Planning Commission Meeting 3/31/20

EAST MARLBOROUGH TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Held Remotely via GoToMeeting

Due to COVID-19 Social Distancing Requirements

1. Attendance/Call to Order

Cuyler Walker, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. on the on-line meeting platform, GoToMeeting.  Additional Commissioners present: Jane Donze, Mary Nell Ferry, Pat Montague, Charles Streitwieser, Marnie Conley, and Rob Jerger.  Township Manager, Neil Lovekin, Assistant Manager, Hannah Christopher, and Public Works Director, Jeff Simpson, were also in attendance.   Lovekin posted the participation instructions in the Chat box, Walker reviewed them at the start of the meeting.

Also in attendance: Supervisors Bobby McKinstry, John Sarro, Eric Matuszak, Kathryn Monahan, and Julia Lacy; Township consultants Lisa Donlon and Jerry Baker; and James Whitesel, Patrick Kane, John Jaros, Wendy Lee Walker, Cathy Lee – K & W Engineering, Jim Horn, Nicholas Kiesler, Amanda Schneider, Marc Singley, Jackie Powell, Charlie Gerbron, Shelley Mincer, and Patrick Stuart.

2. Public Comment Period

No public comments.

3. Review/ Approve Minutes of February 25, 2020

Motion to approve minutes of February 25, 2020. All voted in favor.

4. Tri-M Land Development – Review #3 (John Jaros, Jim Horn, Amanda Schneider, Patrick Stuart, Patrick Kane)

Applicant intends to expand the existing 35,675 square foot building and the parking lot for the Tri-M Corporation located at 206 Gale Lane.

Action being requested, recommendation of Preliminary Land Development approval. The Planning Commission review letters from Vandemark & Lynch, Glackin Thomas and TPD.

Vandemark & Lynch

• Item 1 – Existence of a stand of trees on the current plan.  Applicant does not feel the trees on the plan meet the definition of a stand of trees.  Lisa Donlon feels the stand of trees definition exists on the applicants plans.  Amanda Scheidner stated a site visit is required to determine if a stand of trees exist.
• Item 16 – Credit for existing vegetation.  Walker believes it was stated at a prior meeting, that the applicant’s property was well buffered.

Donze made a motion to recommend to Supervisors that the existing planting previously installed by the applicant be credited towards the buffering requirements.  Ferry seconded the motion.  All voted in favor.  Motion carried

• Item 3 – In order to avail itself of the 55% impervious coverage limit under the Zoning Ordinance requirements applicable to the application, the applicant will need to obtain relief from the 40% impervious coverage limit mandated in the conditional use order now in effect.
• Item 8 – The Traffic Engineer’s analysis concludes that the proposed addition will add twenty or fewer additional trips during the AM and PM peak hours (or about one trip every three minutes).  Due to the limited impact on the total volume of traffic, the Planning Commission concluded that a traffic study not be required as part of this application.  The Planning Commission noted that excess traffic and speeding are an issue on Walnut Road that deserves review by the Township.

Montague made a motion to recommend that the traffic study was not needed. Donze seconded the motion.  All voted in favor, Motion carried.

• Parking study/parking spots – Tri-M’s office building is unique, they have office employees and employees that travel to perform work.  Baker visited the building when training was being conducted.  There did not appear to be adequate parking and several cars were parked in the Fire lane.  Walker stated that this presented risks to public health and safety, particularly in a situation where access by emergency responders would be restricted.  Lisa Donlon stated the requirement is one parking spot per # of employees at the busiest shift, or one per 300 S.F.  Jim Horn stated that the shortage of parking is not a regular occurrence and there is plenty of parking at 204 & 206 with a connecting sidewalk.  Announcements are made when employees park in the fire lane.  There are 110 employees in the building currently, added parking to address expansion.  Applicant will show additional overflow parking at 204 Gale Lane on the plan.

Lacy asked how employees there are at 204 Gale Lane and asked if the sidewalks were ADA compliant.  Baker commented that he was not sure ADA compliance was needed as handicap parking spots are provided.  204 Gale Lane is owned by Tangent Energy, the number of employees is unknown.

• Applicant inquired about the need for sidewalks on Gale Lane.  The sidewalk will be used by Tri-M employees, it would not be linked to any other sidewalks, a sidewalk to nowhere. The Township has a new sidewalk maintenance ordinance in place for future development, lightning is not required.

Conley made a motion to recommend sidewalks not be included on the applicant’s plans. Ferry seconded the motion.  All voted in favor, Motion carried.

*McKInstry commented there could be a future need for sidewalks for the Walnut/Schoolhouse Rd. connection.

Waivers:

• Sight Distance –  This is an existing road, with a 25 mph speed limit and no current issues. Lisa Donlon has no objection.

Montague made a motion to recommend that the sight distance waiver be granted. Conley seconded the motion.  All voted in favor, Motion carried.

• Loading Area – Baker noted that no loading area was provided. The anticipated deliveries to 206 Gale Lane, are by panel trucks, no large truck delivery anticipated.  if a large delivery is needed, the  delivery can be made at 204 Gale Lane.  A note will be added to the plan that large deliveries will be made at the adjoining property at 204 Gale Lane.

Conley made Motion to recommend waving the loading area requirement as long as a note was added to plan that deliveries can be made at 204 Gale Lane.  Ferry seconded motion. All voted in favor, Motion carried.

• Shadow Analysis.

Montague made a motion to recommend granting the requested waiver.  Conley seconded the motion.  All voted in favor, Motion carried.

Streitwieser made Motion to recommend preliminary land development plan approval, conditioned on the applicant complying with all issues in review letters – Vandemark & Lynch, Glackin-Thomas, TPD and the Fire Marshal/Fire Chief.  Donze seconded the motion.  All voted in favor, Motion carried.

5. Unionville Chadds Ford School District: Athletic Fields – Review #1(James Whitesel, Marc Singley, Cathy Lee)

Applicant proposes outdoor facility enhancements at the Unionville High School and Charles F. Patton Middle School located on Unionville Road.  The outdoor enhancements include the installation of a multi-use synthetic turf field, a varsity softball field, a middle school baseball field, associated utility structures, paths, and an 81-space parking lot along East Doe Run Road.

Whitesil spoke on behalf of UCFSD.

Items from the consultant letters reviewed:

• TPD – The Existing entrance, no change on plan, does not have the  sight distance required.  TPD will  defer to the Fire Marshal on the issue. The applicant will ask Po-Mar-Lin to review and will comply with their recommendations.
• Glackin Thomas Letter- 6 items 3, 4, 5, 9, 14,15

#3 Parking Lot Landscaping – Trees are proposed on the plan, does not include shrubs and groundcover as the lot is remote and maintenance becomes an issue for the District. Commissioners Conley and Donze commented that shrubs and groundcover would look nicer than just trees alone.

#4 & 5 Landscape Buffer – The proposed buffer is dense (pg. 19) between the parking lot and Doe Run Rd. It is acceptable to forgo buffers along Doe Run and Unionville Roads as the area is for recreational use.

#9 Parking Lot Lighting – There is no night time usage, the District would prefer not to light the parking light, it would detract from open rural feel.  Commissioners Donze, Montague and Ferry agreed that lights were not needed and would reduce light pollution.

#15 Tree requirement along Unionville-Doe Run Rd.  There is a regular interval of trees along the road, the District is looking to preserve natural look.  The Planning Commission noted that this was not a typical situation where a full landscape buffer would be warranted to shield the new construction from view.  This issue deserves further consideration.

#14 Sidewalks- A review is suggested along the property frontage.  The District noted the sidewalk would not connect to any existing sidewalks, interior paths to the site are currently being used to access the fields and site and can continue to be used.  The District is aware of the sidewalk project further south along Route 82 by the Township.

Donze noted that sidewalks are a safety issue, students may not always use interior access for the fields.  Lacy commented that safety is a concern near the school especially and questioned the number of trees required and if it would be better to provide shade for spectators. McKinstry feels there is a strong need for sidewalks on 82, and that they should extend along the east side.  This issue deserves further consideration. .

The applicant identified a few remaining issues in the review letter from Vandemark & Lynch, in particular, #1, 4, 30, 31, 36.  Applicant will comply with the remaining items.

Township resident Shelley Mincer had several questions for the District.  She asked if the existing parking lot on Doe Run Road could be expanded instead of building the new parking lot, if a crossing guard would be provided at after school events, if the parking lot would be gated when not in use, if the Barn was being restored and if the direction of the baseball field could be changed. McKinstry added that he was surprised the Barn renovation was not addressed on project, and feels the Historic Commission should be involved.

Whitesel and Singer replied to all of the questions and concerns.  The bus depot is also used by bus drivers, and could not accommodate additional parking with the addition of the new fields due to storm water management.  The current parking lots owned by the District are not gated at night, the crossing guards are used at the beginning and end of the school day.  The project does not address the Barn, it will be addressed by the District at a later date. The direction of the baseball field is standard, additional buffering was added to the plan.

No action was taken at this time.  There are several issues that require more discussion, in particular, trees, landscaping and sidewalks.

6. Gerbron – 791 Wollaston Road – Review #1(Charles Gerbon)

Applicant intends to adjust the lot lines of 2 parcels.

Impervious coverage may exist and not need to be removed.  The woodlands on the lot would not be affected by the subdivision, there is no construction proposed.  The plan should show the locations of the wetlands/woodlands.  Additional requirements would not need to be met, unless there are specimen trees.

No action taken at this time.

7. Tree Removal at 806 Lisadell Road (Nicholas and Emily Kiesler)

The Environmental Advisory Council had identified 2 trees that should be saved, the Red Oak & Hickory tree and recommended that the other 8 trees should be permitted to be removed.

Mr. Kiesler made the following comments on the EAC’s recommendation:

• Tree #4 should be removed- 4 site visits have occurred, 3 recommended tree removal.  The tree is 20Ft from the structure and is 100 feet tall.  There is a concern with the tree striking roof and impacting the power source.  The impacts would not be minor as stated.  The cost of the yearly inspection would be an added cost, in addition to the fees already covered by the homeowner. Will the township cover this cost?
• Kiesler requested clarification on the Woodland classification, he has not been provided with the definition.
• The Lot was rated residential when purchased, no woodland identified on plan. Trees that have been approved to be removed would no longer meet the canopy definition.
• He sees 3 path’s moving forward, #1- all trees removed, Path 2- continue to disagree on tree removal, Path 3- move from the Township.

Shelley Mincer commented that the resident should be allowed to remove all the trees. Donze agreed and stated that the township could bear some liability if the tree were to fall and cause damage.  Ferry shared her story of  tall trees falling near her home and the damage it caused.

Donze made Motion to recommend approving the removal of all ten trees, Ferry seconded the motion. Motion carried.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 10:13pm

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Henry

Planning Commission Secretary

In an effort to minimize public exposure to COVID-19 and maintain social distancing, public meetings will be conducted via webinar and will be recorded. Neither Township officials nor members of the public will be able to participate in person. Members of the public may join online using an internet-enabled device at https://www.gotomeet.me/EastMarlboroughTownship/planning-commission-meeting—march-31st or by calling the toll-free phone number: 1-877-568-4106. Members of the public electing to join by phone must use the code 960-170-837 followed by the pound key (#) when prompted. Public Comment will be heard during each agenda item when called upon by the Chair of the Planning Commission. Questions may be submitted in advance to nlovekin@eastmarlborough.org. If you require special accommodation, please call the Township office at 610-444-0725.

Questions may be submitted in advance to nlovekin@eastmarlborough.org. If you require special accommodation, please call the Township office at 610-444-0725.

Meeting Agenda

March 31, 2020 – 7:00 PM

1. Call to Order / Attendance

2. Public Comment

3. Review / Approve Minutes

4. Tri-M Land Development – Review #3

Applicant intends to expand the existing 35,675 square foot building and the parking lot for the Tri-M Corporation located at 206 Gale Lane.

5. Unionville Chadds Ford School District: Athletic Fields – Review #1

Applicant proposes outdoor facility enhancements at the Unionville High School and Charles F. Patton Middle School located on Unionville Road.  The outdoor enhancements include the installation of a multi-use synthetic turf field, a varsity softball field, a middle school baseball field, associated utility structures, paths, and an 81-space parking lot along East Doe Run Road.

6. Gerbron – 791 Wollaston Road – Review #1

Applicant intends to adjust the lot lines of 2 parcels.

    7. EAC Recommendation to Approve the Removal of Eight Trees at 806 Lisadell Road: EAC recommendation to retain an arborist to review tree removal at 806 Lisadell Road

8. Adjournment

Next Scheduled Meeting: April 28, 2020