[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL]
WE'LL START WITH THAT.ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OR A NON, A JET ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS, ANYTHING FROM THE FEEDING, THE PUBLIC WANTS TO, UH, WE DON'T HAVE A HECK OF A LOT.
WE'VE GOT MORE PEOPLE UP HERE THAT WE HAVE PUBLIC SHOWS.
AND THEN THE NEXT THING WOULD BE, UM, THE MINUTES FROM APRIL SIX, WHICH WAS OUR LAST MEETING TWO MONTHS AGO.
UH, ANYBODY, UH, HAVE A QUESTION COMMENT,
[GENERAL DISCUSSION ITEMS]
UH, FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE MINUTES FROM APRIL SIX, IF NOT, OR IF THERE IS, IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES, ALL OF HIS MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? HE'LL USE SECOND.
UH, ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTES I OPPOSED, AND WE'LL ACCEPT THE MINUTES AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO START IN WITH OUR FIRST APPLICANT OF THE EVENING.
[APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD]
IT'S SOMEBODY WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH.UH, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE, A FULLY TRACK.
ALISON SORROW ON BEHALF OF A TOLL BROTHERS THAT WITH ME THIS EVENING ARE BRIAN THEON FROM TOLL BROTHERS AND JOHN
UM, WE WERE HERE LAST IN MARCH AND WE SHOWED YOU VARIOUS TRAIL CONNECTIONS, ET CETERA.
UH WE'VE SINCE RESUBMITTED PLANS RIGHT NOW, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IS WHAT'S PENDING IN FRONT OF THE TOWNSHIP.
UM, I THINK EVERYONE REMEMBERS THAT THIS IS A 54, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DETACH, LOT SUBDIVISION, UM, ON BOTH SIDES OF WRITTEN HOUSE ROAD.
UM, AND WE DO HAVE SEVERAL REVIEW LETTERS.
SO BEFORE I SORT OF GET STARTED, GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SINCE JEFF WENT TO THE TROUBLE OF LISTING EVERYTHING, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS ALL OF THEM, UM, WE HAVE A GILMORE, WHAT I'LL CALL IT.
REGULAR SITE PLAN REVIEW LETTER DATED MAY 23RD, 2022.
UM, WE HAVE A MCMAHON REVIEW LETTER DATED MAY 27TH, 2022.
UH, WE HAVE A GILMORE SEWER REVIEW LETTER DATED MAY 31ST, 2022.
UM, AND THEN THE FIRE MARSHALL REVIEW LETTERS ACTUALLY FROM JANUARY 11TH, 2022, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED AN UPDATED FIRE MARSHALL REVIEW.
UM, WE DID RESPOND TO ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS IN OUR RESUBMISSION, AND I THINK JEFF IS WORKING ON GETTING SOMETHING CLEANED UP, BUT SORT OF SUFFICE TO SAY EVERYTHING IN THAT LETTER WAS IT WILL COMPLY, UM, AND IN OUR RESPONSES.
UM, SO IF EVERYONE RECALLS THIS, AS I MENTIONED, THIS PROPERTIES ON BOTH SIDES OF WRITTEN HOUSE ROAD, UH, WE HAVE THREE PODS OF HOUSING, UM, WITH THREE DIFFERENT ACCESS POINTS TO, UM, ON WHICH GENERALLY I'LL CALL THE NORTH SIDE OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD.
I KNOW EVERYTHING CURVES, UH, AND THEN, UH, ONE ACCESS POINT ON THE SOUTH SIDE, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING.
AND WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WITH YOU IS REROUTING SOME OF THE TRAILS.
SO WE ARE PROPOSING A TRAIL VALLEY VIEW IS IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER OF THE PLAN.
WE'RE PROPOSING A TRAIL THAT WOULD START THERE ALONG THE FRONTAGE, CONNECT DOWN TO THE FIRST ACCESS POINT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THERE WOULD BE SIDEWALK PROPOSED ON ONE SIDE, THE INTERNAL STREETS, SORRY.
YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY, DO WE HAVE THE PARTNER? CAUSE THAT'LL MAKE IT EASIER.
WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE THIS.
WE'VE GOT TRAIL ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
WE HAVE SIDEWALK INTO THIS INTERNAL STREET.
WE HAVE A SIDEWALK ALONG HERE AND ALONG HERE ON NEW SIDES OF THE STREETS, WE ALSO HAVE SORT OF LIKE AN ACCESS POINT.
THAT'S NOT A FORMALIZED ACCESS POINT OUT THAT WAY.
UM, THEN WE KEEP COMING ALONG WRITTEN HOUSE.
UH, WE COME TO THIS INTERSECTION THERE'S UH, THE SIDEWALK IS PROPOSED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET INTERNALLY.
THIS IS WHERE A FORMALIZED CROSSWALK WOULD BE LOCATED ACROSS THIS MAIN INTERSECTION WITH TWO, UM, PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS, UH, AT THIS INTERSECTION, A RAPID FLASHING BEACON WITH THE CROSSWALK.
THEN WE WERE PROPOSING INTERNAL SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET HERE, IT CONTINUES UP TO HERE.
IT THEN CONNECTS INTO THE TOWNSHIP TRAIL SYSTEM.
WE WOULD BE BUILDING A NEW TRAIL THAT WOULD GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SOUTH LEWIS ROAD, UM, AND WHAT WE WILL BE DOING ON THE NEXT PLAN SUBMISSION, AND THIS SORT OF CUTS THAT OFF THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO ADD, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL SHEET OR DETAIL, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO SHOW THAT WE ARE DOING THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THERE.
THIS SIDEWALK CONTINUES ALONG THIS SIDE OF THE INTERNAL STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE.
[00:05:01]
TRAIL THAT WRAPS AROUND THE BACK AND CONNECTS INTO THE TOWNSHIP TRAIL SYSTEM TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS UP IN HERE.SO WE HAVE SEVERAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE, UM, THOSE TRAILS ARE BEING ALL OF THAT TRAIL SYSTEM IS ESSENTIALLY BEING COORDINATED WITH THE TOWNSHIPS CURRENT TRAIL SYSTEM.
AND THEN WHAT WB HOMES IS, UM, PROPOSING TO BUILD.
UH, SO WE DO HAVE SEVERAL REVIEW LETTERS AND, UH, I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS AND THE LETTERS ARE, WILL COMPLY.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ITEMS I WANTED TO TOUCH ON, AND THEN A LOT OF IT ACTUALLY RELATES TO, UM, WAIVERS THAT WE'RE REQUESTING SO I CAN RUN THROUGH THE VARIOUS WAIVERS.
UM, BUT ALSO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WILL NOTE, THAT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON OUR OVERALL SITE PLAN, BUT WE HAVE TWO CONCEPT PLANS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN TRAFFIC PLANNING AND DESIGN SUBMISSION.
THERE'S ONE THAT SHOWS A MORE, YOU KNOW, FORMALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS SHOWS A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
SOME OF THESE DETAILS STILL NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE PLANS.
THERE WOULD BE WIDENING NOT ALONG THE WHOLE FRONTAGE OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD, BUT IN THE AREA NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS.
AND THEN FLIPPING BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE WE TOUCHED ON THIS LAST TIME, UM, TOLL IS PROPOSING TO, UH, WIDEN YOUR IN HOUSE ROAD AND PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL, SO ESSENTIALLY THERE'D BE A RIGHT TURN LANE AT THE INTERSECTION WITH SOUTH TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD.
UM, SOME MORE FORMALIZED STRIPING, UM, I'M SORRY.
ALICE, WOULD YOU SAY THERE WILL BE A RIGHT TURNING LANE? YEAH.
SO THERE WILL BE A RIGHT TURNING LANE.
UM, THE COMMENT THAT WE GOT AND ANTHONY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT INITIALLY TPD WAS PROPOSING A GREATER LEFT TURN LANE AND YOU SAID, SWITCH IT TO A RIGHT TURN LANE.
AND THEN THAT'S WHAT THIS CONCEPT PLAN NOW SHOWS.
SO IT'D BE AN EXTENSION OF THE RIGHT TURN LANE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUEUING ISSUES AT THE INTERSECTION, BUT NOT LEFT.
YOU DON'T THAT THE LEFT WILL GET RE STRIPED AND SLIGHTLY ELONGATED DUE TO THE WIDENING FOR THE RIGHT TERM.
AND THEN THE RIGHT TURN LANE WOULD BE ADDED.
AND THIS IS WITHIN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.
SO WE'RE ABLE TO DO THIS, UM, BASED ON CURRENT RATES AWAY, THAT EXISTS.
UM, SO BEFORE I START RAMBLING INTO THE REVIEW LETTERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY GENERAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BEFORE I START GOING THROUGH OUR STUFF HERE, THIS BUILDING THIS NO WB HOMES IS BUILDING OTHER TRAILS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONNECT INTO.
SO THAT'S ALL BEING COORDINATED.
ESSENTIALLY THEIR STUFF WAS COMING ONLINE.
THEY'RE EXISTING TRAILS RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP TRAIL SYSTEM OVER THERE.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL GETS COORDINATED.
SO YOU'LL SEE IN THE REVIEW LETTERS, THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FINAL DESIGN, STILL BEING DETERMINED.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROPOSING WHAT WE'RE SHOWING ON THE PLAN, BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF HIERARCHY OF TRAILS, IF SOMEBODY WANTS SOMETHING TO BE THE PRIMARY TRAIL VERSUS A SECONDARY TRAIL AND MAKING SURE IT ALL CONNECTS, THAT WILL BE ALL COORDINATED BEFORE WE WOULD GET TO, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION AND FINAL PLAN.
TOLL IS BUILDING THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE NEED TO, CAUSE I KEEP ASKING OTHER TIMES YOU'VE BEEN HERE HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION, I'M GONNA ASK AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ROAD CHANGES IN THE WIDENING AND THE, HAS THE SCHOOL BEEN KEPT UP TO SPEED ON THIS? I SPOKEN RIGHT THERE FROM TOLL ROADS.
I'VE SPOKEN TO, UM, THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE ARTS DIOCESE KEPT THEM UP TO SPEED LANE'S PLANS.
UM, WHETHER YOUR ATTORNEYS OR THE ARCHDIOCESE ALSO REPRESENTED THIS, THE POLLING WE'RE TALKING ALL THE TIME ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON, WE'LL HAVE A PRE-CON WITH THAT, BRING THEM UP TO SPEED.
SO OF TRAFFIC OR WHATEVER, WE'LL LET THEM KNOW.
SO WE ASSUME THAT THEY'RE TALKING TO THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY WORK WITH THE SCHOOL.
WE
THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TO DRIVE THERE WOULD BE THE ONES THAT WOULDN'T LIKE TO KNOW.
UH, SO THE PRIMARY REVIEW LETTER THAT I, I MEAN, I WILL SAY THAT IN GENERAL, THE MCMAHON LETTER, UM, IS A WELL COMPLY.
THERE'S ONE COMMENT WHICH I CAN TOUCH ON QUICKLY.
AND THEN I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GO THROUGH THE PRIMARY GILMORE LETTER TO TOUCH ON WAIVERS AND THE REST OF THE COMMENTS.
UM, COMMENT EIGHT IN THE REVIEW LETTER REFERENCES TALKING ABOUT DOING, UM, A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, UM, FOR THE REFUGE ISLANDS
[00:10:01]
IN THE CENTER OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD FOR THE HOA TO MAINTAIN OR OTHERWISE DO, UH, AN, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWNSHIP FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO DO SO.SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'VE FLESHED OUT, BUT WITH STAFF, BUT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WHATEVER EVERYBODY WOULD WANT, WE WEREN'T SURE THAT IT WOULD NECESSARILY BE DESIRABLE FOR THE HOA TO MAINTAIN, UM, ISLANDS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN EXISTING TOWNSHIP RIGHT AWAY.
UM, SO WE FIGURED WE'D PROBABLY BE GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION ON THAT, BUT, OKAY.
UM, SO THEN GOING BACK TO THE GILMORE LETTER, UM, THE FIRST COUPLE OF COMMENTS UNDER ZONING RELATE TO FLOOD PLAIN CONSERVATION AND STEEP SLOPE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, WE ARE, THERE IS A, A STRETCH OF FLOODPLAIN THAT'S ON THIS SIDE OF THE SITE IN ORDER TO GET OUR ENTRANCE IN ON THIS SITE, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT.
UM, THIS IS REFERENCING VARIANCE RELIEF, THE THINGS THAT ARE LISTED HERE, THE SANITARY SEWER, THE CULVERT AND THE FILL FOR THE ROADWAY ARE PERMITTED.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE WERE PUTTING A RETAINING WALL IN THERE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT OUR ENGINEERING DESIGN IS SATISFACTORY TO GILMORE SO THAT WE WILL NOT NEED TO SEEK ANY VARIANTS REALLY FOR THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE ORDINANCE.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE STEEP SLOPES ON THE SITE AND AGAIN, NUMBER FOUR, UNDER THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS TALKS ABOUT RETAINING WALLS.
THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY SAYS WITH RESPECT TO RETAINING WALLS, UM, AND THE STEEP SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT, UM, UH, VARIANTS WOULD BE REQUIRED UNLESS THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE LOCATION THAT IS FEASIBLE.
IN WHICH CASE, THEN YOU CAN SEEK A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
WE'LL ALREADY BE DOING THAT FOR SOME OF THE STORMWATER FACILITIES ON THE SITE.
UM, AND WE WILL WORK WITH GILMORE ON THAT.
IT'S, IT'S ONLY TWO LOCATIONS AND ONE OF THEM IS ACTUALLY A MINOR AREA THAT RELATES TO ONE OF THE TRAILS WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONNECT UP TO THE TOWNSHIP LAND IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT ADA COMPLIANT.
WE ACTUALLY, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE GRADING WORK, UH, WE NEED A SMALL RETAINING WALL THERE WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE COORDINATE APPROPRIATELY.
UM, BUT THE GOAL HERE IS TO NOT REQUEST ANY VARIANTS RELIEF FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
UM, SO THEN THE NEXT, UM, FEW COMMENTS IN HERE ARE ALL WILL COMPLIES AND IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE FOR ME.
WE DID SUBMIT A WAIVER REQUEST LETTER DATED APRIL 13TH, 2021.
WE TOUCHED ON SOME OF THESE WAIVERS LAST TIME.
UH, BUT I DO WANT TO WALK THROUGH THEM WITH YOU AND MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THEM.
SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THEM.
UM, SPECIFICALLY, SO THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS IN GILMORE'S COMMENT, NUMBER SEVEN, UH, TALKS ABOUT THE, UH, THAT COLLECTOR ROADS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MINIMUM PAVEMENT WITH A 40 FEET.
UH, MCMAHON ALSO TOUCHES ON THIS ONE IN THEIR REVIEW LETTER.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE PROPOSING WIDENING, UH, JUST ALONG WRITTEN HOUSE WHERE THE PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS WOULD BE, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE PROPOSING TO WIDEN THE REST OF IT.
UM, ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD MATCH UP WITH, UM, THE EXISTING ROADWAY, KEEP THAT CONTINUITY ON REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE ROADWAY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT MCMAHON DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PARTICULAR WAIVER REQUEST.
UH, THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS NUMBER SEVEN IN GILMORE'S REVIEW LETTER, OR WAIT, SORRY, I JUST DID THAT.
ONE IS THE NEXT ONE IS NUMBER EIGHT.
UM, SO THESE ARE ALL SORT OF RELATED TO, UH CUL-DE-SACS.
SO THIS ONE, THIS FIRST ONE RELATES TO ROAD D AND HOW THAT IS MEASURED.
SO ROAD D IS ON THE, ON THE, WHAT I'LL CALL THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD, WHICH IS THE LONGER ROAD.
AND THEN WE HAVE A, AN INTERSECTION WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC COMING OFF OF HERE, WHICH IS ROAD E.
SO MCMAHON HAD DETERMINED THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT INTERSECTION, WE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED A WAIVER FOR LENGTH AND WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING EMERGENCY ACCESS.
JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SINGLE ACCESS WITH NO OTHER MEANS TO GET THERE IN THE CASE OF EMERGENCY GILMORE.
UM, I THINK IS INTERPRETING IT.
WE ASK FOR THE WAIVER BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE SORT OF HAD A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
WE NEED A WAIVER, BUT SO WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING FOR IT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DO.
SO, JEN, I THINK YOU ARE, YOUR INTERPRETATION WAS MEASURING THIS ALONG THE LENGTH, DISREGARDING BRODY.
IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, THAT IS CORRECT.
HOWEVER, WE DON'T OPPOSE WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE YOU ARE PROVIDING THE EMERGENCY ACCESS.
JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'LL DEFER, I'LL DEFER TO JEN'S JUDGMENT ON THAT.
HOW SHOULD YOU GUYS DO THIS EVERY DAY? WE
[00:15:03]
KNOW, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A WAIVER OR ARE YOU NOT LOOKING FOR, BASED ON THE FACT THAT JEN IS SAYING, THEY INTERPRET THAT WE NEED IT.WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE WAIVER AND THEY ARE SUPPORTING IT.
SO ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE CALLED A SANK FLANK COULD NOT BE LONGER THAN 600 FEET TO THE NEAREST INTERSECTION.
IF YOU CONSIDER THIS AN INTERSECTION, THEN WE TECHNICALLY WOULD NOT NEED THE WAIVER.
HOWEVER, JEN IS SAYING, SHE'S INTERPRETING IT TO BE THIS FULL LENGTH.
WE ARE PROPOSING BRODY AND IT WILL HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS OFF OF IT.
SO I THINK WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS, SINCE WE ARE PROPOSING IT WITH EMERGENCY ACCESS, SHE'S WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE DO WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THEM FROM HAVING TO JUSTIFY YOURSELF TO THE SUPERVISORS? YOU KNOW, THE WAY THE LANGUAGE READS IS YET OVER 600 FEET, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE SUPERVISORS JUSTIFY THE LONGER LENGTH.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A WAIVER FROM ON THE NUMBER OF FEET AND A WAIVER ON HAVING TO GO TO THE SUPERVISORS AND CASE.
BUT WE WOULD STILL GO TO THE SUPERVISORS ON JUNE 20TH.
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WAS LIKE A SEPARATE PROCESS, THE WAY IT READS.
IT JUST SAYS YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOURSELF TO GO OVER 600 FEET AND TO FURTHER EXPLAIN DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS IN THIS AREA AND TO GET UP TO GRADES SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT LENGTH WORK.
AND I CAN HAVE JOHN SORT OF EXPLAIN THIS IN MORE TECHNICAL DETAIL, BUT THE REASON THIS ISN'T PUSHED SHORTER IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET UP TO APPROPRIATE GRADE AND MAKE THAT WORK THROUGH THERE TO, TO ACTUALLY GET TO YEAH.
AND YOU DON'T WANT TO STREAM CROSSINGS BY HAVING ANOTHER ACCESS POINT OUT TO BRITAIN HOUSE ROAD.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE EMERGENCY ACCESS KIND OF TAKES CARE OF THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE, BUT YEAH, SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR A WAIVER.
UM, THE NEXT ONE ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF A CUL-DE-SAC AND THIS APPLIES, UM, AT ROADS BEING A, WHICH ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SHORTER.
IT SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A MINIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH OF 300 FEET.
UM, AND WE'RE REQUESTING A CUL-DE-SAC WAIVER FOR T TO HAVE 292 FEET INSTEAD OF 300 FEET.
SO IT'S REALLY PRETTY DIMINIMOUS IN, UM, THE LENGTH OF THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT ACTUALLY, AND AGAIN, EVERYBODY'S MEASURING THINGS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, BUT EITHER WAY WE THINK WE NEED TO REQUEST THE WAFER.
UM, BUT I THINK EVERYONE IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE.
AGAIN, THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, LOW TRAFFIC ROADS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF HOUSES ON THESE ROADS.
UM, AND JUST FROM THE TYPOGRAPHY, UM, PULLING THINGS AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCES IS BEHIND IT.
UM, THAT WAS THE BEST LAYOUT THAT WORKED IN THAT AREA.
UM, THE NEXT ONE IS NO, I DON'T, IT ISN'T HERE.
SO IT'S UNDER GILMORE COMMENT, NUMBER 10, UH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SNOW REMOVAL EASEMENTS IN THE TURNAROUND ROUND AREA OF A CUL-DE-SAC.
UM, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE 40 FEET LONG AND 15 FEET DEEP.
UM, THERE'S A VARIABLE WITH ONE AT THE END OF ROAD E UM, AND SO THERE IS AN, AND I DON'T KNOW, JOHN, IF YOU JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, THAT ONE, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL.
WE'RE NEVER GOING TO HEAR YOU ON THE VIDEO IF YOU'RE NOT ON THE MIC.
HE CONSULTANTS, UM, AT THE END OF ROAD E WHERE WE HAVE OUR EMERGENCY ACCESS, WE'RE LOSING SOME USABLE SPACE FOR A SNOW, UM, STORAGE EASEMENT.
SO WE'RE SQUEEZING IT, UM, A LITTLE BIT TO THE SIDE OF THE, OF THE, UM, BURNSY ACCESS.
AND THAT'S LIMITING US ON HAVING THE PROPER 40 FOOT WIDTH AND 15 FOOT DEPTHS.
AND SO REDUCING THE, UM, AND MY QUESTION, THE EXACT AREA WHERE REDUCING AN OFFHAND, BUT, UH, WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS, UH, AS DETRIMENTAL TO LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF AREA.
AND AGAIN, JEN, YOU'VE LOOKED AT THAT OR, YEAH, THAT IS ONE OF THE SHORTER ROADS.
SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT WAVE.
[00:20:01]
THESE ROADS AREN'T INTENDED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE TENT, WELL TOLD ME I HAVE THAT INTENTION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE TOWNSHIP'S INTENTION TO, TO TAKE THE ROADS.SO THEREFORE, ANY SNOW EASEMENTS OR WHERE THE SNOW GOES IS REALLY GOING TO BE ON THAT HOA, NOT ON THE TOWNSHIP.
TYPICALLY WE ASK FOR THAT WHEN WE'RE PLOWING THE ROADS AND THE BSB, WHEN THEY APPLY MY ROAD WHERE THEY WANT THIS NOTE TO BE, I TOLD THEM YOUR ADDRESS.
UM, WE ARE AWARE THAT WE, WE ANTICIPATED THE TOWNSHIP WOULD WANT THESE ROADS TO BE PRIVATE.
SO, SO THE NEXT ONE IS A, UM, WAIVER PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM GRADE AT ROAD A ROAD A IS A THROUGH STREET WITHOUT STOP, STOP SIGN CONTROL, AND ROAD B, WHICH COMES INTO IT IS STOP SIGN CONTROLLED.
SO JOHN'S, YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP AND EXPLAIN THIS ONE IN A LITTLE BIT? I'M ON 12.
UM, ROAD A AS IS, UH, THE STRAIGHT THROUGH NON-STOP ROAD WITH, WITH GREATER THAN 4% ROAD B, WHICH COMES INTO IT AS A STOP SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTION, AND WE'LL HAVE 4% SLOPE.
SO AS THESE ROADS, UH, VEHICLES APPROACH, A STOP SIGN, UM, THEY WILL HAVE A FLATTER AREA IN WHICH TO DO SO, UH, COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE ROAD A, WHICH IS THE STRAIGHT THROUGH ROAD WITHOUT A STOP SIGN.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE WITH IT A LITTLE BIT DEEPER.
IT WILL BE 4% DOWN NEAR THE INTERSECTION WITH RITTENHOUSE, BUT IT WON'T BE AT WHAT AN AREA I'LL FURTHER TOWARD THE GOALS, ZACK, UH, UP FURTHER, HE IS FROM 4% AND TRANSITIONS UP TOWARDS 8%.
I BELIEVE IT IS UP HERE IN A SECTION WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR A WAIVER.
AGAIN, 4% IS THEIR STOP CONTROL STEEPER THAN 4% THROUGH THE STRAIGHT NON-STOP CONTROLLED PORTION.
NO OBJECTION THERE SO THE NEXT ONE, UM, IS A 4% MAXIMUM STOP THE FRONT END ROUTE AT THE DRIVEWAYS.
IF YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE, I DON'T OKAY.
THAT ONE IS NUMBER 13 IN THE LETTER.
THESE ARE THE DRIVEWAYS TO THE PERSONAL RESIDENCES.
UM, AND THEY ARE HOUSES ALL ALL, OR EXCUSE ME ARE ALL FRONT ENTRY DRIVEWAYS, BUT NOT IN THE SIDE.
UM, AND FOR PROPER GRADING, THE WAY TOLE LIKES TO DO IT WITH PROPER DRAINS AWAY FROM THE HOUSE ELECT TO PICK THE HOUSES UP AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, WHICH MEANS STEEPER THAN A 4% GRADE.
WE WANT TO GO UP TO 6% FOR THESE HOUSES, FOR THESE DRIVEWAYS.
UM, AND FROM A, A VEHICLE ON THERE, IT REALLY DOESN'T ISN'T MUCH, BUT FOR RAISING THE HOUSE UP TO THE REAR, GETTING THE PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND IT, AND WE NEED TO BE THAT 2% DIFFERENCE.
UM, AS FAR AS, CAN YOU HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER? SO WE'RE ASKING A WAIVER FROM, AGAIN, IT'S ALL THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.
UM, NOT ALL OF THEM ARE GONNA BE OVER 4%, UH, BUT WE DO WANT IT FOR SOME OF THEM.
HOW ABOUT THAT NOTE THAT'S ON THERE APPEARS TO SLOPE DRIVEWAY 39 IS FLAT.
UM, SO THE NEXT ONE IS DRIVEWAY'S NOT LOCATED LESS THAN 40 FEET FROM AN INTERSECTION.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT GILMORE ACTUALLY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE, ALTHOUGH MCMAHON DOES.
AND THEY WERE STATED THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT IN THEIR LETTER.
BUT IF YOU JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN IT AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL VERY TECHNICAL.
IT'S NOT IN JEN'S REVIEW LETTER, IT'S IN OUR WAIVER REQUEST LIST.
IT'S IN, THEY JUST DID EVERYTHING BY BULLET POINT.
SO THIS IS SECTION 1 54, 19 8 2.
IF I CAN INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, WE TRANSITIONED TO A NEW FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
SO I MISS GETTING ANTHONY'S LETTER IN THERE.
AND I DIDN'T PRINT THAT OUT FOR THE PACKET.
YOU HAVE SAME THING WITH A WAIVER REQUEST LETTER.
THAT'S NOT IN THE PACKET THAT I PROVIDED FOR YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE BIG FAN LETTER.
SO W WHEN YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT WHILE BEEN LEAFING THROUGH, I THINK ANTHONY, ANTHONY GOT IT.
YOU ALL THE EMAIL, I JUST DIDN'T GET IT PUT INTO THE DISTRIBUTION PACKET BECAUSE OF THE NEW SYSTEM PUTTING IT UP AND HE'S REVIEWED IT, COMMENTED ON IT, AND YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN IT AND OKAY.
[00:25:01]
WITH THE DRIVERS ARE.AND SO WE CAN, UM, I'M IF ANTHONY'S APPROVED IT, IF HE'S GONE THROUGH IT, HE HAS NO OBJECTIONS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT COMMENT ON, OKAY.
UM, SO THE NEXT ONE IS ACTUALLY, UM, THE, WHAT, WHICH WE SORT OF, I TOUCHED ON IN THE OVERVIEW, BUT THIS IS A FORMAL REQUEST FOR A WAIVER.
SO THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS.
ONE IS WE ARE, THIS IS RELATING TO SIDEWALKS.
SO WHAT I TOUCHED ON AT THE BEGINNING IS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TRAIL IN SOME LOCATIONS ON RITTENHOUSE ROAD.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING SIDEWALKS.
SO TECHNICALLY YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SIDEWALKS.
SO WE WOULD BE REQUESTING A WAIVER TO DO TRAIL INSTEAD OF SIDEWALK AND SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT EARLIER.
I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE THE MCMAHON REVIEW LETTER, BUT I THINK THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT IN THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RITTENHOUSE ROAD, THERE'S ACTUALLY EXISTING TRAIL ALREADY.
UM, SO IT ACTUALLY GOES TO OUR NEW PROPOSED INTERSECTION, AND THEN WE'RE JUST DOING A LITTLE PIECE, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, AND THEREFORE WE WOULD NOT BE PUTTING IN SIDEWALK, BUT WE WOULD BE PUTTING IN TRAIL THERE.
AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE, UH, WE WOULD BE PUTTING IN TRAIL ON, UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE FRONTAGE.
AND THEN THAT WOULD LOOP UP INTO THE SITE TO CONNECT TO THE TOWNSHIP TRAIL SYSTEM NOW, INTERNALLY ON THE SITE.
SO LET'S STOP AND TALK ABOUT THE TRAILS FIRST.
YEAH, WELL, YEAH, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE SOUTH SIDE WHERE YOU SAID PAST THE ROAD, YOU'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A TRAIL THERE.
IT DOESN'T CONNECT ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, THE TRAIL ENDS RIGHT AT OUR PROPERTY LINE.
SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, AND IT'S AN ASPHALT TRAIL RIGHT ALONG HERE.
UH, WE'RE GOING TO TIE OUR SIDEWALK SYSTEM FROM OUR ROADIE TO THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO TIE THE CROSS-WALK ACROSS THE STREET TO IT.
AND THAT WILL CONNECT TO THE TRAIL SYSTEM ON THE NORTH SIDE RECORDING END, AS WELL AS THE SIDEWALK WE'RE PUTTING IN.
AND SO THE SECOND PART OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS IS WE ARE, AS I TOUCHED ON, WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING A SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE INTERNAL ROADWAYS, RATHER THAN BOTH.
UH, WE DO FEEL THAT THERE IS COVERAGE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT THERE'S CONNECTION, CONNECTIVITY TO TRAILS THROUGHOUT, UH, COMING IN ON THE LONGER ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE, ON ROAD G UH, THE ONES THAT THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'LL CALL THE WEST SIDE DOES NOT HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, HOUSES ON PART OF IT.
AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THAT CROSSING AREA, UM, THAT IS A WAIVER OR REQUESTING.
UM, SO I THINK THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, UP TO PLANNING, TO GIVE COMMISSION, TO GIVE US YOUR INPUT ON.
AND WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS, UH, MCMAHON OR, OR GILMORE COMMENTS ON THAT? YEAH, SO WE NOTED IN OUR LETTER THAT A WAIVER WOULD BE NEEDED, I GUESS, THE GRANT FROM THE TOWNSHIP POINT OF COMMISSION TO GRANT IT, UM, BASED ON THE TRAIL CONNECTIONS THAT ALEX AND HAS BEEN IDENTIFYING AND DISCUSSING, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
UH, SO WE SIMPLY WANTED TO POINT IT OUT.
AND IT'S TYPICALLY WHAT THE WORD IS CALLS FOR.
SO, UH, WE'RE SATISFIED WITH THE CONNECTIONS PROVIDED, UM, IN TERMS OF THE TRAILS AND EVERYTHING.
SO, UM, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OBVIOUSLY LIKE, YEAH, AWESOME.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT WITH THE TRAIL CONNECTIONS, ET CETERA, AND WAY THINGS ARE FLOWING.
UM, SO THE LAST I'M ALMOST DONE, I PROMISE THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, IT SORT OF RELATES TO THE ROAD WIDENING, UM, CONCRETE CURB WOULD BE REQUIRED ALONG ALL NEW AND WIDENED ROADS.
UM, WE ARE REQUESTING OUR WAIVER TO NOT PROVIDE CURB UNWRITTEN HOUSE SINCE THERE'S NOT CURB TODAY THAT JUST TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY WITH THE JOINING SECTIONS OF ROADWAY THAT EXISTS AND EXISTING DRAINING PET DRAINAGE PATTERNS.
SO, UM, I THINK ANTHONY, YEAH, WE HAD NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
AGAIN, IT'S A REQUIREMENT, BUT THE WAY GIVEN THE AESTHETICS AND THE REMAINDER OF THE ROAD IS ALL CONSISTENT.
SO WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
UM, THE NEXT ONE IS VERY TECHNICAL ITEM, WHICH NOBODY COMMENTED ON, BUT IT IS TO USE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SANITARY, SEWER DATA, YOUR PLAN.
SO I LET YOU I'LL DEFER TO YOU ON THAT ONE, SORRY, IT'S RIGHT HERE.
THIS ONE THAT'S MORE OR LESS THE ELEVATION SYSTEM, UM, THAT WILL, THAT WHETHER IT'S A STATE SOURCED ELEVATION SYSTEM OR THE SANITARY SEWER ELEVATION SYSTEM.
UM, RIGHT NOW I THINK OUR, OUR PLANS ARE TIED TO DO ME, UM, A STATE
[00:30:01]
SYSTEM AND THE CENTER.IT SHOULDN'T, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND IT MIGHT BE AS MUCH AS I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE ACTUAL CHANGE IS BETWEEN, UH, UH, I SEE IT'S A NATIONAL SYSTEM, WHICH WE'RE ON AND THE TOWNSHIP, UH, IF THEY WANT, WE CAN PUT IT ON THERE, BUT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING SO FAR TO DATE ON THE NATIONAL, UM, VERTICAL DATA.
UM, IT'S A SIMPLE EQUATION SAYING NORTH AMERICAN DATA IS A HUNDRED HERE, SAN FRANCISCO SYSTEM, MAYBE 99.3.
SO WE'RE OFF BY SEVEN HUNDREDS OR SEVEN TEXTS.
IT'S SOME SIMPLE AS AN EQUATION FOR THAT TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE SANITARY SEWER AUTHORITY AND THE TOWNSHIP TO, UM, BUT AGAIN, OUR, OUR PLANS ARE BASED ON A NATIONAL NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988, WHICH I'LL TELL YOU, I HAVE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES WITH, AND GILMORE DID NOT COMMENT ON IT IN THE SANITARY SEWER LETTER.
SO I GUESS IF IT WAS AN ISSUE, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE DEBT DATUM OVER.
UM, AND THEN THE VERY LAST WE WERE REQUESTING, WE ARE PROVIDING, UM, THE AMOUNT OF OPEN-SPACE RICARD ARE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING IT.
UM, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT THE OPEN SPACE HAS TO MEET.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT 50% OF THE DRY GROUND RECREATION USE AREA NOT EXCEED 2% OF FINISHED GRADE.
WE ARE REQUESTING A WEAVER JUST FROM THAT DISCREET COMPONENT OF THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS, UM, A 50% AREA THAT WOULD, CAN YOU GET ON THIS SITE? AND WE'RE NOT PROPOSING LIKE A PLAYFIELD OR ANYTHING HERE.
ANYWAY, IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL TRAILS.
I CAN LET YOU KNOW THAT I SPOKE TO THE FIRE MARSHALL LATE IN THE DAY TODAY FROM HIS LETTER IN, I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY TO NOW HE HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS AND HE'S COMFORTABLE WITH THE DIRECTION THEY'VE TAKEN.
UM, HE HAS A FEW THINGS HE WANTS TO LOOK AT.
AGAIN, MORE SPECIFICALLY, HE JUST RAN OUT OF TIME, LIKE TYPICAL, HE GOT CALLED AWAY FOR SOMETHING.
UM, HE'LL LOOK AT THAT AND HE'LL ISSUE THE LETTER IN A COUPLE OF DAYS, BUT HE THOUGHT THE PLANS AS THEY WERE DRAWN NOW SUBMITTED NOW WE'RE FINE.
AND THE REST OF IT, WASN'T MUCH OF AN ISSUE THAT COULDN'T GET WORKED OUT BY FINAL.
UM, SO IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE LETTER, I WOULD SAY GENERALLY THE OTHER, THE OTHER TECHNICAL COMMENTS ARE WELL COMPLY.
THERE WAS A COMMENT IN THERE WHICH WE WILL WORK OUT WITH GILMORE ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE SITE IS BALANCED.
UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CONCERNED ABOUT IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IN OR REMOVE SOIL THAT IT WAS THAT IT WASN'T BALANCED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD DAMAGE A ROAD, THAT WE WOULD BE FIXING IT.
UM, AND WE WILL WORK THROUGH THAT ISSUE AND MAKE SURE FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT THAT THAT IS ALL COORDINATED APPROPRIATELY.
UM, ALISON I HAD A QUESTION ON THE, UNDER THE GENERAL DESCRIPTION ON PAGE ONE OF THE GILMORE LETTER, UM, HOW, HOW MANY HOMES NOW ARE, ARE YOU GUYS UP TO, OR WHAT'S THE PLAN? IT'S 54 HOMES AND THAT'S A CHANGE RIGHT.
AND IT'S NO, TH TH WE HAVE TO SUBMIT A BI-RITE PLAN AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION VERSUS THE CLUSTER PLAN.
THE BUY-RITE SHOWS 49 UNITS, BUT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN PROPOSING THE CLUSTER, WHICH IS 54.
NOW I SEE WHAT THE COMMENT IS SAYING HERE.
UM, ANSWER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YEAH.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO HERE, BRUV TO SEND THIS TO THE SUPERVISORS? YEAH.
YOU'D BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, UM, FOR, UH, APPROVAL ON THE PLAN AND THE REQUESTED WAIVERS.
THERE'S NO OPPOSED WAIVERS COMING OUT OF THAT LIST THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH, UM, AT ALL, I'LL BE MEETING WITH, UM, ALISON AND STAFF AND WE'LL, WE WILL, WE'LL DISCUSS, UH, FEES CONNECTED TO THE GRANT AND WAIVERS.
YOU GUYS DON'T REALLY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
WITH THIS PLAN, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLAN AS, UH, AS PRESENTED, UH, AND APPROVING ALL THE WAIVERS TO BE SENT TO THE SUPERVISORS OR A NEXT STEP, BUT HE WANTS TO LIBERTY, UH, PROJECT 20 0 9 0 4 1 PETE ALMONDS.
I'LL MAKE A MOUSSE, PROVE IT TO THE SUPERVISORS WITH APPROVAL OF ALL THE WAIVERS.
[00:35:03]
OKAY.SO I GOT A MOTION FOR GILLY TO APPROVE A PLAN 8 0 1 DASH 3 6 2 DASH OH OH FIVE.
UH, APPROVE THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED WITH ALL WAIVERS THAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED.
THERE'S NO, UH, OBJECTION TO WAIVERS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
AND DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES? THE OTHER QUESTIONS, IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF SUBMITTING THIS TO THE SUPERVISOR, SAY AYE.
THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY.
UH, COULD YOU SEND ME THAT EQUATION THOUGH, WHEN YOU GET IT? IT NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS 1 68 BECHTLE ROAD, MINOR SUBDIVISION WHO'S HERE.
UM, MARTINEZ LOBE, I'M THE LANDOWNER.
UM, OUR ENGINEER WAS UNABLE TO MAKE IT, SO I I'LL TRY TO MOVE HIM JUST SINCE YOU'RE NEW TO THIS, I'M GOING TO RUN YOU THROUGH, UM, YOU RECEIVED THE LETTERS THAT ARE SHOWN UP THERE.
I KNOW YOU GOT THEM VIA EMAIL.
UM, SO YOU RECEIVED THE LETTERS FROM THE, ALL THE COMMENTS.
THOSE ARE THE, THOSE, IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS, WHICH I, I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE MUCH, THERE'LL BE BASED ON THAT LETTER, ON THOSE LETTERS.
UM, GENERALLY ALL WE'RE GOING TO ASK IS YOU JUST SORT OF STATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND WHY YOU WANT TO DO IT, AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, I MADE THAT, AND THEN THIS IS YOUR ACTUAL PLAN, RIGHT? YEP.
SO WE LIVE IN THE PROPERTY UP FRONT, UH, ON MAPLE ROAD.
AND RECENTLY THEY DEVELOPED THE, IT WAS ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT HOMES BACK THERE.
I THINK IT'S CALLED BAKE FULL FORM.
AND, UH, WE JUST GOT THE IDEA SINCE ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS IN THERE.
WE, WE THOUGHT WE COULD, UH, SPLIT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
UM, SAVES ME TIME MOWING AND WE MIGHT, UM, BE ABLE TO MAKE IT USEFUL TO SOMEONE.
SO, SO THE, THE PART THAT IS UP TO A HOPWOOD ROAD, YOU SAY THERE WAS HOUSING.
SO IF HE GOES STRAIGHT DOWN THAT ROAD, THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT BACK THERE.
SO, SO THEY PUT IN ALL SORTS AND EVERYTHING ALREADY PULL THEM ALL UP, DOWN THAT ROAD.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SUBDIVIDE YOUR LOT AND THEN SELL THAT LOCK TO SOMEBODY OR WHOEVER.
AND THIS IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION WE'RE RUNNING ACROSS A LOT OF THESE LATELY.
UM, YOU KNOW, SINCE IT'S ONLY, SINCE IT'S ONLY PROPOSING ONE LOT, WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE ONE HOUSE.
THEY ONLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS ONCE.
UM, IF THERE'S PLANNED CHANGES, WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE.
BUT I DON'T IN READING THE LETTER SAY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED TO CHANGE ON THE PLANS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAD THE LETTERS, BUT I ASSUME, OH YEAH, HERE ARE THE ARMS. SORRY I MISSED.
IS THERE ANYTHING, UH, JEN OR, UH, ANTHONY HAD IN THIS ONE THAT WE NEED TO BE? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
NOTHING FROM JEN, BUT YOU ANTHONY, NOTHING ON MY END HERE WHEN YOU'RE IN HERE.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO WAIVERS.
IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT, STRAIGHT UP SUBDUED, STRAIGHT UP SPLITTER.
WELL, WE HAVE TO GIVE HIM SOMETHING.
WELL, YOU KNOW, HE'S NOT LONG ENOUGH, RIGHT.
OR YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY LAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN OTHER PARCEL YOU'RE, YOU'RE SITTING ON IT A WHILE OR YOU'RE SITTING ON IT FOR AWHILE.
SO I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS SPLITTING, UM, OF THIS PROPERTY WITH NO, UH, ISSUES WITH ANY OF THAT, ANY OF THE PLANE.
AND THERE'S NO PLAN RIGHT NOW.
IT'S JUST, WE'RE GOING TO SPLIT IT RIGHT NOW AND I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT.
BOB'S MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS, UH, THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAN, UM, WHICH HAS NO PLAN.
YOU'LL, HE'LL BE HAPPY TO COME BACK FOR THAT, RIGHT? NO, THAT THAT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED.
IF ANY LINK, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SOMEONE, IF HE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND SOMEONE COMES INTO BUY AND BUYS THE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD SUBMIT A BUILDING PLAN SHOWING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
AND THEN WE WOULD REVIEW, WE WOULD DO AN INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE GRADING.
THAT'S ALL WE WOULD REALLY, WE NEED TO COME BACK THROUGH THE WHOLE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK FOR NOW.
WELL, WE'VE GOT A MOTION FOR BOB.
[00:40:01]
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE.YOU'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MEETING TO DO THE SAME SORT OF THING FOR THEM THAT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION.
THEY WILL MAKE THE FORMAL VOTE AT THEIR MEETING ON THE 20TH.
THAT BRINGS US TO OUR LAST, UH, ISSUE ON THE END OF TONIGHT.
IS DID SHE OKA MINOR SUBDIVISION, A WAIVER REQUEST? THERE'S SOMEBODY HERE, UH, REPRESENTING MY NAME IS MICHAEL SOCIO JR.
AND YOU GUYS HAVE PROBABLY SEEN MY SON HERE MOST OF THE TIME.
UM, SO HE'S BEEN HANDLING THIS, HOWEVER, HE WAS AT ANOTHER VARIANCE MEETING TONIGHT, SO I GOT COME TO INITIAL.
UM, BUT BASICALLY WE ARE REQUESTING A WAIVER, UM, OR, UH, OUR SUBDIVISION, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE, UH, THERE WAS A LETTER FROM MCMANN.
UM, NUMBER FOUR, A NOTE ADDED, UM, MUST BE ADDED TO THE FORMAL SUBDIVISION PLAN STATING THAT THE, UH, AREA BETWEEN THE EXISTING RIGHT AWAY AND THE ULTIMATE RIGHT AWAY ALONG SECOND AVENUE AND HEFNER ROAD SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR FUTURE TAKING THE DEDICATION TO THE AUTHORITY, HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ROAD AS REQUESTED IN SECTION 1 54, 18 E UH, THREE OF THE SUBDIVISION LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
UM, SO WE'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER, UM, UH, FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS ORDINANCE OF 1 54 17 H THAT, UH, THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PLANNED DURING THIS SUBDIVISION AT THE TIME.
AND WE FEEL THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS WAVE, THIS, UM, UH, TO BE IN THERE AND WE'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR IT.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT AT A LATER DATE.
WE FEEL LIKE IT COULD BE HANDLED THEN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THEM.
THE BIGGEST THING WE'RE DOING FOR THIS SUBDIVISION IS WE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY TOGETHER, MY SON AND I, SO THAT HE COULD BUILD HIS HOUSE ONLY WAY HE WAS ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO THAT WAS IF I WENT IN ON IT WITH HIM AND SPLIT THIS PROPERTY.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO NOW IS SPLIT THIS PROPERTY SO THAT HE HAS HIS SIDE AND I HAVE MY SON.
WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DEVELOPING ANY OF THE, UH, I GUESS, COULD YOU POINT ON THE MAP WHERE THIS, UH, RIGHT AWAY IS THAT, UH, SO I COULD GET MY AIR IN HERE.
NO HEFNER ROAD AFTER ROAD IS, UM, PERIOD UP HERE WAS A LOW IN THE BACK PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY HERE AND THEN DOWN THIS WAY.
SO HELP ME, JEFF, WHERE'S THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE, DEPENDING ON THE WIDTH OF, OF HAVING A ROAD, WHICH I DON'T HAVE MEMORIZED.
AND THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, RIGHT.
OF WAY ON OUR RIGHT AWAY MAP, THAT THAT IS REQUIRED.
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TOWNSHIP PROPERTY AT THIS POINT, IF WE EVER WENT IN THERE TO WIDEN HALF IN A ROAD, OH YEAH, IT'S OURS.
AND IT'S GENERALLY PRETTY STANDARD THAT BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT'S THERE, WE JUST ASK THAT IT SHOW UP ON PLAN.
SO IT'S CLEAR FOR GOING IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT'S NOT DEVELOPABLE THAT IT IS PART OF A FUTURE ROAD EXPANSION.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE NOTE.
I DON'T, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS EVEN A BIG DEAL.
THIS, THIS IS A NOTE, I MEAN, THAT'S STANDARD PRACTICE, RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, SO YOU GOT YOUR LEGAL RIGHT AWAY.
YOU'RE OLDER, BUT RIGHT AWAY, YOU'RE TELLING PEOPLE THAT'S WHERE THE STATE ESTABLISHED THE FULL WIDTH OF THE ROAD A LONG TIME AGO.
AND YOU'RE TELLING PEOPLE DON'T BUILD IN THERE BECAUSE IF WE COME NEED IT LATER, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CLAIM THAT YOU BUILD A THING THERE.
AND ALL YOU'RE ASKING NOW IS TO HAVE IT MARKED ON THE PLAN.
SO I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S, WHY WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT, UH, UNDER OUR IMPRESSION THAT WAS LIKE, THEY WANTED TO TAKE THAT LAND.
THAT WAS NOT, I GUESS THE WAY WE SAW IT AS WAS NOT WAS OUR LAND, OR YOU'RE NOT, OR YOU WERE LOOKING FOR DEDICATION.
I WAS, AS I EXPLAINED TO YOUR SON, WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE NOTE AND I EXPLAINED THE, THAT THERE'S A RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THERE'S AN ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THAT LAND WHILE IT'S THERE AND YOU CAN WALK ON IT TODAY.
AND IT'S NOT A ROAD TODAY THAT IF THE TOWNSHIP WERE TO COME IN AND BUILD THE ROADS, THAT'S THE ULTIMATE ULTIMATE WIDTH OF THE ROAD AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE A LONG, LONG TIME AGO.
UM, AND IT WAS JUST LETTING PEOPLE KNOW YOU AS THE OWNER AND, AND FUTURE DEVELOPERS THAT THAT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON BEHIND THE NOTE, YOUR SON AT THE TIME FELT THAT THAT
[00:45:01]
WAS THAT IF WE WANTED THAT PROPERTY, WE WOULD, SHOULD COME AND PAY FOR IT.AND I SAID, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THAT'S NOT HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
WE WENT BACK AND FORTH OVER A COUPLE OF EMAILS ABOUT IT.
AND I SAID, LOOK, WE CAN, WE CAN ARGUE SEMANTICS HERE.
BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT THIS ON YOUR PLANS, HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
AND, AND I NEED A FORMAL LETTER REQUESTING THE WAIVER AND WHAT, WHAT THE PROCESS IS.
BUT THIS ROAD, MANY ROAD IN THAT DEANSHIP IS A STANDARD, RIGHT? IT'S NOTHING.
IT'S NOTHING JUST UNUSUAL TO HIS BROTHER.
AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO TAKE THE PROPERTY NOW.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO WIDEN THE ROAD.
NOW THAT'S JUST A NOTE FOR IN THE FUTURE.
IF THE ROAD IS TO BE WIDENED THE RIGHT OF WAY, IS THERE, IT'S IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT'S ALREADY THERE TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN.
AND WE'VE SEEN THIS WHERE WE'VE DONE SUBDIVISIONS AND THERE'S THAT BEAUTIFUL STONE WALL, RIGHT ALONG THE ROAD.
IT'S IN THIS AREA WHERE WE'RE REFERRING TO, WHAT DO YOU DO? I MEAN, IT'S A SHAME TO TAKE THE WALL DOWN.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S PROBABLY IN THE WAY OF SOME FUTURE UTILITIES THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE, IT'S YOURS, YOU MAINTAIN IT.
SO WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TELLING ME, AND THIS IS, LIKE I SAID, I'M KINDA JUMPED INTO THE MIDDLE OF THIS.
SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT RIGHT AWAY IS ALREADY THERE.
SO THERE'S REALLY NO ORDINANCES.
TH THE ONLY ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THAT BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING A FORMAL PLAN IN PLACE AND WE'RE RECORDING A FORMAL DOCUMENT, WE WANT IT NOTED ON THAT DOCUMENT THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS THERE.
AND WE KNOW THAT THE DEPTH OF THE ROADWAYS IDENTIFIED ON YOUR PLAN.
THE, SO DOES THE, DO YOU GUYS KNOW IF THE LAND BEFORE THIS, THAT THAT NOTE WAS ALREADY ON THERE ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S EVER BEEN A FORMAL PLAN.
YOU MAY HAVE YOUR DEED, BUT THERE MAY NOT BE A FORMAL PLAN OF, TO THIS LEVEL FOR YOUR PROPERTY.
NORMALLY IT'S, IT'S WHEN YOU GO TO SUBDIVIDE OR WHEN YOU GO TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY, YOU HAVE YOUR PROPERTY SURVEYED, AND THAT'S WHEN THESE THINGS ARE IDENTIFIED, WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HOUSE OR A LARGER PARCEL LIKE YOURS, AND YOU GETTING THAT COULD HAPPEN IN ANY ROAD, LIKE HALF THE ROAD IN THE TOWNSHIP.
IT'S THE, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ULTIMATE RIGHT AWAY AS THE STATE IDENTIFIED WITH THE, THE ROAD, THEN THERE'S ILLEGAL RIGHT AWAY.
THAT'S CURRENT USE USE THAT DIFFERENCE, THAT NUMBER OF FEET BETWEEN ULTIMATE AND WHAT'S CURRENT IS AN EXERCISE IN ENGINEERING WHERE SOMEBODY HAS TO GO OUT AND DETERMINE THAT.
AND WE'RE GETTING ONE STEP AHEAD OF THAT.
SO WE KNOW WHAT THAT ADDITIONAL WIDTH IS.
IF IN THE FUTURE THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK THERE AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEDICATED.
IT'S JUST A MATHEMATICAL EXERCISE NOW TO AVOID HAVING TO DO THAT LATER.
SO THE WORLD'S ON NOTICE IF YOU SELL THERE'S PLANS THAT FLIP, EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS EVERYBODY'S ON NOTICE.
HERE'S THE REMAINING RIGHT AWAY.
SO BASICALLY IF I LOOK BACK AT A PLAN BEFORE OUR PLAN, UM, IF I GO BACK, PROBABLY NOT, PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T HAD A SURVEY DONE, OR THE PREVIOUS OWNERS DIDN'T HAVE A SURVEY DONE TO THIS LEVEL.
MAYBE PICO DID WHEN THEY PUT THE LINES THROUGH.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR PROPERTY, BUT WHAT IS IN PLACE AND HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THE TOWNSHIP IS WHAT'S CALLED A RIGHT OF WAY MAP.
RIGHT? AND IT'S A MAP THAT IDENTIFIES ALL OF THE ROADS IN THE TOWNSHIP AND SAYS WHEN THE ULTIMATE WIDTH OF THIS ROAD IS X.
SO FOR HALF AN HOUR ROAD, IT'S, SINCE IT'S COME ON A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, HELP ME OUT HERE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS 4 40, 40 FEET.
SO THE ULTRA, SO THE ROAD IS 40 FEET WIDE AND THAT'S 20 FEET FROM CENTER LINE.
SO YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE OFF THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE WIDTH OF HAMPTON ROAD.
IF IT WERE TO EVER BE WIDENED.
IT'S THE SAME THING WITH SECOND AVENUE.
I THINK IT'S IDENTIFIED ON SECOND AVENUE IS NOT, YES.
JUST NOT IDENTIFIED ON HAFNER BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO PLAN FOR IT.
THERE'S BEEN NO PLAN SUBMITTED THE LEGALLY, SHOWING IT ON THE PLAN DOES NOT AFFECT YOU AWAIT A TAKING OF THE PROPERTY, YOUR SON, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR SON IS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IF YOU SHOW OUT ON THE PLAN THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS TAKEN IT RIGHT, BUT THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, IT WOULD AT 20 FEET WOULD BE FOR THOSE PEOPLE AND THE OTHER PROPERTIES TOO, THAT'D BE, THAT'D BE THERE 20 FEET, RIGHT? YOU ONLY TO BE 20 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE, LIKE I'VE SAID YOUR PROBLEM.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE NOT DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS HAS NO EFFECT FOR YOU OTHER THAN IT'S A LINE ON A, ON A PLAN, RIGHT? IF YOU EVER GO TO DEVELOP, IF YOU OR YOUR SON EVER GO TO DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE, FIVE, 10, MAYBE 40 YEARS, HOPEFULLY WHEN YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T USE IT AS A HUNTING GROUND ANYMORE, THEN WHOEVER'S DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO GO IN AND BUILD TO THAT ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY.
JUST LIKE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH THE FIRST
[00:50:01]
APPLICANT HERE, THERE ARE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE ROAD THAT ARE WIDENED AND CERTAIN PARTS THAT AREN'T, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT GETS DETERMINED WHEN YOU SEE WHAT IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS ON A PROPERTY.SO DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO IMPACT WHAT HAFNER ROAD BECOMES IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT? AND THE NOTES STAYS FOR FUTURE DEDICATION, NOT, NOT DEDICATION AT THIS TIME.
AND I, I DON'T EVEN THINK, HONESTLY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANY RE-ENGINEERING OF THE, I THINK IF YOU WERE TO ADD A SURVEY NOTE TO THE LEFT SAYING THAT ANY FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY IS DEDICATED, WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE WAS OF THAT YOU READ.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THIS.
I'M NOT LOOKING FOR YOU TO DIE, TO HAVE IT RE SURVEYED AROUND THE EDGE TO SAY, IT'S X, IT'S A IT'S IT'S THIS DISTANCE HERE.
I'M NOT EXPECTING YOU TO GO TO JUST A REVISION TO THE NOTES OF THE PLAN SAYING THAT ANY RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE DEDICATED IN, CAN BE DEDICATED IN THE FUTURE.
NOW YOU'RE ALSO, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO DO.
YOU'RE ALSO WELCOME TO COME TO THE BOARD AND ASK THEM FOR THE WAIVER TO WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS AT THIS POINT IS THEY WILL OFFER YOU, IF YOU CONTINUE, THEY WILL OFFER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL KNOW WHAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS.
AND THEN YOU CAN COME AND MAKE YOUR CASE TO THE BOARD SUPERVISORS ON THE 20TH ON.
AND THEY CAN DETERMINE IF THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A WAIVER OR NOT.
THEY'RE THE ULTIMATE DECIDING AUTHORITY.
THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING BODY.
BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT, THAT RIGHT AWAY, IS THERE NO MATTER WHAT ANYWAY, SO YES.
SO I THINK FOR THIS BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE NO ACTION AND RIGHT.
I MEAN, YOU GUYS WANT TO VOTE.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO MAKE RECOMMEND.
WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, MOM? OKAY.
SINCE YOU ASKED, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PUT THE NOTE THAT JEFF HAD MENTIONED ON THE PLAN.
HAVE YOU PUT THAT ON THE PLAN SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESURVEY THE PROPERTY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR CALCULATE EXACTLY WHERE IT WOULD BE? WOULDN'T IT JUST BE EASIER TO SAY WE DON'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE SIMPLER THAT WE'RE OUT OF IT.
THAT, AND THEN HE COULD DECIDE IF YOU STILL ARE NOT HAPPY, YOU COULD COME THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TO THEM THAT WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE WAIVER, BUT YOU COULD STILL MAKE A CASE TO THE SUPERVISORS IF YOU WANT.
NOW IF WE DON'T, UM, DO WE NEED TO GO TO THAT? IF WE'RE OKAY.
IF YOU JUST, I MEAN, IF YOU OR YOUR SON GIVES ME A CALL AND JUST SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO WITHDRAW THE WAIVER REQUEST, ALL YOU'LL NEED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS SUBMIT A PLAN.
I'LL CHECK THE PLAN FOR THE NOTE, AND THEN WE JUST HAVE TO GET IT SIGNED BY YOU, AND THEN WE CAN GET IT RECORDED.
AND THEN YOU'RE GOOD TO GO WITH SUBDIVIDED.
BUT IF YOU D IF YOU'RE NOT WITHDRAWING IT NOW, THEN WE SHOULD, YOU SHOULD GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
NO RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO, UH, TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
SO I WOULD ACTUALLY, THERE'S REALLY NO DISRESPECT TO YOU, SIR.
I WOULD ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND TO THEM THAT THAT'D BE DENIED.
IF YOU, ASSUMING YOU AGREE WITH ME, I SAID, DO WE AGREE TAKING NO ACTION MEANS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UH, YOU'RE NOT TAKING AN OPINION AND KIND OF WHAT I MEANT BY TAKING NO, ACTUALLY THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH THIS.
I THINK IT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE STATED.
I MEAN, IT'S SETTING A PRECEDENT.
WE DON'T WANT TO SET THAT PERSON.
I DISAGREE OR MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE WAIVER REQUESTS.
SHOULD WE GET A MOTION TO DENY THIS WAIVER REQUEST? DO I HAVE A SECOND GILEAD HAS SECONDED ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DO HAVE ONE FOR CLARIFICATION TO THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION.
JEFF, COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY, WE'VE SEEN THIS AT A PREVIOUS POSITION AND WE DIDN'T, THEN IT MOVE FORWARD.
THE APPLICATION IS STILL ACTIVE BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF LOTS, CORRECT? NO, YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OR VOTED APPROVAL OF THE, THE MINOR SUBDIVISION.
THE ISSUE WAS THAT WHEN WE WENT TO CLEAN UP THE MINOR SUBDIVISION FROM THE COMMENTS, THE ONE OUTSTANDING COMMENT WAS THERE WAS, THIS NOTE WAS NOT ON THE PLANS.
UM, OH, I, I RECALL WHEN YOUR SON WAS HERE, THE REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION WAS STOPPED BECAUSE WE RECOMMENDED GOING TO LOT NUMBER TWO, AND WE HAD THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION WAS ARTHUR, MULTIPLE LOTS.
AND THE ACREAGE DOESN'T ADD UP.
AND THAT'S WHERE IT ENDED WITH.
I THINK THAT WAS, I THINK THAT WAS, I THINK, USED TO RECOMMEND IT APPROVAL.
AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS CLEARED UP FROM OUR STANDPOINT, FROM AN INTERNAL STAFF STANDPOINT.
SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SUBDIVISION.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR THIS NOTE AT THIS POINT, AND YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON IT? IF NOT, TAKE A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF, UH, DENYING THIS WAIVER REQUEST, SAY AYE.
[00:55:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.I HOPE THAT WORKS OUT FOR YOU.
UM, I HAVE TO FINISH THE MEETING, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME A COUPLE MINUTES SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TO JUST GET THE NOTE PUT ON THE PLAN AND THAT TO YOU, WE STILL HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD.
NO, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
IF YOU'RE WITHDRAWING EVERYTHING.
IF YOU WITHDRAW EVERYTHING TOMORROW AND GIVE ME FOUR COPIES OF THE PLANS WITH YOUR SIGNATURES ON THEM, WHERE IT'S REQUIRED, THERE'S A SIGNATURE BLOCK ON THERE.
I THINK I HOPE, UM, ONCE YOU SIGN THAT AND SUBMIT IT TO THE TOWNSHIP, I'LL GET MR. STARLING, OUR CHAIRMAN TO SIGN IT AND THEN WE'LL GIVE IT TO JOE AND HE'LL GET IT RECORDED.
AND WE'RE NOT, UH, BY THE WAY YOUR SON'S HOUSE IS REALLY NICE.
[FUTURE AGENDA DISCUSSION]
FOR JUNE 15TH.ARE WE ON FOR THAT JEFF OR, WELL, I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
LET ME JUST RUN THROUGH SORT OF THE STATUS OF, CAUSE I REALIZED THIS LIST GOT A WHOLE LOT LONGER SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, UM, AUTO ZONE RIGHT NOW.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE.
I HAVE NOT GOTTEN AN APPLICATION FROM THEM AT THIS POINT.
SO THAT'S STILL ON SORT OF HOLD 'EM UNTIL THEY'RE LOW TILL THEY GET THE VARIANCE.
I GUESS THAT'S THE PLANT THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH FIRST, THE DIMMI EQUITIES AND 3 57 GREENWOOD.
THOSE PLANS ARE BEING SORT OF INTERNALLY REVIEWED IT'S FINAL PLANS.
IT'S KIND OF CLEANING UP SOME SMALL ENGINEERING DETAILS.
UM, SO THOSE DON'T NEED TO BE ON THE 15TH OR I THINK WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR REVISION.
SO NOT ANYTIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE AMELIA STREET TOWNHOMES, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING NEW ON THEM.
AND ACTUALLY I MEANT TO REACH OUT TO THEM IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS AND ASK THEM TO WITHDRAW THIS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ALMOST A YEAR.
IT'S BEEN A YEAR SINCE WE'VE GOTTEN A SUBMISSION.
IT'S BEEN NINE MONTHS SINCE THEY'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF US.
IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO EITHER SUBMIT SOMETHING NEW OR REVISE IT OR A WITHDRAWAL.
IT GEO IS A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, AND A MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE PIECE ON RIDGE PIKE.
IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE SELF STORAGE FACILITY IS.
IT'S WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT IT'S TO THE LEFT.
UM, THEY HAD A RECENT MEETING WITH, UM, RESIDENTS.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE THE RECEPTION WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE, BUT, UM, I'M NOT UNDER ANY PRESSURE TO PUT THIS ON THE, ON THE AGENDA YET.
UM, WE'RE SORT OF WAITING FOR A, UH, WELL, WE ARE WAITING FOR THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD AT THIS POINT TO SEE SORT OF WHERE WE MOVE FORWARD.
UM, SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT MEETING.
WE COULD, UM, HAVE THE, THE OLD MILL MINOR SUBDIVISION AND MAYBE THE TWO 10 MINGO ROAD, MINOR SUBDIVISION JUST TO CLEAN THOSE OUT IF YOU WANT TO ON THE 15TH.
UM, I DON'T THINK I HAVE REVIEWS ON THEM YET, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO PUT STRESS ON GILMORE MCMAHON SO WE COULD HAVE THOSE TWO, UH, THERE'S 1 72 HOPWOOD ROAD THAT PLAN HAS COME BACK IN.
THEY'VE REVISED SOME OF THE WORK FROM OUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT IN MY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT WITH ALISON SHE'S SORT OF LOOKING AT A JULY 6TH MEETING, UH, FOR, FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE AND THEN THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM PARK HOUSE, UM, THAT WILL BE, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THEIR ATTORNEY AND ACTUALLY I MAY HAVE JOE DO THIS TO SORT OF SEE IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH COMING ON THE SIXTH AND MAKING AN INTRODUCTION AND LETTING SOME OF THE RESIDENTS TALK BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF THAT AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THE RESIDENTS SAY.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT SAYS AND SORT OF START THAT PROCESS.
NOT EXPECTING TO GET REVIEWS OR ANY SORT OF ACTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE LIKE WE'VE DONE BEFORE.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE MULTIPLE MEETINGS TO GET THROUGH A LOT OF COMMENTS AND A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT SUBMITTED A PLAN.
THEY HAVE SUBMITTED PLANS AND THAT'S WHAT I EMAILED YOU.
WE'RE ALL, WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT IT.
SO IT'S DIFFERENT IN THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ZONING CHANGES THIS TIME.
SO IT'S SUBMITTED AS A BI-RITE PLAN AND WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT IT TO MAKE SURE SEE WHETHER WE AGREE THAT IT IS A BI-RITE PLAN.
UM, FIRST CURSORY, LOOK, IT LOOKED CLOSE TO THAT.
SO, BUT WE'RE NOT COMMITTED TO THAT YET.
UM, BUT IT HAS A WHOLE DIFFERENT DYNAMIC BY THEM NOT ASKING FOR AN ORDINANCE CHANGE BECAUSE THE FIRST PLAN HAD A CORRESPONDING REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS DISCRETIONARY.
WHEREAS HERE WE'RE JUST PROCESSING ANOTHER PLAN.
I DIDN'T ACTUALLY LOOK THIS UP, BUT I KIND OF WAS UNDER THE OPINION THAT SOME OF THAT LAND WAS PARKLAND.
NO, NO ZONE NO, IT'S IT'S, IT IS ZONED OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION, BUT IT STILL HAS THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY.
AND THAT IS THE ZONING LANGUAGE THAT THEY'VE APPLIED.
AND WE'RE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THIS TO ENSURE IT COMPLETE, TO SEE WHERE IT COMPLIES OR DOES NOT COMPLY.
SO, UM, IT WAS ZONED OPEN-SPACE
[01:00:01]
CONSERVATION AT SOME POINT, AND WE CAN GO INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THAT, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS SORT OF A SHOT IN THE DARK AT ONE POINT.AND DIDN'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING AT THE TIME.
AND IT STILL DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A COLOR ON THE ZONING BECAUSE THE INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT STILL APPLIES.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, THE, UM, THE WAY THE INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY IS STATED IS THAT IF IT APPLIES ONLY, IT APPLIES, IT, IT SUPERSEDES THE UNDERLYING ZONING.
SO THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION IS JUST NEVER REALLY BEEN IN PLAY, UH, FOR THIS IT'S JUST THERE, EVEN IF IT DIDN'T SUPERSEDE THE UNDERLYING ZONING, THE APPLICANT IS SAYING I'M PROCEEDING UNDER THE OVERLAY.
I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE, THE INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT OVERLAY.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WE'LL DO IS ROAD AND VON THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY COME IN AT ONE TIME, UM, THEY HAVE A TENTATIVE APPROVAL.
THE BOARD HAS GIVEN THEM APPROVAL ON THE TENTATIVE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED THAT YOU RECOMMENDED, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IN SINCE THEN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON IT.
I DRIVE BY IT PROBABLY AS FREQUENTLY AS YOU DO.
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OUT THERE DOING ANY MORE SURVEY WORK OR ANY MORE RESEARCH ON THE PROPERTY.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE AT THIS POINT.
I KNOW THAT THEY FELT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.
THEY NEEDED TO DO THE PLANS BASED ON OUR REVIEW LETTERS.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING OR DONE ANYTHING AS FAR AS YOU KNOW.
NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE, NO INITIAL MEETING NOW.
AND I SEE YOU DON'T HAVE THEM ON YOUR LIST.
SO YOU KINDA KNOW, I, I DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE AN ACTIVE PLAN WHILE WE KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE.
I DON'T HAVE AN ACTIVE APPLICATION IF I DON'T.
CAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS THAT SORT OF, THAT GRAY AREA BETWEEN WHEN A TENTATIVE PLAN ENDS AND THEY SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAN, WE KNOW THERE'S A PLAN COMING AND WE KNOW DEVELOPMENT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT I DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE AN ACTIVE APPLICATION AT THAT POINT.
OH, BUT YOU DON'T THINK IT'S COMPLETELY DEAD.
YOU JUST THINK IT'S, UH, I, I NEVER THINK IT'S COMPLETELY DEAD.
JUST DOESN'T JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.
WOULDN'T THEY DID DO SOME DIGGING OUT THERE, SOME KIND OF TEST HOLES, FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS BACK AFTER THE APP, YOU COULD SEE THE HOLES THEY DUG DONE AND THEN THEY BACK-FILLED THEM.
SO WHAT THEY WERE DOING, THEY WEREN'T PLAYING IN THE SAND AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THE MEETING ON THE 15TH AND PUT SPRING FORD SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TWO 10 MINGO ROAD, MINOR SUBDIVISIONS.
THAT'D BE A FAIRLY SHORT MEETING.
WE CAN PROBABLY BUST THROUGH THEM IN A MATTER OF MINUTES.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.
YOU GUYS ALL RIGHT WITH THAT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD.
AND THEN WE'LL PLAN FOR THE SIXTH.
WE'LL HAVE A LOVELY MEETING WITH HOPWOOD ROAD, WHICH GENERATES FANS AND PARKHOUSE.
YEAH, BOTH OF THOSE ARE GOING TO DROP, YOU KNOW, PICK A LOT TOO.
UH, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, OPINIONS.
IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A VOTE OR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
BOB HAS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.