ask a question about the, you were saying that the loading and the infiltration rates on the stormwater facility, is that it is a retention, not a detention, correct?

No, so retention means you have a standing pool of water. Retention, not retention. Yeah, so they have a mix of facilities on here. So they did perform infiltration testing. So there is infiltration that is proposed throughout the site. They have multiple stormwater features. The above surface one that I think stands out to most people on the site on the left side, I believe that's an infiltration basin in that area. So it will hold water during storm events, but those facilities do need to dewater within, which means infiltrate within 24 to 72 hours.

So there's not, I mean, my concern is this lot seven, which is, has the stormwater detention facility on the site. It's on that lot. Yeah. Is it how that's protected? That is the strong longer facility is fenced or whatever so that residents of that lot don't end up in it.

Yeah, so currently the ordinance does not require fencing around detention facilities. So I do not have any comments in there, but yeah, the intent is for it to infiltrate within that 24 to 72 hours. And there's also a functionality of these facilities that will let water out. So it will drain out at a certain rate that needs to be less than what we are seeing in existing conditions. So they're analyzing a point downstream. So there is going to be some water that's not infiltrated, but it does leave the facility to help dewater it.

Maybe are you asking how will Lot 7 affect the stormwater? How will the stormwater affect Lot 7? I got you, I got you. So yeah, that hydrology report did evaluate Lot 7 for the mounding, yeah.

me also ask you about the groundwater the three wells that were recommended that might be impacted and should perhaps be tested yes your analysis just said that it should be tested after construction without a baseline how do you know if they're not tested before construction how do you know that there are impacts moody moody did provide that report with those initial parameters to be reviewed um I did not see where Moody said test it before.

I didn't see that they said test it after.

They didn't say test it after and said that you would use the standard parameters. Okay.

I can definitely relay that question back to Moody and associates. No, that one was more for your protection.

Yeah, understood. If those existing qualities are not meeting requirements, you should know that.

It says, will samples be collected and analyzed for the attached parameters by Pennsylvania accredited laboratory once prior to construction and once after construction? So that's in the recommendation.

That's the prior to. I read the after.

Yeah, sorry. Yeah, it's in there. So that's why I was a little confused. Yes, it's prior to construction and after construction for those parameters.

So what you're telling us is the major comments related to this were stormwater and that you are satisfied with the documentation that you have received that it has been addressed to the town's satisfaction. So the town's requirements.

I mean, we still have outstanding comments, I will say, that are pertaining to the site distance, the buffer yards, and the stormwater. The stormwater I was talking about. I know site distance is out there. For stormwater, the major comments have been addressed. We still do have some items for... improvement that we would want to see but nothing major for what we had last time they're minor in comparison and the way to address the site distance concerns I mean, I'd like them to verify what their plan of approach is for a held opportunity.

Does that happen, that they verify it before the town council?

I also think that it's good to point out that this is a preliminary application. So they would have to go through preliminary approval and final approval prior to getting approval for this application. So if they have something that goes... to town council and the engineering does not meet the satisfaction of the engineer. And that was something that would be recommended with a, you know, typically how it would be if it were to be recommended would be with a caveat that any engineering comments would be addressed. So if the engineering, if there's any major engineering comments that would adjust the site as it's developed, that would then require them to go back to primary review. So if they can't address those comments prior to a town council meeting with a satisfied letter, then town council would be fine for it. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the entirety of the engineering needs to be completed prior to a recommendation to be heard at a council meeting.

My concern was that the alignment of the roadway may need to change based on what the set distance is. That's a pretty major thing that would change some lot lines and other things. So I wanted to make sure that if that was an outstanding issue, if it was addressed at preliminary rather than waiting to invest more money.

And I guess just maybe to clarify regarding the site distance, can you maybe speak on like how this application adjusted site distance in relation to the weather on the 11th?

They adjusted it in the manner that the monument was moved, vegetation was moved out of the way because we had proposed some trees in the buffer, so we had to remove those. And the 3.5 foot distance, and it was able to show the site distance. It's pretty straight on both sides. There's an existing... I guess I don't want to say road because it's more of a driveway that comes down to that intersection. So at this point, it seems to be meeting that criteria, although I know there are other issues in the area.

Just to clarify, I just wanted to ensure that like in that adjustment through this submission, that there was no adjustment to the actual site or the lot lines, just the vegetation and engineering.

That is correct. Yes, that was my question. Yeah.

Are there any issues with existing grades or anything along there that have to be cut back?

No, we did not have to make any adjustments.

Anyone else?

No, I had a couple of comments that are separate from asking the applicant.

Okay. And perhaps this was my misconception. I thought that the initial meeting Did I correctly? Extensively kept. Is that stated? I thought it was stated by Mr. Hall.

Yeah, so we actually, the last time we were here, we had stated that it wasn't going to be demolished. And I think it was just a carryover from the last time. It's not going to be demolished. It will be revitalized in some way. It's just not a part of this plan at the time.

Is that considered one of the 12 homes?

It is considered one of the 12 homes, so there's 11 new homes.

Existing that is being refurbished?

Yeah, at some point, yes.

Okay, and because I've been to the site, as you go to the driveway, for lack of a better term, it's on the right-hand side?

Yes, that's correct.

Because there's a dumpster there, there appears to be some going on, but it's not being torn down.

It's just clean up. I think there was a lot of junk that was in and around the area.

All right. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? No? Would you make your comments?

At this meeting, there were a number of concerns raised by the public, and I took it upon myself to evaluate some of those. And one of them was that there would be too many vehicles leaving the site. The number that was quoted was two vehicles per home leaving the site. And the latest Institute of Traffic Engineers, and Kelly, you can tell me if I'm wrong on this, their estimate is that 0.75 trips per unit would happen in the morning, so less than 1%. vehicle per house and that .99 trips would happen at the PM rush, which would be essentially one per. So not as many as could be anticipated. The other thing I looked at was there was a concern regarding the school district and being overpowered by the number of students that might be. The latest information I could find online regarding the census is from 2024. And the census says that around the United States, it may be different in the North Allegheny School District, but I can't imagine it's significantly different. There are, I think, three, four school-age children per single family detached dwelling on average. Not two. The comment I wanted to make was that I personally have been involved in environmental impact statements for large residential developments and it has been documented in any number of studies that no single family home has enough taxes, pays enough taxes to qualify or pay for their students in school, any students that might be in school. or anything else. That's why the township needs to have a balanced development of commercial and business development also. Single family homes, just none existing as well as future, do not pay their way.

That makes sense. That's why the families that have no children, children have left, whatever, they're still paying in. It takes the whole village, so to speak, to support those costs. You're right.

And the kind of some I'd like to just add comment was mentioned earlier regarding the staff report that was was submitted by the town. One of the waiver request from the applicant was for a sidewalk waiver. In the town care of their section 1104 to 30 sidewalks. Number 3 the there's a number of different options for what waivers can be accepted. After reviewing the site and taking a look at a number of different features and land development items, basically our professional recommendation as the town, and I'm going to read this out loud for the record, was to essentially follow this sidewalk waiver. I'm just going to read that as the town council may waive the installation of sections of sidewalks when adjoining sections of the road do not have sidewalks. And in the opinion of the town planning commission and town engineer, it would be better to install the sidewalks at the same time sidewalks are installed in adjoining sections of the street or roadway. In these cases, payment shall be required to fund the installation of the sidewalks at a future time when other sections of sidewalks along the roadway are installed. Just wanted to note that because the applicant did request a waiver request for that. And this is the option that in, you know, under my professional opinion, I felt was the best option. It does state that that has to be something that is agreed upon by the planning commission and town engineer. So I just wanted to note that as I feel like it's something that should be discussed between planning commission.

And just for clarification, that's an ongoing obligation, potential obligation. It's not limited in time. It expires after 10 years or anything of that nature. It's ongoing.

So looking at the site, and you went out there too, the banks on the development side of the roadway, private right-of-way, is substantial and would not make sense, I believe, to have sidewalks through there. They also provide quite a buffer after you end up putting the vegetation on also.

Yeah, I would agree. From an engineering standpoint, especially since these are private roads from a use standpoint, if those are going to be usable sidewalks for the public, technically, if it was to become a public road, I'm not saying that would happen, but other improvements would need to be made to bring it to current standards from right-of-way perspectives. So to i don't think it it makes sense to install the sidewalks in these areas um if you know they you would have to make those substantial impacts to the environments and potentially destabilize a hillside that may not need to be destabilized um and as you mentioned i would agree from a buffering standpoint as well on the left side i'm hoping you know in this revised plan there's some existing trees that will be saved back there and we will have you know more of a buffer from those adjacent properties on bellcrest

Well, you know, in all fairness on Belfast, there isn't even really any defined area that you would put a sidewalk in, correct?

Yeah, I think that the intent of the ordinance doesn't necessarily match undeveloped roads. I mean, that's really just, it's hard to put a developed sidewalk against something that isn't. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments, questions, anything from up here before we open it to public comment?

I did want to make a note regarding the geotech. There was the request for the two-to-one slopes for fill instead of the three-to-one slopes. So in our latest letter, our geotech engineer did find the reports consistent with the Grading ordinance, however, he did note the slip stability analysis for lots 6, 7, and 8 needed to include the surcharge loads from the proposed dwellings. So there is one item outstanding. He did not feel that it would substantially change his opinion. His opinion that the approach taken was based off of common industry standards that are used. But I did want to make a note of that as well, since that is something that is being requested tonight. and it's just a portion of what the area that's being requested correct and i will say on the one benefit here as well is the major two on excuse me two to one slope um does surround the existing wetland um so if you know there's a three to one slope that is implied there's going to be changes to um a the development portion of the law and then b the impacts to the wetland and the surrounding area that's going to hopefully remain more of a natural area.

I only have one thing. We could submit a surcharge stability report. It's in the new submission to address that for those specific lots. Yes, that's right. Thank you.

Thank you for the comment. Signed up. sign up to speak and now wants to speak, please come forward and state your name. And if everybody can try to get your comments to the five minutes, we've got a lot of people.

Good evening.

I think you're on.

Good evening. Libby Blackburn. So a couple of things. So they asked for three modifications. You've talked about this and how there's trees in the way and so forth. I wish that a lot of the trees that were on the property hadn't been cut down and broken. considered that house and the ones by it to be part of our neighborhood and that's where their driveways come out. It's very surprising that they're considering it part of a neighborhood behind their houses where they don't have access to that road on Bell Preston. That's how they're defined lot sizes because All of the homes in that particular lot has very low density and low density. It has both in those properties. And very low density is all of the ones along Woodland, which our homes mostly have acre lots. And the ones that don't have an acre, the house beside them has over an acre. So it appears as if they have an acre, whereas what he's proposing, they aren't even a third of an acre. They're tiny, tiny lots. So it's not going to... conform with the rest of the neighborhood at all. Another thing is I see several areas where it says in quotes, the criteria is not met is written while you allow for the alternative design. And some of this is in the mounting and so forth. Well, I know what happens with a lot of mounds in Pittsburgh and a lot of them go away after a lot of storms. So I hope that you're somehow making sure because i'm picturing all of that water coming right down that road and right down onto harmony where there isn't currently any big storm drains so i assume the town's going to put some of those in because it's going to cause a flood in that area the biggest problem that i have we've talked some about the slope waivers and the sidewalk waivers is allowing the lot depth to uh from the depth to the width ratio allowing that to change to me is outrageous the reason that you have these different codes is to abide by them and by allowing these tiny little lots which we shouldn't be allowing that's going to cause even more problems we would like this to look like it's a part of the neighborhood not something totally different and it is bringing down our property values by having this and that's a big problem for all of us i expect everybody in the neighborhood to go and appeal their taxes after this and i know the house next door put their house up for sale and they haven't been able to sell it everybody knows that something is going to happen and The houses aren't going to sell with that. As for the North Allegheny, I can tell you when we did all of our redistricting and we had the demographer, your figures are way, way off. Our houses, it's anywhere, and I'll get the exact number from them, but the last I heard it was 1.4. per household. So 0.34, whatever you said, is not close. Even our townhouses are at a 0.6, which again is over almost twice what you expected for the single family home. So the big problem is with small elementary schools, you can't absorb many more people. There's You know, there's several grades. If four more people came in, we'd have to redistrict or hire another teacher and find another classroom. So small elementaries can't just absorb a whole bunch of houses and large elementaries can absorb people. But the cost is great to the taxpayer either way, because as we talked about, and I think you all agree, it costs a lot more than you're getting an income to educate a student. So every house that goes up, it ends up costing us. Now, commercial properties, you're right. That's where you end up making money. But unless we have a bunch of commercial properties going up, we aren't absorbing this. I would say mostly the modifications. We can't allow for that. The other thing that worries me is with stormwater management that everybody has talked about. I know when I did something at my house, I put in triple what was required by the town for stormwater management because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't causing problems for my neighbors or if anything else was going on. I have real fears of this. And because so many people are in wells, I'm wondering what your plan is. Because he says he's going to have the homeowners association be maintaining things. Well, one thing I know is that homeowners don't realize what they're walking into. Like all these homeowners, they aren't going to realize they'll all be complaining when a school bus doesn't go up on that cul-de-sac and pick them up. And nobody realizes it. So we have to let them know. Last comment, when you're going from a private road to a public road, you lose the right of way. So we maybe should put a stop sign at the end of So people realize that's the public to public under vehicle code has the right way. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Next.

I apologize for this arrangement. Thanks. I'll be very careful not to knock it over. Thank you. My taxes don't cover it. I read with interest the May 11th letter from the township engineer, which indicated that the applicant was discussing the application for easements with the residents of bellcrest place uh two different easements were mentioned one was with the residents for the use of bellcrest place by the applicant and the other one was an easement for the uh location of the uh sanitary sewer i didn't see any further reference to that in the memorandum that council sent to the town on i think it was on may the 20th But in that, for the first time, there was a reference to an alleged easement by prescription. Now, forgive me about this. I remember when I went to law school in first year, we spent about three months trying to learn about easements. I remember spending six months prior to the bar exam trying to remember all the different kinds of easements in Pennsylvania. They're very complicated. I haven't practiced law for seven years. I'm probably going to make some misstatements, but the solicitor can correct me if I do. In order to have a prescriptive easement, certain things have to be demonstrated in the first instance. And the allegation that was made that this case of King v. Roth provides a right to an easement is correct insofar as it doesn't go far enough. As I understand it, and as I understand Pennsylvania law, there has to be a showing that at one time, the properties involved, in this case, Mr. Cole's properties on the south side of Bellecresse Place, and the various properties on the north side of Bellecresse Place, and my property, all part of one parcel. There has to be a demonstration, according to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that that commonality existed. And if that commonality existed, then you've analyzed what flows from that commonality, to Gidley for just a minute. Whether the title to the subject properties were once held in common, whether the applicant was the conveyor or the conveyee of the subject lot, the consideration given at the time, whether the claim is against a simultaneous conveyee, the reciprocal benefits to each party, the manner in which the land was used prior to conveyance, and how the applicant's proposed use fits in with the original use contemplated at the time of the personal conveyance. And that's important in this case is substantial changes are going to be made to these two lots by substantial excavation and changing the elevation and the slope in the lot and in addition to build a detention pond as opposed to the retention pond i believe all of that cannot possibly have been contemplated 70 years ago when if these properties were part of the same parcel original conveyance was made without a showing without the original conveyance being made from a common grid for the rightful prescriptive easement by right with a property boundary on a private road doesn't exist in pennsylvania they made no claim of an easement by necessity because the necessity would be abrogated if his plan is accepted as a whole, because he's going to consolidate all the lots he's won, and he's got access from the Harmony Court area above, and also from Harmony Road on the western side. The changes that he wants to make are, in our opinion, possibly detrimental, but we don't know for sure what they are, because he hasn't indicated in his memorandum what he intends to use is this a construction request to use the road is it a request to maintain access to the pond into the wetlands what is it he has to specify that at this point i think it's premature approved without learning whether or not he can claim a right under a prescriptive easement is going to have to demonstrate the common ownership at the minimum. My suggestion would be, and I'm not looking to delay things, but my suggestion would be a caveat to the township solicitor to determine whether or not there is the right to a prescriptive easement or not. Without a prescriptive easement, he's going to have to come back and talk to the residents of Belcrest Place about an easement. And I'm sure we'd be happy to do that, but that has to be done. Thank you. And I just want to read one other comment. Matt was extremely helpful during this process, extremely forthcoming in providing documentation, answering questions. And I think you've got a really good town director in that regard.

Thank you. Thank you. I think, for instance, we've had a new view and ultimately plan on addressing that.

I'm going to briefly address that. So myself and Steve both reviewed the memo that was provided from the title company working with the developer. Statutes and whatnot and we both feel comfortable, but she does have the right to access this road. Um, we understand that some individuals might feel differently and have the right to some kind of private dispute. The town is satisfied that they provided adequate evidence that they do have access to the class place.

Accesses for. So they're sort of right.

I would like them to advise on what their access request would be okay.

And there are 2 accesses one is a design access road for the pond after it's been constructed so it will be a maintenance access and the other one would be a sanitary connection so there is a manhole at Bellcrest that we would tie into.

Thank you.

tanneroid uh 375 belcrest place i don't know how far in the corner where all the water is going to run into i was never a lawyer but i want to talk about the eastman's too um for 50 years the families on belfast place that maintain that road with their own money their own time you know sweat property owner that has new land they never once set foot on that road they never utilized it they never pitched them to help they did not maintain it there was no interaction with them at all so now they're saying that the house of that was off corner at the same time eight acres away that's from that road and when i understand the pennsylvania court looked at the circumstances of the originals with conveyance this physical layout of the land prior use pattern and what the parties reasonably understood to determine where the evening exists no recorded instrument defines them but you require examination of historical use and conveyance records or historical uses they've never used it So our argument is establish use and fairness. I mean, there's no way that that property should be at the same right that we have on that road, that we'd maintain. I mean, that road gets a mess. We take care of it. The township doesn't come, no one touches it. So I just disagree with your . Did you look into the idea of the historic usage?

I mean, I understand that it's not the answer that you guys are looking for.

of the historically used.

So talk through your agreements agreement. So this is a regular question.

It's from 1958, and we took care of it.

My point is that it doesn't exclude future use by other property owners. That's all that's been provided is that they don't have access, whereas they provided a full-time report that shows why they have access.

And the fact that one little section of their eight acres Watch that land. They have the same exact price we got there.

Like I said, I think that this is a private dispute, which is the business of the town. As far as I'm concerned, they've established for based off the title of priority, yes.

about what I just told you about the historic usage. What do you think of code? Is there anything we'll get as far as?

This is an opportunity for comments to be coming up. This is not a give and take question and answer debate because

I just want to make sure that you're looking into anything on our side. As well as theirs.

I can step into it and just add. So when we get provided information from the developer that I'm not an attorney. So whenever I get provided information from the developer that says that they have a right of access to this, we give it to our legal counsel that the town hires professionally that provides a professional service for the town and for the town's residents. So that is something that they looked at. They did look at that legally. If you disagree with what the town solicitor has to say about this item, I would recommend that you get an attorney and challenge that.

Who has money for the attorney for this? We're talking about private section. Any input in this situation. It was all decided between them and you guys. We were never involved in any discussions.

Yeah, I was seems to have an enormous agreement because that's said that sit down and discuss what happened.

Thank you. Next.

Samuel Canaway, also 375 Belcrest Place. I just wanted to make sure that I'm mostly here about the well water. The well is really a big part of living in that house, access to the clean water. It was privacy, but that's not going to be really a factor anymore. And I understand that there's plans for testing before and after construction. I don't understand what the, if after construction it's shown that it is contaminated, what's the, I don't understand what the, we get our well water polluted and they get maybe a fine. And then even if it isn't polluted after construction, what about four years down the line, five years down the line? This is our lives. If our well water is contaminated, our houses are uninhabitable and you're not going to be able to sell that house. And I just want to make sure that there's some level of respect and respect consideration being shown for the residents that are being affected by this property and not just the property owners who bought the land. I will say one positive. I do appreciate that the sidewalks are being considered to not be there, because I do agree that was really ridiculous. But the other thing I heard you mention when you're talking about the detention pond, that there is no requirement for a fence I would appreciate if there would be a fence considered just because at the top of the road, there are two little kids. Most of the people on the road have pets. And even beyond that, if a wild animal gets in there, that's stuck down there, it's gonna die down there. That's a smell. If water fills in, that could contaminate. It's just, I wish there was more safety considered when it comes to the detention pond. I understand that there's not as much risk of drowning because of it's not a retention pond. But you're still not going to easily be able to get out of there without assistance. I just in general wish that there was a little more, not from you, you've been all great, but I wish on the side of the developers, I wish there was a little more respect given to the people living around the proposed development as opposed to just kind of bulldozing through it and just kind of getting away with it because none of us are going to have the money to hire an attorney to fight this. It's just, I don't know. I just wish that there was a little more respect provided. But again, you all have been great. It's nothing wrong with what you've done. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Next, please.

evening ladies and gentlemen my name is julie greenberg i live at 1000 woodland road with my family i'm here to address three points this evening um first i urge you not to waive the sidewalk requirement in its entirety i understand completely the concerns and the situation with putting sidewalk uh on the the private portion of the road and i i don't disagree with the decision to waive that portion of the sidewalk requirement however nothing that's been discussed here tonight or in any of the plans that have been submitted addresses the dangerous component of that intersection. And even though it doesn't connect to other sidewalk segments, there should be sidewalk installed on the Harmony Road frontage of the property in order to provide a protected walkway for the many, many, many pedestrians, children, people with pets, kids on bicycles, et cetera, as that intersection becomes more heavily trafficked. There are numerous, numerous near miss incidents at that intersection every week. And whether we're talking about one car or 25 cars of additional traffic there every day, there will be an increase in the number of near misses that a stop sign is not going to impact. In particular, you know, there was discussion about the visibility limitations and the visibility limitation at that intersection isn't just one mock orange bush on the corner. It's if you're coming south on Harmony or north on Harmony, I'm sorry, the entire home on the corner with the four garages and the mature trees that are there, blocks the visual headed as you look towards woodland for an entire block. And you have almost an entire block of limited visibility coming the other direction. And we need to protect our pedestrians so that we don't have another incident like occurred at the corner of Harmony and Highland less than 18 months ago, where a woman and her dog were struck and killed. So that, again, I would request that you not waive the sidewalk requirement in its entirety. Secondly, as Mrs. Blackburn indicated, I urge you not to, I urge you to deny the request for the lot with ratio waiver. Sorry, that's a little bit of a mouthful. The ratio exists for a number of good reasons, including access for construction and emergency vehicles so that in order to Do construction or address emergency situations where we don't have to intrude on neighboring loss. It also exists to provide consistent proportionality among lots and to maintain the visual character of the neighborhood to protect property value. As far as I'm aware, the township does not make a routine practice of weaving the lot with ratio and to do so here with permitted development that's significantly out of character with the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. and will have a negative impact character of the neighborhood. And third, I urge you not to approve the lot plan insofar as it includes a new home built on what's denoted as lot one on the schematic. Building on lot one is likely to further reduce the visibility coming in and out of the plan and in the intersection, largely because Once that home is put on that property, none of us have any control over what the homeowner will build in terms of, or not necessarily build, but install in terms of landscaping, trees, fences, shrubbery, hedges, trampoline, kids play, play structure, sport court, all of these things provide either a visual interruption or a visual distraction. that can make this intersection even more dangerous. There is plenty of demand in this community for estate-sized homes, and I'm confident that there must be a way to rehab the existing home if the desire is to keep it and maintain the existing home and lot one as a contiguous single lot It's more in character with the property immediately next door and the rest of the homes as you come up Woodland Road. And with that as a single lot, the existing home plus lot one, the remainder of the development to the north on Harmony Manor Road isn't going to be terribly visible to the rest of the neighborhood and doesn't present as much of a visual concern there. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next please.

Alexander Petrilli, 9760 McCutcheon Avenue. So I'm really here just to ask two questions. One is related to all the information that was provided or feedback that was provided to Matt. Does that go into sort of the official record questions and so on and so forth? Is that tracked?

Do you mean like the comments from tonight's meeting?

No, like comments, questions, concerns about Harmony Manor. Are those shared broadly with the council?

If we receive any external emails or questions or anything along those lines, that's what will get submitted to Planning Commission. anything that the developer, like items that the developer would submit, the town takes, creates a physical file at the town office that's available during office hours for viewing, and they get provided a physical and digital copy of all the documents.

Okay, so my wife has submitted a number of comments to Matt regarding the Harmony Manor, so I just wanted to make sure that that was more broadly distributed because I didn't want to rehash all of that in my three minutes and 30 seconds. So, you know, for me, I'll leave sort of the legal talk and the civil engineering talk to those that know better than I, because that's not my... Forte, I will say, though, that we've been a part of the community for 15 years at this point. We absolutely adore Ingmar as a community, the school district, the neighbors that we have, the three gas stations that are very close to one another for some reason. But at any rate, we we enjoy every aspect of of that community um uh agreeing that the the traffic hazard that is there i do want to highlight that the community uh does have a a a culture and a um uh sort of a sense of identity in and of itself uh i have you know personally for me um my biggest concern is the fact that the property that's being considered or the the installation that's being considered is being treated as if it's not going to be part of that part of that community when, in fact, it very well will be. And what I mean by that is that how the houses are being spaced, the properties that they're sitting on, I do not think that that is going to fit with the identity that the rest of the community has kind of grown accustomed to. And so That's the only thing that I really want to emphasize is that even though this is just an eight, you know, eight acres that we're talking about here, there's the rest of woodland, which is many more acres than that, but it's going to be impacted by it. And I hope Libby is wrong that it's going to bring down my property value because that's going to really suck too. So with that, I will turn my time over. I'll give it extra to somebody else that wants to be more long-winded. So thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, I'm Lori Cooper. I live at 9781 Brandt Avenue. So two streets over or a street over. I just wanted to comment that just like everybody else said, the size of the lots not fitting in the neighborhood, the properties that are down from this eight acre property There's four properties that are all one acre and one being one and a half acre. And then we're going to smush all these houses on the 0.3 acres. Obviously, we'll stick out like a sore thumb. The second thing I wanted to note is that, again, the intersection safety, if you can see on the plans, the driveway that they're looking to keep, it comes out. It's not... exactly square with Woodland Road. It is off centered by a bit. That intersection will remain dangerous. I don't know if there's ever, you know, if you guys have ever asked to have a traffic study done. But I would also ask that a pedestrian study be done. We have a ton of people that walk through our neighborhood daily. We actually have people that come to our neighborhood from other neighborhoods to walk through our neighborhood. It seems to be a little flatter than other places. um and so you know we do have a lot of rockers we have no no sidewalks on any other street including this one um so that will remain a danger for everyone as well that's all i'll look at my three minutes and 20 seconds thank you next please

I am only 9, 7, 7, 1, Woodland Road or we've been there for 32 years. My comment is about where this road. It's how its access. It is a low density zoning and that is how that's the dollar. But the only access is into a very low density neighborhood and that's defined as a neighborhood established to preserve existing low-density residential uses to maintain ample space due to factors such as topography, water courses, limited public utilities, and limited road access points. Woodland Road from that area to the other end of Woodland Road is a half a mile long. This is going to be 500 feet long. does not limit road access to a very low density neighborhood. And I'd like to know what are the management issues of that? How can you preserve our neighborhood as very low density when we're adding 12 cones in 500 feet to this other long stretch? The only ones who are going to be happy about that is the kids on Halloween night who only have to walk 500 feet to get all the candy instead of half a mile on the other part of the road. And as far as the traffic, you know, the estimates of one to two cars per house, that does not include FedEx, Amazon, all those other third party delivery services that are on our roads all the time. My daughter-in-law, who had a young child, a stroller, made a motion to a food delivery driver to slow down because he was flying up that part of Woodland Road. which has the blind spots on it. She made a motion and came back from the delivery, got out of his car and threatened her to the point where she had to go into a neighbor's driveway that if she reported him or took a picture, he knew where she lived and would come after her. This is what we're dealing with. It's not just those 12 houses. It's everything else that comes with those 12 houses. So I would just like some consideration as to how we're going to protect limited road access for the very low density neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. If we're finished, I knew I was trying to, I knew Ellen Wright, 9635 Old Coomer Road.

My first comment, I heard what the residents were saying, like it seems like the legal is supporting the developer and not the residents who live in the neighborhoods. We seem to have 2 attorneys here tonight we have 2 attorneys here. So maybe one could take the side of the developer that's not going to happen interesting suggestion that that's not going to happen because. Since the town is paying for the town is paying for 2 attorneys, you know, maybe they could support. My other comment is about the Chapter 105. And I understand there has been a Chapter 105 applied for. However, that there's no federal permit authorized. There's no federal authorization for this project related to the Chapter 105. And I might get the initials mixed up, but is there an NSEDS permit? NPDES? NPDES? NPDES, yes. Actually referred to as NPDES. How is it usually referred to as? NPDES. NPDES, okay. So is there a permit for this project related to the water? So those would be my concerns because there is a wetland in this project. And I haven't heard anybody talking about the preservation of the wetland tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Yes. Oops.

Broadbass, another one, Graystown Lane, 6th and 5th Road with four houses on it. My question is, is this going to be a private road? No, it's not.

It would be, if approved, would be then completed and dedicated to the town.

I was just going to say, if there's going to be a private road, it's going to be a big mess because more people came along. About how 14 people came along.

Private roads can be difficult. That is very true. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Matt DeLuco, 9767 Bellcrest Place. So this is going to be developed basically in the backyard. So the concerns that I have are primarily around, I think it's Lot 7, where the long driveway extends across. So one, to comment to what everyone else says, the character of this does not match the neighborhood. I understand it meets the bare minimum requirements of 0.28 acres, but everything that is being done with waivers and exceptions is to fit this into the landscape around these wetlands and make this work with the landscape. Now, with that one house, I understand that they're going to be putting in a ornamental shrubbery, trees, things like that to introduce some privacy. But those are going to take 15 years to grow in. And in the meantime, this house is going to be facing into my backyard. So I understand that is required based on the orientation and the lot setbacks. So I don't know if anything can be done about that so it can face its own cul-de-sac rather than existing neighbors' backyards. But that's upsetting. The other concern that I have is with That driveway crossing the wetlands, which I think they put a permit in to the Army Corps of Engineers to get that approved to build over. There's going to have to be some sort of drainage underneath there. And this whole area, you know, my backyard is a very large hillside. There's a lot of hillsides that converge here. And Beyond the wetlands, it's just very marshy area. So 5 feet past my backyard. If you step into it, it's. you sick. And you know we have to be just so it's past winter. It it was marshy basically from where that that next property over it is it's it's like a Creek anytime it rains so I just want to make sure that you know that is being appropriately considered in stormwater management. That's going to maintain that it's planned for you know we're having significant changes in weather and increasing rainfalls increasing snowfalls you know is this planned for 50 years from now is whatever they put in place here not going to flood my backyard and my neighbor's backyards thank you thank you next post hi there

Hi, I'm Eddie Antos. I live at 9790 East Road, right along Woodland. And I just had a few comments here about you guys had the PA. It was a comment from last time about the gear management system for McCandless. And we had the PA game commission here. in the fall that talked about the deer population and how we need to handle it. It was a very good presentation, but I thought it would be nice if we helped with the PA Game Commission. When we develop these lands, the deer have less space to live and we have issues with that. I'm an archery hunter in the neighborhood, so I help out the best I can. I just feel like it's an opportunity to to think about that, as well as the waiver for the sidewalks. The Um, the McCandless comprehensive parks plan talks about connectivity in our, in our township and how we're trying to connect. Parks like potters and, and, uh, wall down the, the branch trail that was connected. And there's, there was other plans to connect all the way to the Rachel Carson trail. So if you wave that, uh, sidewalk, um, I mean, there could be something that they could do. Myself, I have two young children, four and seven. We ride bikes down Harmony to get to Potter's now, but there could be something that the whole construction could do to help with the township as a whole for connectivity. The connectivity issue is we do have, as Lori pointed out about the pedestrian center that she recommended. I just feel that there's a lot of people that walk along Woodland that don't even live in our neighborhood. It's really impressive how many people come to our neighborhood and really truly appreciate the character of it. They come in from the Methodist side. Um, but we do get a lot of walkers and there's a lot of cars. Um, I, myself, we park along Woodland. So it's an issue with my children. We get out of the car and they need to get, uh, it's, it's, it's dark with all the trees we have. So they have to get into the house and making sure a four-year-old's not running around is, it can be, uh, very dangerous. And it's a concern of all of ours for that. Um, and adding 12 homes is just going to, uh, You know, make it even worse because every one of these homes, they're going to come down all those streets in our very low density area. So I understand, like, the staff. Matt, I emailed with you earlier. I understand the staff report you are collecting. proposing that this goes forward. I quantitatively understand that they're meeting everything for the low density issues, but I think qualitatively as like a committee here that you could hear us and we said over the past couple meetings here and tonight that um you know it's just not it doesn't match the character of our of our uh neighborhood at all and when you in the plan on the first page it asks north, south, east, west, low density. And you point out that it's a low density property adjacent, low, low, low, very low. So if you're asking for that, it's an edge concern here when you're on the property. We're on that Harmony line. So, you know, Mr. Poole, he said they're going to build very nice homes and, you know, attach it to our neighborhood. But when you Out of the 120 properties that are on the Woodland side that have, there's only 120. I looked that up. There's like 4 properties that have less than 4 acres. He's adding 5 and we don't have any that are under 3 and he's adding 2. So that is. You can just look at it. A first grader from the Ingermar Elementary could see that it doesn't match with the rest. We have one here tonight, too. I'm sure she could see it, an answer. So let's see. That's pretty much it. I just want to just point out that, you know, pole construction, they're a business, they're not an individual. And I understand property rights and I respect that, but I think they need to be held to a higher standard than, you know, a residential person here. He's not planning to live there, I don't think. He didn't state that. But I would just ask you, please hold them to a higher standard for the potential impacts to our neighborhood that we absolutely love. And one other thing I wanted to ask, just for the record, is where was the access to all the construction vehicles? Since this talk about access to Bellcrest Place, are they going to come there with the construction vehicles, or is it all going to come from Harmony? Harmony and Woodland. Get that answer. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Josh Ish, 305 Bellcrest Place. I heard there was a couple wells that were going to be tested. I know all the houses on our road, including our own, have well water. Um, so I don't know what houses are included in that are, I mean, we. See the property from our house, so hopefully we would be included in that. We haven't or or nobody that I know that lives on our road has had any sort of. Notice by anybody from construction or from the township about that. Also, I've just stayed again what was state earlier about our private road and, um. The maintenance that it requires. that's great that there's a legal loophole for them to do that, but there's no, you know, that also gives them the ability to come in and deteriorate our road and put all that work and effort on us to bring it back up to standard so we can actually access our homes. Additionally, the other homes that are further down on Harmony, as well as the 375 Belcrest Place, our neighbors that are here tonight, Are just directly downstream from all of that. So I know. After construction, I'm sure that it's a big concern because right now, even with the wetlands and with the way the water is flowing, there's. With bigger storms, it causes a huge amount of. Um, wash out on harmony road, uh, and on our on bell crest place as well. And I know that that all of those things have to get taken care of. By the residents, the township does not help with that. Um, so I can only imagine the additional, um. Homes up there, even just the water running off of the. Onto harmony at the very top. Um, that alone will just create even more wash out. So I just wish there was. more consideration and support from the township for all of our homes that are in a lower density, but woodland, rural-ish type of a setting. And then next to us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Hi, my name is Brian Snyder. I actually live in which is not directly connected to the neighborhood.

But... Sorry, I think you bumped the... You put three fingers on that black box here. Okay, I'm too tall.

So I live on Marymount Drive, which is the neighborhood over 9203. I'm one of the walkers that comes over and invades them a lot. But I used to live at 9767 Belcrest, that Matt spoke about a few minutes ago. We sold that house a couple of years ago. So I had no intention on speaking then. I was just kind of curiosity to come, but a few thoughts. First of all, the folks that had talked about the wells, This is from years ago. Wells House Road, which is over by Zima Pharmacy. Someone built one house. It's an existing road. And they accidentally pierced the water table. And the well just dried up. My in-laws lived on that road. There was no water in those houses for years. Water buffalos... start the laundry at 6 a.m. You get a load done by like 1. So maybe there's just, again, this is high elevation. These houses are real photos. So maybe it's not an apples to apples example, but maybe something added in there that would satisfy that as a radius. My second comment is about the existing house that is going to stay and get remodeled. I'm not sure the significance of it being remodeled and staying versus getting a new building or not. You know, maybe a clarification on how much to an extension, because I know you can get a building permit and basically rip it down as long as you're keeping one wall or keeping a fritter or whatever. You can kind of still call it a remodel. Questioning that house, the way it looks, and what a new building would look like, it's kind of going to be a little different than the neighborhood looks. So maybe that would help some... clarity there. And finally, again, I had, I looked at this a little bit before we came, but I do see the plot lines and the plot lines. It does look a lot like Bellcrush Place, Bellcrush Road, Ridge Road, Gossack, all those that are over by IES. Instead of Ridland, like I said, we walk it every day. My wife and I actually were looking to buy something back in Ridland where answer from the blankets. It just doesn't fit the vibe. Maybe a little bit bigger land. Yes, a couple extra houses. I get it. The property owner does have the rights to develop it. I don't necessarily have a dog in the fight either way with where I live, but I It just doesn't match, in my opinion. So that would be that. And then finally, from the school perspective, I do have three kids that went through Ingmar Elementary School. Two of them have moved on to the middle. One's still in third grade, to be forth. In that school building, you had one kid in one example. That's the difference of a new teacher. That's the difference of needing another kindergarten classroom. It's happened. We went from two teachers to one because one kid left the next year. Same with third grade. There's currently two third grade classrooms in there. One's retiring, of course, so we're going to replace that one. If 12 new houses came in and there's two kids in a grade, that could be another classroom. That could be another teacher. That could be another benefits. That could be filling in more substitute teachers. All that stuff adds up. And as Libby knows more than anyone in this room, the budget of the school district is not just fresh with cash. So 12 houses, yeah, it's not a ton. There's some divisions with a lot more houses than that. Is that the best use of potentially Ingmar Elementary School K-5? There's only about 450 or so kids in that building. You add 10 to 12, one per house, probably more depending on the size of the house. That does make a substantial difference to one little building. If it was over by McKnight Elementary, if they just added a whole ring to, maybe not as big of a deal. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? i don't see anybody coming forward i appreciate all the comments um We do assume we heard a couple of weeks ago or a couple of months ago when this first came out. There are competing interests in any community. We all know that. That's stating the obvious. And everybody's interest has value, and everybody's interest has to be heard. But no interest overrides any other. And part of what we're trying to do is to... in keeping with the rules and the codes that we have to live by and abide by, is trying to balance those interests. We are an advisory group. The decisions then are sent over to the town council, and the town council makes a final decision. So any decision that we make is not final. It's advisory, and it's a recommendation.

Dan, can I ask that Matt put up the domain map?

Sure. Sure.

Also while he's doing that Kelly or the developer if I'm reading the plans correctly you are proposing a sidewalk along the boundary of lot one on the public section of harmony drive correct. And the other question is, and I'm not sure who would answer it, from the wetlands perspective, it looks like the driveway avoids the wetland.

That plan shows it with the wetland impacted. There is a section of wetland that is impacted, and they need to obtain the Chapter 105 permit through the Allegheny County Conservation District, or PADEP, whichever is the approving agency there.

Which we which we did obtain of probably about a month ago okay.

He's the other thing or the opposite of this.

There you go.

So. In your circle right here. Where.

I mean it goes right up the red line. OK. And one side of Harmony is low density. The other side is very low density. The development is in the low density, not the very low density, which is what Woodland is in that neighborhood.

OK. OK. Thank you. Any other comments? Questions?

How hard is it to throw a stop sign in? I mean, do we have to do a traffic study or can we just go out there and put a stop sign in at Woodland, Harmony, and then the entrance into this plan?

We would need to do an assessment of it. It wouldn't need to be a full-blown study since it is on town roads, but it is something that can be looked at.

Is the developer offering a stop sign at the new road?

That was a comment we had, I believe, in our last letter, the May 11th, or excuse me if I'm wrong, if it was on the first one, to ensure there was a sidewalk there. And then I think our most recent letter within the extent to their property was adding a sign indication to that stop sign that would advise people what the traffic patterns are off of the site to help provide them that guidance.

So right now, with this development, one of the three legs of that intersection has a stop sign.

No, I don't believe any of them do.

It's actually going to be a four-lane intersection. One lane is five, but it's a four-lane intersection.

A stop sign would be on a new development.

So one leg will have a stop sign where the new road is being built.

Coming out of the development.

So to evaluate, they can only evaluate the other two public rights is my understanding.

That would be mine as well.

It can. I mean, I would certainly recommend it.

I'm assuming there's not a lot of traffic coming up private road.

There is. Yes. Yes. Yes.

but it's still out of our control it would it would still be a part of the assessment um and i am happy to obviously have a traffic engineer here to to speak on that from the town's perspective but if that is something the town wanted to look at since it is a leg that does add traffic to it it would be included in that assessment

I ask if you're going to comment just to come up so we could get it for the record and everyone in the room can hear you.

It doesn't matter that that product goes to a public park. You know, it doesn't matter. They also want to apologize, guys. I'm sorry. I didn't bless you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

You don't have to treat me that way. I'm a lawyer. I mean, speaking of that.

Thank you all.

You can come up and comment. Just state your name and your address, please. Thank you.

Nicole Jeffers on 9818 Brandt Avenue Extension. The Harmony private road coming from Parks Park absolutely gets traffic. And if the township is considering redoing that park, there's going to be more traffic. So I just wanted to comment that there absolutely is traffic coming up that private road. Thank you.

That's not the only... Sorry to say I've never been to Potter Park, but that's not the only way to get into Potter Park. The other way. I don't know. Potter Park is on the home.

Yes. Yeah, I would say from properties, but with a car, that's the only entrance I know.

I would say that access to Potter Park, I will say, is a separate item that needs to be considered outside of this meeting.

Yeah, I would agree.

I've lived in the area for over 50 years. I'm good friends with all of the potters who originally donated it. I can tell you the only access to it, unless you're walking through somebody's yard, is to drive either on the private section of Harmony from Pine Creek or the private section of Harmony from Harmony Road. Those are the only ways to get to it. Thank you. So that is it. Thank

Any other comments? I think we're ready for a vote. No other comments. I'm going once, going twice. Last time.

One more comment on. So the Moody report identified the three wells that should be tested to see if there was any impact. I did not see any recommendations in that report as to what would happen if they were. Were there recommendations? Did it say that somewhere? That's what I'm trying to find. Yeah.

Yeah, so Moody provided a plan for testing before and after, but yes, the developer would then come up with a plan to rectify that.

Like the town would be, the town through the development would be involved through inspections and through those items and would require that the developer at the end provide that there has been, that there's been no issues and if there were issues that they were rectified and that would be it.

And you said there's three wells to be tested?

Yes, they're down gradient. They would be the

Yeah, I mean.

They're done gradient of OK with it. Yeah, I don't know how you come up with those so it's a hydro geologist so they they mashed it up with what the impacts would be for the development as far as like how far we're excavating down how that would affect the groundwater and then how that what properties down down gradient would be affected due to those kind of activities.

It's downgrading it from a water. Yes, that is correct.

Yes. Based on their professional opinion, they chose three.

They assessed that there were three.

Okay. Thank you.

So when you say you're going to decide on this Do you decide on parts of it or everything? Because like the three variances, I was really not.

Before the commission decides what the decision will be, the way that the process works and under the municipality planning code and the town code is that an applicant for an item would apply to the town. If they submit requests, the town would review those through this discussion. This is a preliminary application. So this would be the, this is the advisory review by planning commission. If they make a recommendation, whether it would be for approval or denial, it would then, the item would then get taken to the town council, who's the government body, which would be at the next town council meeting, which would be on June, 22nd, I believe. And that item would then be heard in the same manner we're sitting here right now, just with the government body. If they were to get an approval and not approval in that sense, that would then move to a final approval if they got approval. If they were denied, then they would be denied at that point.

So they would be approving the whole plan that's submitted or not approving?

They can pick parts? They're approving, if they approve this item, And my assumption would be if they approve, it would be for my recommendation under the, basically a common thing that any outstanding comments from your engineer and subsequent letters from your engineer would have to be addressed prior to approval. So if they're approving the site, as submitted and the stormwater is accepted from the engineers with the caveat that if a, you know, if there's any subsequent changes or significant changes that they'd have to come back for a review. And that's if, you know, that's dependent on what their recommendation is. You know, I can't speak for the recommendation that we're gonna make because they haven't done it yet.

I think that what she's asking is if the modifications are separate from the general, plan approval, which can be decided separately. So for instance, they could grant a modification, deny a modification, but recommend approval of the plan. So they can be treated separately. Does that answer your question?

I felt at least one of the modifications was crazy. So I would hope when they're making their decision that not approved that one. They would say that they weren't.

And I would just ask if a modification was not approved, that would be a substantial change to this. And then if any of the modifications weren't approved, this project wouldn't be able to be approved because it would have to change.

Thank you.

So sorry. Thank you. I apologize for getting interrupted.

So is the plan then to address the three modifications separately and the plan itself aside and separate from the three modifications? Correct? That's the way I would seemingly address it. We need to, let's start with the modifications. And we need to have those stated, the record, so we can vote on them one by one by one. Who's got the language of each of the modifications? You can pull it up. It was.

John, do you want to stay, or do you want to stay? No, go ahead. All right. The first notification that was requested was to Section 110.130 . The depth of a lot for a single-family detached dwelling unit should not exceed 2.5 times its width at the front setback line.

Can I just ask a question? All the lots meet the minimum lot width requirements at the front setback line? It is only this ratio of depth to width. So from the standpoint of emergency vehicles and whatever, they have the same amount of space along the roadway. Correct. Minimum size. Correct.

So I'm sorry to play with this. Share of width to depth.

For three lots, correct.

I mean, just for the plan, the modification request is listed as they've requested it and as represented in the plan.

I would like to know how many lots that is. I'm reading that it's my developer to come up and answer any of these development questions.

I do not have that answer.

In my letter, I have lots three, seven, and eight are the three that do not adhere to that.

So it's not all, well, it's three. That's just what I was trying to figure out.

OK. 3, 7, and 8. OK. All right. Can I have a motion on modification on blocks 3, 7, and 8? Can I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Second? We have a second. All in favor of that modification, say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Opposed. This is Mark.

Thank you, Mark. Sean?

Opposed. Two opposed.

One, two, three, four, and approved. Second modification.

The second modification is section 1104.230A2. Notwithstanding the land development plan, we require not the developer of one or more buildings on the public street or private street shall be required at the time of construction to install sidewalks along the adjacent street frontage in accordance with town specifications.

Okay. So in these terms, this is the notification for the sidewalks on the Harmony and Bellcrust Place, I believe it is. They're asking for modification not to have to install those. Can I have a motion for that that will approve that modification? So moved to second? Second. Second from Brendan. All in favor of that modification? Aye. Say aye. All opposed?

Opposed. This is Mark. I'm aye on that one.

Opposed? I'm sorry. Should we do a roll call when this isn't happening?

I want to do that. We have that right.

All right.

You want to do it?

Let's start at the end, Chess. Opposed? Chess. Mark, I think in line.

Opposed or in favor?

Mark, can you please confirm?

Was that for me? I'm sorry. Opposed.

Opposed. Sean? In favor. In favor. Brennan? Opposed. Dan? In favor. And in favor. I'm sorry. Three and three. Motion fails to grant the sidewalk exemption, for lack of a better term. And the third modification.

The third modification in Cali, you can expand upon this as a technical request for the grading section 1705.06a, the maximum slope of cut shall not exceed 2 to 1 and the maximum slope for kill shall not exceed 3 to 1.

Okay. So this modification is asking to be able to do that, not stick to the 3 to 1 slope.

on this by the engineer that says it is not an engineering issue.

Correct. Can I have a motion to approve that modification? So moved. Second? Second. Well, let's vote on that motion. All in favor of that motion? Aye. Opposed?

Opposed. This is Mark.

He's working on the position? I think he was. Okay. All right. The last item of business is the motion to recommend Town Council approve the PLC 26-10 Harmony Matter Plan with the modifications that we've just mentioned. Prolonged subdivision development. 403G172, 943G175, 943G224, and 943G249. This is a motion to approve with the modifications that were just mentioned.

I guess with the understanding of all the engineers' comments being satisfied of the engineers.

As Matt had stated earlier, all the engineers' comments have to be met. And any of these last adaptions or changes that Kelly said are still coming that she didn't think would be significant, all of that has to be met.

Can we... Add to that, knowing that it is the developers issue, but add the request that the town do an analysis of the traffic flow and whether or not additional stop signs are needed. At the other three lights.

I don't think that you can request that for the developers motion, but that's definitely something that you can request to staff and I can take to town council.

Okay. So, um. All in favor of adopting or should you recommend town council only plan preliminary subliminal and when I get a motion that we're going to get through their motion. I get a motion to let that news.

I move to recommend approval.

I'll second.

Okay. And since the motion is for that motion. Chair says aye. Okay. Sean and Mark.

Opposed.

That was Sean?

Yes, that's Sean. And Mark opposes also.

Okay. So we have one, two, three, four approval and two opposition. Did I count it right? Thank you. All right, thank you. We have new business. You're all welcome to stay, but we have other matters to go through.

I will just add, as we do, we're still conducting, still publicly, so you just remain your voices down and take any discussions outside. Thank you.

Oh, I thought your staff report says it's on the floor. Just a second to clear the room.

Okay, the second item on the agenda is BSC 26-13, the Burke Consolidation Plan, minor subdivision, block lot 828A97, 828B300. Do we have a presentation?

Smith the Burke 1306 Wendy View. My request feels fairly inferior after everything. So we are humbly requesting to eliminate the property line between the two parcels that we own just to absorb them all into one. We're considering potential renovations in addition in the future. So we figured that was the first step.

And that is all. That's good.

I hope. And say on our end as well we did review the plan and just had 2 minor items nothing that would substantially change anything on the plan. And they were both more on textual based on even plan base.

Any other questions concerning the book of consolidation plan. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There's an opportunity for public comment on anybody who wants to comment about the Burt consolidation plan. Anyone to comment? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Can I have a motion to let County Council approve the PLC 26-13 Burt Consolidation Plan, minor subdivision, block lot 828-97 and 828-300. Can I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second?

Second.

We have a second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay, it sounds like all the came through his eyes. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is PLC 26-12-SSB Plan Subdivision on Land Development, Lot Line Revision, Block Lot 7 and 4L and 79 and 7 and 4L. We have a presentation for this matter.

Good afternoon, James Wilkinson, 8 Allegheny Center. I work for Tate Engineering. We're representing SSB Bank. To describe the project shortly, they're acquiring 0.181 acres. From their neighbor, we received a 2nd review letter. And we have a draft addressing all those comments with exception to. The storm sewer that you made aware to us. We sent the crew today to locate that. They couldn't find the outlet for it. So going forward, I don't know if you would be okay with us using the mapping that you provided.

Well, I would say it's more of an indication standpoint if there is, if that's not survey grade, our GIS mapping. So I would just, I would say no, probably on that, just so it's not on the recorded plan. That was just more for an indication of, so there was an outlet that we had identified just on our GIS mapping and an old plan that showed a PennDOT sewer, there's an inlet in the road. that had a pipe pointed towards the property. And it looks like where the outlet was potentially shown, it was right in that property swap area where they would be acquiring it. So we just wanted to make them aware that we did identify that in case that is something that they wanted to notify the owners of. However, they didn't find any encumbrances that stated there was a clear right-of-way from PennDOT through this property. So I did want to just put that out there. So that is the one item that we do have on there, more of just like a notification recommendation, not a plan requirement, just something that we had identified on our end.

Okay.

So at this point, you're only acquiring the land and wanting to make the rock one. If you propose any development, you would come back.

Correct.

Just wanted to get it on the record.

Yeah, just a lot line revision.

Okay. And as I know that property, I mean, it drops off like a rock on one side.

It's a lot of sense for SSB to acquire this piece.

It does? Do you care to expand on what your plans are?

No plans for development, but that backyard, that single-family home next to SSB Bank, their backyard that fronts Perry Highway, there's a steep grade between their house and that portion that they're giving to SSB Bank.

Now it's more of a maintenance issue for the bank, potentially?

I can't speak to that, but... That's for the homeowner.

Yeah. It brings the parking lot at the backside fully onto the property now, so that is one benefit. And the shed there as well. Right.

How are they existing previously? We do have some arrangement or easement or.

A previous arrangement between the 2 property owners related to this when they when this plan came in and maybe 2017 that speaks to me, but I may be incorrect by year or 2. But there was something related to that previously. Yeah.

And the partial zone probably for the right so right.

OK. Anything else? That's it. Okay. Thank you. Any public comment concerning this acquisition or this consolidation? Sorry. No comments? All right. So I'll do a motion to recommend the Town Council approve PSC 26-12 SSB Plan Subdivision and Land Development Lot Line Division 7-4-79 7-4-79 Can I have such a motion? We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second. All in favor of approving that motion? Aye. Aye. Okay. It sounds like everybody's in favor, including the two on phone. Thank you. That's it. Next item on the agenda, PLC 26-14, Wright-Hyundai dealership, combined preliminary and final land and development block plot 1206N218. Such presentation. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I am going to recuse. Okay. Yes.

Ready?

We are.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Jamie Harshman with Harshman CE Group with Civil Engineers for this project. I'll give you a brief introduction, kind of an overview of what's happening here. We are under the common understanding that a tabling action tonight would be appropriate. Matt and Kelly and I have been working together. We have the engineers' comments. There's a lot of them, if I'm being honest. and all of them are housekeeping and uh very easy to address in nature got some others just so you know and if we got some others that may change what i just said um however we didn't want to miss tonight's meeting but at least give you an introduction to the project obviously take any questions the planning commission has and make sure we're looking at everything that we need to build so I'll take a few minutes to just walk you through the project. We do have representatives of the owner here tonight, as well as the general contractor will be building the site. If there's any other questions outside of my purview, I'll be glad to answer them. So as you see on your screens, are you able to see the screens?

There you go, right there. Fantastic. Let me know when you switch to it. I got that.

All right, good. If you want to go ahead and flip to the first round, which would be the existing conditions plan. So if you're familiar with the property, there's been a couple of things here over the years. Most reasonable was an automotive dealership on the site. There's several tiers of parking. A lot of the building had been demolished. There's a mound of dirt that was placed in the back of the property. So that's kind of how it sits right now. I feel a little slippery with it. Next sheet. Walk through these and I'll make... The comments might need to work. Have you got the second page?

Yep. Is this one?

The next one.

Here we go.

Okay. So this is a good one to look at. Because of the color scheme on here, you can see what's going on. The white area in the middle will be the proposed Hyundai dealership. The front portion is basically the main showroom area, the offices. The back perpendicular portion is a two-story garage area where service and maintenance and that sort of activity is going to occur. um talk through the parking scenario uh we'll try to keep the building tight to the front there's you know there's several variances that came through this property a while ago one of them allowed the parking in the front the other established the front setback and that might lead to another one about their screens however the front of our building is generally in line with the other buildings across here So you've got customer parking in the front. You've got some vehicle inventory display spaces in the front. And as you head down towards the back, the grades drop to a lower level. There's a lot of spaces back here. So this is vehicle storage, vehicle inventory. The space is directly behind the garage with B4. against guards that are in for maintenance and that sort of thing. There's an existing stormwater pond on the property. We're keeping it at the same location. We're making it a little bit bigger to handle stormwater impacts, and I'll talk about that a little bit more on subsequent sheets. Because of the difficult terrain of the property, and it really is difficult terrain, it's up and down and all over the place, we've got a couple of retaining walls. Now, they've been designed in compliance with your ordinance requirements. They are... We have a geotechnical design of those walls, but you can see them as the heavy dashed lines, just to understand what those heavy dashed lines are. The site is configured such that emergency vehicles can circulate the site, as well as customer or employee vehicles can circulate the site. I'll talk a little bit about the entrances while we're looking at the screen. Right now, there's two curb cuts. There are two entrances onto the property. Our understanding is PennDOT actually built those entrances whenever they did the sidewalk project just a few years ago. We're only going to retain one of those entrances. So the entrance you see would be to the north on the drawing would be the primary entrance. As that's depicted on our plan, it matches that exact entrance that's there right now. We will be submitting to PennDOT just to reaffirm the HOP for that driveway. The other one will be closed off. The sidewalk will be matched and prepared to PennDOT standards. Again, that'll be in negotiation with the department to get that permit in hand. Before I move on to some of the more detailed drawings, do you have any questions about the general layout of the site?

You mentioned the retaining walls in the back. So there's going to be required fill to a large degree to level out that backside?

Yeah, we'll get to another plan, sort of gradient plan. I can talk about slopes.

I have a couple of questions about layout. There is a, what I would call a sidewalk there now, but it's in the catamaran. So your intent is to install a sidewalk to PennDOT standards and the town standards?

Well, so at the street, when we say there is or isn't a sidewalk, there is a sidewalk that PennDOT built. We'll call it whatever we call it. However, the only forces we intend to reconstruct or whatever PennDOT requires us to reconstruct. I know that.

I mean, it is. there's no i did not see any definition between the parking lot and the sidewalk you'll see the green space between what will be our parking lot which is yes different than it is now right now the pavement comes right out to the sidewalk and i see your point So the sidewalk is constructed somewhere on the other side of that green space. I didn't see an indication on the band of sidewalk. There's a detail for a sidewalk, but I need to see where it's located.

Let's see how this drone shows it for us. So if you can see the gray, On that, there's a light gray, there's a red line that says LOD, which is movement of disturbance. There's a gray area, and you can see the D line call out in that gray area. That would be the area of the existing sidewalk, if the hatching on the drawing I'm showing is correct. I think it is. So then there is a planting strip then that happens between that sidewalk and that row of parking. So hopefully that will give us the definition that we're looking for.

In looking at your parking breakdown, it says you're proposing 90 and i'm sorry i counted them up i could only get 61 that weren't storage i believe kelly made a similar uh question that we need to check the parking table uh that's part of what we'll be doing and then my other question is and maybe this comes in later 265 storage spaces they wanted 300 couldn't fit them i mean How many vehicles, and this is a question for the owner perhaps, what is their volume of sales?

There's, and I'm speaking a little bit out of what I know a lot of, there are requirements of the franchise. So in order for Hyundai to allow them to fly the flag here at this location, the dealership has to provide a certain capacity. The target was 300. We can't fit 300. So in those cases, the owner has to go back to the franchise and they go back and forth. It'd be a little horse trade to try to figure things out. I don't know if that was Hyundai's requirement, 300, or if that's what the owner told us, hey, get 300 on here. But we got 265. He said, oh, gee, it was close enough. So that's why we have so many.

Is it possible to get something from Hyundai that says you actually need that? My concern is there's an awful lot of extra pavement that perhaps doesn't need to be built on this site. Well, given the car dealerships, the other car dealerships in the area and the fact that the last two cars I got, I had to wait for them to come in on a boat because they aren't on the lot and they don't have the room on the lot.

Let me ask you, do you want to speak to that at all or I can begin rambling on the head? i'm not really sure about the number of those details so i think you'll find out but from an operational standpoint we're getting right totally Let's just say they didn't have over 200 spaces here. You're not going to get a Hyundai, you're not going to get an in-brand dealership unless you have a significant import law such as this.

So then my other question was, how do your tractor trailers get into drop-off vehicles? Sure.

So tractor trailer, well, two points. One, they're not going to have tractor trailers come here. However, They can't. So dimensionally speaking, a tractor trailer can make the turn into the entrance, come down to the lower lot, perform a three-point turn so they would back towards the dumpster and pull back out. And the AASHTO turning radii work for that, for a tractor trailer to come in and come in and out of there.

So they're going to come in, they're going to go around the building, through the parking lot, parking spaces.

Yes.

Do you have turning radiuses for that also on the plant?

We have analyzed that. I didn't give that to you because I don't want you to think the expectation is for tractor-trailer to come. It's not. They've got another location where they offload cars and then they just drive them to this location. However, as Kenny and I were talking, I said, Kenny, what if you do someday? I said, here, you see it can be done. So that's how that design happened. But as it is right now, it's not a design vehicle for the site. It's not an operational anticipation according to the owner's direction to us. Okay.

This other location isn't the middle of McKnight or Perry Highway in the turning lane like happens up at Barrow.

It is not. It's the concern. I don't know where it is, but I know it's not that. They will not offload cars at the street. No way, no how.

Okay. Thank you.

Let's flip to the next sheet, Matt. All right. So here's your grading plan. Also on this grading plan, there's some stormwater lines you can see underneath. However, the contour lines are indicated on here. Similar to what you've seen on previous applications, we had a thorough geotechnical evaluation done on the site to justify a two to one fill slope. So we'll be asking for a modification of the two to one fill slope. The slopes are, I almost made a qualifying statement. They're not super high, but they really aren't. They're only about 10 to 15 feet. So where you see the fill slope at the low end of the parking storage lot and where we've got the kind of the angle, the turning area that comes up around the building, that's about 10 or 15 feet in height of fill slope. Here on this plan, we can see the enlargement of the stormwater pond. So right now, if you've ever seen it, it's just a wet pond over the hills, all overgrown. It's in a bit of disrepair. So we'll be rehabbing that pond at an existing location, expanding it to provide a forebay, which will help us meet some of the performance criteria of the stormwater management ordinances and the NPDES permit requirements. So questions on the grading plan, because I know you were asking a little bit about that. let's uh flip to the next plan uh that looks like okay i'll talk about sanitary sewer the previous one there is existing public sewer uh to the property we did confirm for passing with the authority i think i've still got to get you documentation on that kelly but we have that communication the next page Here's our landscaping plan. So again, the subject of discussion tonight will be the buffers. We are going to be asking what we have asked for a waiver of the width requirement of the buffer at two locations. And I'll talk a little bit about that in a minute. However, you can see on here we've lay out all the required number of trees and shrubs, et cetera, based on the offer planting criteria. We'll be working with, one of the points I want to clarify with your engineers, filtering buffer versus screening buffer. They're all 15 feet in width. However, the planting schedule may change slightly. However, while we're talking about the buffer, I'll point out two areas that we critically, and I use that word emphatically, critically need to know if we can have this modification. And that would be where the property narrows and comes out towards Perry Highway. You'll see a dense row of short-rowed planted on the south side. And there's a bump out of parking on the north side with a lot of dense row of short-rowed planted there. 15 foot is the requirement. We're asking for eight feet to be allowed on one side and seven feet to be allowed on the other. That's the substance of the modification request. Matt, will you flip all the way back to the second sheet of this drawing that says the existing conditions plan. If it helps you, I just want to talk a little bit about the existing conditions first. If you zoom in on that area. Let me grab my notes on this. So right now, the existing pavement, again, I agree with you, we don't like it the way it is right now. It comes right up to the sidewalk. There's not a lot of definition, but the existing pavement north is about four and a half feet. We'll be increasing that to second feet if you give us the modification. So there will be an improvement. That area plus that area will be planted with screening shrubbery and such. To the south, now if you look at the other side. So in that area, the existing pavement is about 6.7 feet away from the property line. We're gonna be increasing that to eight. So again, we'll be improving the existing situation. We can't meet the 15 feet. That's the substance of the waiver request on the buffers. The rest of the entire perimeter of the property will be able to provide compliance for the 15 foot buffers. Let's see where we left off, Matt. We were looking at the landscaping plan. Let's go to the next page. So there's the stormwater plan. Looks like a blue spider went crazy over Spain, but that's the network of inlets and piping, et cetera. There is an underground chamber system that you'll see kind of the upper end of the storage lot. that will provide the infiltration that we need to handle volume removal. The pond itself handles rate control. The forebay helps us provide a little extra volume removal that we need. There's the headwaters of an existing stream that begin at the current outfall of the existing pond. We're going to be moving that headwall ever so slightly, but not impacting that stream where it begins. Yeah, so that's that's the drainage plan. I do have a couple of minor details to work through with your engineer on that, but I don't expect it to change significantly for showing on that plan. And that's probably the extent of what I want to show you on the drawings, explaining the project to you. The rest of these are construction details and Things we don't need to get into tonight. That's what I hope is the 30,000 foot view of our project. Two more questions.

One is site distance. I did go to the lot and I don't know if it was the owner's vehicles parked there or the next lot parked there, but site distance getting out of the site, especially to turn left, to go north on Terry Highway is very tight. Have you evaluated that?

Yeah, I don't have the information for you. That's the submittal that's going into PennDOT for the highway occupancy permit. It will need to meet PennDOT standards for them to grant the permit for this driveway. So if within our control there are any obstructions that we need to deal with, that will be part of that permit. process.

The obstructions were primarily parked vehicles, so I'm not exactly sure.

I can handle those. That's good.

Not sure they were on your parcel. The other point is the zoning, I believe, for this district requires a minimum of a two-story building. Yeah. And we don't have a building elevation.

We'll get those to you as well. I don't have them in hand to show you tonight, or we could have put them up on the screen. But when I see you next month, and hopefully it's next month, I should have architectural for you elevations. Yes, sir.

The part of the reason you can't comply with the 15 foot on the buffer, it just makes that driveway section too tight, is it?

That's exactly right. Yeah, there's the things that we're wrestling with are, Matt, if you want to zoom in on that portion of the site plan, that would be great. The architectures for the buildings are defined by the prototype of Hyundai. which sets that with the building. And as much as I've wrestled with the architect, that's as tight as it can possibly be and meet with the franchise standards. So we want to have as much parking in the front of the building as possible. That's where the showroom is. That's where customers come in. There's not a lot of lot area there. And again, Hyundai is going to require a certain amount of parking available near the front entrance of the building. So we're stuck with that. And then your point of access, we want to make sure we've got access all the way around the building. So a 20-foot, which would be your minimum for a fire lane. We've got 20 feet of pavement provided on the south side. We've got a minimum stall space and 24-foot minimum aisle width on the north side of that service drive bump out. And that puts us into, we don't have enough room left, 15 and 15. Our hope is that you would favorably consider, well, we're making it better than it was, and we really need it. That's kind of the substance of our request.

There's another, isn't there another Hyundai dealership just up the road?

I didn't do a study on that. It's there? There's 165 storage spaces up there.

Just saying. Thank you.

We've done several dealerships over the years. This is an interesting point of fact. Pre-COVID, dealerships needed a lot of info. And when we had COVID, nobody was going to the dealership. That has flipped 180 all around again, and everybody wants the inventory on site. So we're back to where we were pre-COVID as far as what dealerships and franchises require, which is as many storage spaces as you can have on site. And I'll admit, it makes it difficult for me as the engineer as well, because that's the water I've managed. That's the bigger pond. That's

More impervious surface.

That's what we do. And that's why we do the science behind it. So the stormwater management plan for this property will reduce the rate. These things will reduce the rate or reduce the void. While the numbers and principles improve the water quality of the watershed. And so I suppose you could say the larger the impact, the more improvement it will make. I say that with a ton of cheek. Still look at it. It will be better. Thanks.

I think I'd like to add to just in terms of the context of the outdoor storage is that they did for the record, get a variance approval for the sizing. Of what that outdoor storage lot could be. So, you know, the typical. Donating for this site wouldn't permit. the sizing of outdoor storage for any lot that would be this size. And so they had to essentially go through the variance approval. And so this does meet what was approved in terms of the sizing from the DHB. Just wanted to know that for the record.

We're talking about the sizing of the actual parking spaces as well.

I understand that.

I'm just asking. That's what I thought the variance was for. They were allowed to get smaller parking spaces.

They were the it was for the size of the outdoor storage total. Okay, the square footage and square footage of the wild be up to 80,000 square feet rather than what is permitted is 10,000. They received a 70,000 square foot. They're in school.

Appreciate it. Any other comments.

I think we've covered a lot of them so far. I know we're waiting for some additional information like lighting plans. I know Jamie's touched on stormwater, just some comments in here. But one thing to note here, so for the ordinance requirements for parking stalls, the ordinance requires 9 by 18 feet, which they are providing for the non-storage spaces. I did just want to note that the vehicle storage spaces are proposed at an 8 by 15 Um, 8 foot by 16 foot stall. So just 1 thing we did when I identify just given kind of how the ordinance is laid out. Um, and wanted to just call that to your attention.

And I can even, I'll even add that in a pre-application meeting with myself, Kelly, and the developer for this site, we did discuss that requirement. And it was my determination that the characteristic of the ordinance would permit for storage and the sizing requirements as permitted essentially met what the intent of the ordinances and essentially why we had recommended that they would be able to submit with smaller parking size stalls because the storage lot is merchant essentially merchandise to basically allow them to have a tighter section for where the cars will be located and then in turn less impervious that would be added to the site.

Theoretically, they don't have public parking in those spaces. Correct.

I'm on Perry Highway. Are there turning lanes at this location? Okay.

I drove it.

Okay.

Which will not be used for offloading.

No, I'm with you. Yeah, they're not. I don't know. Turning lanes, there's getting in and out, obviously.

But it's not that far from where everything comes in, which is kind of a bottleneck and a- I understand.

Yeah, I agree with you. That's a tight area. Any other comments, Kyle?

Now, one other thing, just a note, it looks like there's some sort of on the plan north, which is also north in the world, there's like a swale or a low spot back there, it seems like. So there was a culvert that's proposed kind of cutting across the parking lot that we did just want to make sure that in the next submission that... the outlets not oriented towards North Allegheny, which sits below. So just wanted to make a note of that as well. But I think everything else that we had identified of key points was discussed tonight.

Okay, good. Well, as was mentioned, I guess, public comment, we had to ask for a public comment. Any public comment concerning this presentation?

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

Mayor Mrakas, You may or may not be able to hold it would be incredibly helpful to get some feedback on the. Mayor Mrakas, publication and so. Mayor Mrakas, inclined to vote, I understand that. Mayor Mrakas, We got to come up with some. Mayor Mrakas, Significantly affects the feasibility of this project is the only reason I bring the issue up.

I could speak on the slope analysis here for this one. So based on the geotech engineer's review, this analysis is consistent with the acceptable industry standards and utilizes reasonable stability parameters for what was analyzed. So he considers these slopes acceptable, assuming that the constructions performed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotech on record, and they do provide their seal at the end of a certification letter.

So they're getting rid of all the... fill that's on the site that was from apparently previous demolitions, the piles of concrete and the other fill. So it'll be

So that should be encouraging to you. As far as the buffers go, we have granted buffer variances or exceptions in the past. I think it would depend on how clean the sidewalk in front is. You know, we want to improve the overall street view of McCandless. And so I can't say for sure what we would do, but your cooperation in sufficient plantings, even on an eight-foot buffer, all your cooperation on getting that front sidewalk looking respectable and not some broken-up macadam that somebody thinks is a sidewalk, all of that, I think, is going to go toward you getting what you might be looking for.

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

And you're also abutting other commercial properties, so it's not like we're buffering to an inconsistent use.

Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you so much and thank you and without public comment, I think we're we're a total emotion, which is what was mentioned do we need to have a motion, the table.

Yes, do we make it or does he need that because we can just make the motion and then we will need a time exception with or without.

I can send one administrative I can send over. But I didn't say the second. The motion is was just discussed at night. That was the show and we're going to miss.

Yes, March is high.

Okay, thank you so I'm not a side of the agenda. It's not the last. We're getting close up. This is a matter of PLC 26-15 plan minor subdivision block 327 and 338. Can we have a presentation regarding the LaRoche minor subdivision?

James Wilkinson again. We're here representing LaRoche University and the Sisters of Divine Providence. The sisters are carving out 14 and a half acres out of their lot and donating it to the university for the expansion of their programs. We did create 1 nonconformity. But we received, we were granted a variance last week. So zoning is taken care of. We received our 2nd review letter. And we have addressed all those comments as well. We have a draft ready to submit after this meeting. The only thing we would like to ask is with regards to the reciprocal easements, does that need to be recorded before or after the plan?

Can I just ask one really quick question? There's been an all along about an agreement that is going to be approved between the Sisters and LaRocque. deal with the maintenance of the stormwater.

They did provide information on a plan showing where the systems are and how it's moving through.

Right, but in something that's going to be maintaining them in the future because this is now on the sister's property, right?

Yeah, so they would run them with the property owner. The storm sewer system is on those sites.

I don't see the agreement even noted on the plans.

Okay. Yeah, that's what we're asking. We have a declaration that's written.

As far as the declaration of easements goes, that would be a copy of the executed declaration of easements. The town solicitor's office is comfortable with the language of those access. It's necessary to execute a copy before town council takes five actions.

note seven here, see declaration of easements. Yeah, recorded. And they have the blanks open for the book and the page to be filled in. That was, I think, the reference that we identified on the plan for it. Number seven?

Number seven, yeah. That's a survey note. I mean, okay. And we're creating a subdivision of a parcel that has no access, which theoretically is an issue. So I just was looking for something that was a little more...

The document's going to be recorded and outlines those easements that will be provided. It goes through and confirms that there will be access.

This is Linda Barron, counsel for LaRoche. We do have... as solicitor has stated, a declaration of easements for the access to utilities that we had intended to record immediately after the subdivision, but the way the declaration is worded is such that these two parcels are being subdivided. This is now being declared a record that the easements will be in place for utilities and access. So we'd be happy to probably record that in advance if you needed it to be recorded.

I just want to make sure that it's known when we're moving on this, that that's what's going to happen. And it didn't see a whole lot on the plans or in writing saying that.

They'll have access to the same roads that exist.

Yeah, I think for clarification, with the way the notice with the recording commission, it makes sense to record the declaration and then record the plan. If it's the same day, we fill it in. But essentially, I'm comfortable that those access has been preserved.

Thank you. I think that's important. Anything else? That's it. Okay. Any comment relating to this matter? Doesn't sound like it. I'm sorry? I think they do. Town Council approve PLC 26-15 plan 1. Subdivision 27338.

Recognizing the agreement and the easements to be filed.

With that caveat.

Thank you. So moved.

So moved. Second? Somebody? Thank you. All in favor of a motion? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Sounds like everyone. Thank you. That finishes our statement issues on the agenda. There's time for any general public comment on other issues. Do we have public comment on any other issues?

I don't see any.

Then finally, I need a motion to adjourn. Can I have such a motion?

So moved.

So moved. Can I have a second for that motion to adjourn?

Second.

Thank you. All in favor of adjournment? Aye. Opposed? No opposition. Wow.

That's good. Margaret, Sean, thanks for sticking on. We appreciate it.

Bye, everybody. Yeah, thanks, everybody. Should be there next time. But yeah, 2.30 in the morning here.