PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission of Chadds
Ford Township met in the Township Hall on
There was
no public comment.
Upon motion and second (Reiter,
Richard J.
Jensen, Township Building Inspector and Zoning Officer, was present to discuss
various aspects of the proposed Chadds Ford Township Building Code Ordinance
that will have the effect of adopting the Uniform Construction Code in
Upon motion
and second (Todd,
John
Fellows, of Vollmer Associates, presented a brief overview of both subdivision
applications. Paul McLaughlin, owner of
Stonebrook I and equitable owner of Stonebrook II was also present. The project consists of subdividing a 9.92
acre parcel into four (4) lots with onsite disposal systems and well water
supply.
Mr. Fellows reviewed the work that
had been done regarding the roadway since the first presentation before
Planning Commission last August. Mr.
Reiter asked how the southern portion of the road would be affected by the suggested
realignment. Mr. Fellows responded that
there will be a “T” intersection controlled by a stop sign.
Planning
Commission Minutes
Page
Two
Mr. Fellows reported that the
ground has been tested for percolation and approved by the Township SEO, and
asked that planning module resolutions be presented to the Board of Supervisors
on July 1st for approval and submission to DEP.
Mr. Todd asked for clarification
regarding the DEP General Permit #7 that is being sought. Mr. Fellows responded. Mr. Matson further asked Mr. Fellows to
include a specific list of all necessary permits on both plans.
Mr. Matson questioned the line of
sight at the proposed “T” intersection and suggested that perhaps Mr. Magness
would grant a line of sight easement to keep corner clear of vegetation.
Mr. Reiter questioned stormwater
runoff from a drainage ditch about one-third of the way up the road that has
been adversely eroding ground in the area.
Mr. Fellows explained the proposed drainage system, with runoff being
captured and channeled underground.
Mr. Reiter asked what the
possibility might be that the Supervisors will not accept dedication of the
roadway. Mr. Fellows answered that the
roadway will be built anyway, but that joint responsibility will remain as it
is now, but that from that point up the new road, it would be shared by the new
residents. Mr. Matson stated that the
new roadway would meet state requirements in order to obtain Liquid Fuel
monies.
Mr. Fellows stated that the Stonebrook I application had
been filed as a preliminary application because of the roadway, but in light of
the lack of comments, was wondering if the Commission would grant
preliminary/final status so that both jobs could run concurrent. Commission members and Mr. Matson discussed
this possibility, with Mr. Matson voicing no objection to granting that
status. Commission members decided to
allow final status.
Mr. Fellows asked Planning
Commission members to recommend approval of the subdivision to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Matson stated that the
outstanding issues are not major, with the additional percolation testing at
Kelly’s comment 49. (review letter of
MOTION TO APPROVE STONEBROOK I PRELIMINARY/FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Upon motion
and second (Todd, Vernon) members of the Planning Commission moved to recommend
approval of the Stonebrook I Preliminary/Final Subdivision Application pending
resolution of all outstanding items as addressed in Kelly Engineer’s review
letter of June 9, 2004. Mr. Daniels
abstained from the vote.
Mr. Fellows briefly reviewed the
project which consists of subdividing a 8.08 acre
parcel into three (3) separate lots, with on site sewage and individual
wells. Commission members discussed
various aspects of the comments as listed in Kelly Engineer’s review letter
dated
Planning
Commission Minutes
Page
Three
MOTION TO APPROVE STONEBROOK II PRELIMINARY/FINAL
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Upon motion
and second (Todd, Vernon) members of the Planning Commission moved to recommend
approval of the Stonebrook II Preliminary/Final Subdivision Application pending
resolution of all outstanding items as listed in Kelly Engineer’s review letter
dated June 9, 2004. Mr. Daniels
abstained from the vote.
Planning Commission members discussed the PRD
application that has been submitted by Toll Brothers for the Camp Sunset Hill
site. Comments were as follows:
Upon motion and second (Daniels,
Respectfully submitted,
MARYANN D. FURLONG
Planning Commission Secretary