Planning Commission
Monday, July 19 2010
HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING Monday, July 19, 2010 7:30PM
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Hilltown Township Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mark Funk at 7:30PM and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.Also present were Planning Commission members Kirk Hansen, Lori McCauley, and Anita Menegaux, along with Township Engineer, C. Robert Wynn.
A.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Action on the minutes of the June 15, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting – Motion was made by Mr. Hansen, and seconded by Ms. McCauley to approve the minutes of the June 15, 2010 meeting as written.Ms. Menegaux abstained from the vote since she was not present at the meeting.Motion carried.
B.PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY:None.
C.PLANNING:
1.Hilltown Tavern – Planning Module for Sanitary Sewer Extension – Mr. Wally Rosenthal, the applicant, was in attendance.Mr. Wynn’s review dated July 12, 2010 was discussed.The applicant desires to extend public sanitary sewer facilities owned by Hatfield Township Municipal Authority to the subject site in order to serve an existing mix of commercial, office, retail, restaurant, and two residential uses.According to documentation submitted with the Planning Module application, 20 EDU’s of public sanitary sewer capacity are anticipated to be required to serve the site.The extension of public sanitary sewer facilities in this manner was the selected alternative for the Rt. 309 study area in the Township’s Official Sewage Facilities Plan dated November 22, 1999.
Motion was made by Ms. McCauley, seconded by Ms. Menegaux, and carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Hilltown Pub Sewage Facilities Planning Module, pending completion of all outstanding items as noted in Mr. Wynn’s July 12, 2010 review.
2.RSA Inc. Land Development Waiver Request – Mr. Scott Guidos, the applicant’s engineer, and Mr. Pat Chambers, the property owner, were in attendance to present the plan.Mr. Wynn’s review dated July 13, 2010 was discussed.This 29.14 acre parcel located in the RR District is proposed for development of a single-family detached dwelling (Use B1) and accessory residential agricultural (I17) use.In conjunction with the accessory residential agricultural use, the applicant proposes to construct a 9,680 sq. ft. barn with driveway access on Forest Road, which is classified as a land development.The applicant is seeking a waiver of land development plan submission requirements to permit construction of the barn as shown on the site plan.The site is currently vacant and contains natural resources including a reach of the Morris Run, steep slopes, and wooded areas along the stream corridor.The site is proposed to be served by on-lot well and on-lot sewage disposal facilities.
Page 2 Planning Commission July 19, 2010
Motion was made by Ms. Menegaux, seconded by Mr. Hansen, and carried unanimously to recommend approval of the RSA Inc. Land Development Waiver Request, pending completion of all outstanding items as noted in Mr. Wynn’s July 13, 2010 review.
D.CONFIRMED APPOINTMENTS:
1.Pileggi Land Development (Preliminary) – Mr. Scott Semisch, the applicant’s legal counsel, and Mr. Steve Jensen, the applicant’s engineer, were in attendance to present the plan, along with the property owner, Mr. Joseph Pileggi.Mr. Wynn’s most recent review dated July 12, 2010 was discussed.
The applicant proposes to construct a greenhouse (7,500 sq. ft.) and pole barn (11,250 sq. ft.) for a nursery (A2) use on the 13.85 acre parcel zoned within the Rural Residential (RR) and Planned Commercial-2 (PC-2) Districts.Proposed structures and associated parking/access driveway improvements are located within the area of the parcel zoned within the RR District.The site currently contains an existing single-family detached dwelling (Use B1) and detached pole barn within the RR zoned portion of the site; with access to Rt. 313 via an existing paved/stone driveway.The site also contains an existing stone area predominately within the RR zoned portion of the property, which was the subject of a stormwater application in 2008 that resulted in construction of a stormwater management basin along the northern property boundary with TMP #15-35-48-1, as well as other stormwater management facilities in the vicinity of the existing driveway within the northern and southern property boundaries; and a wooded area along the southern and western property boundaries.The site also contains an existing well adjacent to the dwelling and an existing sewage disposal facility located adjacent to the existing pole barn.
Mr. Semisch advised that the applicant intends to submit a Land Development Waiver Request on the basis that all the necessary Use and Occupancy permits for the use of the property have already been obtained.Mr. Pileggi wishes to construct a greenhouse and pole barn, and has no intention of increasing the number of employees.Since the greenhouse will not be open to the public, Mr. Semisch does not believe that there will be an increase of traffic in any way.He also noted that there is an existing stormwater basin located on the property, which was designed to accommodate 35% of impervious surface.The applicant will be submitting a study or plan to show that the existing basin is adequate for the pole barn and the greenhouse.
Mr. Semisch commented that the Attorney General has also found that the Township’s recently enacted Ordinance is contrary to law, and therefore, he anticipates that at least a portion of the Ordinance will have to be amended.Given that the present use of the property will not change in Mr. Semisch’s opinion, except for the construction of the greenhouse and the pole barn, it does not make sense for Mr. Pileggi to go through the full-blown land development process.As such, Mr. Semisch respectfully requests that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation for land development waiver for this site. Page 3 Planning Commission July 19, 2010
The applicant has requested the following waivers:
-From SALDO Section 140-17.D, which requires existing features within the tract, and within 100 ft. of the tract boundary, to be shown on the preliminary plan.
Mr. Jensen stated that an aerial photograph was submitted, which shows the existing features within 100 ft. of the site, and noted that Mr. Pileggi currently has approval for the use of the PC-2 section of the property.Mr. Wynn noted that the existing features plan, however, does not accurately depict what is currently on the site, since all of the improvements that were made to the front portion of the site are not shown.Mr. Semisch commented that the greenhouse and the pole barn are located on the RR portion of the property, so the land development plan, in his opinion, does not really need to include the PC-2 portion of the site.He does understand that Mr. Wynn is requesting a full, accurate depiction of the site in its present state, and the applicant will comply.Mr. Wynn stated that the land development encompasses the entire property.
-From SALDO Sections 140-28.P, 140-29.D(1), 140-35, 140-36, and 140-37.A(1), which requires cartway reconstruction/overlay, drainage improvements, cartway widening, curb, sidewalk, and street trees along Rt. 313 within the frontage of the site.
Mr. Jensen advised that the RR zoned area of the site proposed for development does not front on Rt. 313, and since the site will be planted in nursery stock, street trees along Rt. 313 do not appear necessary.
-From SALDO Section 140-37.B, which requires parking facilities to be landscaped.
Mr. Jensen explained that a stoned area located in the middle of the nursery will be provided for parking, and does not feel that landscaping materials in the middle of the parking area is necessary or practical.Mr. Wynn asked where the public will park.Mr. Jensen replied that a designated area located in the RR portion of the site was previously approved for customer parking.He commented that there will be no increased traffic to the site than currently exists at this time.Mr. Wynn advised that now the applicant intends to be open to the public, and therefore, a parking area is required.He strongly feels that the parking area should be delineated and landscaped as the Ordinance requires.
The waiver request notes that pick-up and drop-off is not needed, however the plan identifies two proposed “pick-up areas” adjacent to the pole barn and greenhouse, respectively, which appear to indicate that these type of operations are anticipated in conjunction with the proposed use.Mr. Wynn also questioned whether visitor traffic may occur in addition to employee traffic, considering that customers may visit the site to select landscape products and/or for consultation with landscaping professional staff.Mr. Jensen does not recall the applicant stating that pick-up and drop-off is not needed.Mr. Wynn referred to page 2, last sentence of Mr. Jensen’s Page 4 Planning Commission July 19, 2010
correspondence dated July 2, 2010, requesting waivers, which specifically states “Request relief from providing a 26 ft. wide paved driveway.Plan proposes a 24 ft. wide drive as pickup and drop off is not needed.”Mr. Jensen stated that was a typographical error, and noted that a pick-up and drop-off area is shown on the plan.Mr. Wynn asked if the pick-up and drop-off would only be used during daylight hours, to which Mr. Jensen replied in the affirmative.Mr. Wynn then asked if these areas would only be used for deliveries or if the area would be used for the public to come to pick up materials.It is not clear to Mr. Wynn whether or not the public will use those pick-up and drop-off areas.Mr. Pileggi replied that the public will pick-up the same way they have for the past seven months, either by parking in the lot and bringing their merchandise to their vehicle or by pulling up alongside the materials for loading.Mr. Pileggi commented that the site only sees approximately four or five customers per dayHe stated that material is raised in the greenhouse to be distributed in the garden center, and the barn will be used for storing equipment, tools, fertilizer, hay, bare root material, grass seed, etc.
-From SALDO Section 140-45.C(7), 140-45.C(8), and 140-45.F(4), which requires parking areas to be provided with adequate lighting to ensure safe maneuverability ofvehicles and to promote safety for pedestrians; all non-residential parking facilities to be paved; and for access driveways to have a minimum width of 26 ft., and to be paved.
Mr. Jensen stated that lighting will be added to the site on both the greenhouse and the pole barn.
With respect to stormwater management, Mr. Jensen advised that the applicant intends to comply with items 5.A through D of Mr. Wynn’s review dated July 12, 2010.
No additional restroom facilities are proposed to be provided in the new structures, and Mr. Jensen noted that the three employees will utilize the restroom located in the existing dwelling.
Mr. Jensen indicated that a new well is not proposed at this time.Mr. Wynn questioned whether the proposed use will necessitate increased water withdrawal above that expected for use of a single-family detached dwelling and three employees, in order to irrigate nursery stock, for example.At a minimum, Mr. Wynn stated that anticipated groundwater withdrawal information for the proposed use should be submitted to document the possible increased water use and possible impact on existing neighboring water supplies.Mr. Semisch commented that Mr. Pileggi already has a permit for an existing well.He advised that the proposed pole barn will not require water, but the proposed greenhouse will for watering the plants that are raised inside, however the applicant does not believe there will be a sufficient increase in the use of water to warrant such a plan.Mr. Wynn asked what the anticipated water usage increase is.Mr. Semisch does not know, however it will be submitted for review.
Page 5 Planning Commission July 19, 2010
With respect Item #10 of the review, the plan has been revised to identify a required Type 1 buffer yard along the property line where the proposed non-residential use abuts the adjoining residential uses or residentially zoned districts.Mr. Jensen stated that the property will be planted in all nursery stock, and does not feel additional buffering is necessary.Mr. Wynn commented that the two new buildings and the driveway to the rear of those buildings (between the buildings and the property line) are not proposed to be buffered as required.Mr. Jensen noted that there are existing trees in those locations.Mr. Wynn replied that almost all of those trees Mr. Jensen referred to are deciduous, and will not provide a suitable buffer year round.It was Mr. Wynn’s recommendation that additional information be provided regarding the existing vegetation the applicant intends to retain, such as genus, species, and caliper, and also feels that it would be appropriate to add evergreen trees to provide a year round buffer. If Mr. Wynn feels the installation of additional trees is necessary, Mr. Jensen is sure the applicant would be happy to comply.
Public Comment:
1.Mr. Mike Bement of 2002 Broad Street noted that several years ago, when Morrissey Construction was building the road on the Pileggi property, he spoke with the foreman who advised that the property would be used for nothing but growing of nursery stock.That does not appear to be the case now.Mr. Bement disagreed with and disputes Mr. Semisch’s earlier comment that the proposed addition of a 7,500 sq. ft. greenhouse and an 11,250 sq. ft. pole barn could possibly be considered a “minimal use.”He suggested that Mr. Pileggi comply with the existing zoning regulations which would permit the buildings on the front parcel nearest to Rt. 313, and the nursery stock on the rear portion of the property. Mr. Bement feels that there is way too much impervious surface proposed for this property, which despite the existing stormwater management basin, currently floods his and neighboring properties.He intends to do everything he can within his limited resources to oppose this land development.
2.Ms. Emily Wikel, daughter of Mr. Bement is most concerned with the dramatic increase in impervious surface, which is quite a bit greater than what the applicant initially indicated, and which has resulted in significant runoff that has affected hers and other neighboring properties. In summary, Ms. Wikel has no issue with the applicant using the commercial portion of his property within Zoning regulations, or with using the RR portion of the property to grow nursery stock.She asked that the Planning Commission consider recommending denial of this land development plan, and require Mr. Pileggi to properly utilize his land as it is zoned.
3.Mrs. Jill Lear of 2020 Broad Street and her husband purchased the neighboring Zeigler property two years ago, and has been experiencing the runoff from Mr. Pileggi’s site, which has gotten significantly worse over time.Mrs. Lear invited the Planning Commission to visit her property and view the stormwater flow from the Pileggi property for themselves.
Page 6 Planning Commission July 19, 2010
Chairman Funk asked if there had been a grading change at the stormwater basin, which affected the flow of water.Mr. Wynn replied that there was a pipe behind the neighboring property that drained to the swale running through the PC zoned section of the Pileggi property, which had been crushed during the grading activity on the Pileggi site.The water problem that Ms. Wikel and Ms. Lear speak of comes as a direct result of that 6” pipe no longer functioning properly. Mr. Wynn presented photographs of the crushed pipe.Chairman Funk wondered if the flooding issues would cease if the pipe were repaired or replaced.
4.Mr. Ed Lear of 2020 Broad Street confirmed the drainage issues experienced on his and his neighbor’s properties, and also expressed concern with a 20” drainage pipe that discharged from Broad Street into the yards of the surrounding properties.Mr. Wynn explained that the 20” drainage pipe Mr. Lear speaks of was installed as part of the subdivision creating his neighborhood.He believes that the 20” pipe may function properly if the 6” PVC drainage pipe from the Pileggi property was repaired or replaced.
There was no further Public Comment.The plan was tabled until revised plans are submitted.
Mr. Semisch, on behalf of the applicant, submitted a written extension until October 31, 2010 for review of the land development plan.
E.ORDINANCES:
1.Buffer Yards (Zoning Ordinance Amendment) and Landscaping and Street Trees (Subdivision/Land Development Ordinance) – Motion was made by Ms. McCauley, seconded by Mr. Hansen., and carried unanimously to recommend that the Supervisors authorize forwarding both revised Ordinance amendments for Buffer Yards (Zoning Ordinance) and Landscaping/Street Trees (SALDO) to the Bucks County Planning Commission for review and comment..
F.OLD BUSINESS:None.
G.NEW BUSINESS:None.
H.PLANS TO ACCEPT FOR REVIEW ONLY:None.
I.PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
J.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None.
K.PRESS CONFERENCE:No reporters were present.
Page 7 Planning Commission July 19, 2010
L.ADJOURNMENT:Motion was made by Ms. Menegaux, seconded by Ms. McCauley, and carried unanimously to adjourn the July 19, 2010 Hilltown Township Planning Commission meeting at 8:18PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Seimes Township Secretary (*These minutes were transcribed from notes and recordings taken by Mr. Kirk Hansen, Planning Commission Secretary, and should not be considered official until approved by the Planning Commission at a public meeting).
| 
