WHITPAIN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 2020

Page created by Geraldine Lane

Style & Fashion

English

Like
Share
Embed
Fullscreen
Slides
Download HTML
Download PDF
Abuse

←

→

Page content transcription

If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below

WHITPAIN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 2020
The seventh meeting of the Whitpain Township Planning Commission for the year 2020 was held
on Tuesday, August 11, 2020 as a video conference using Zoom video technology. Chair Kenneth
Corti presided with Planning Commission members Vice Chair Richard Shorin, Secretary Cathy
McGowan, Joe Habboush, Kent Conway, John O’Hara, Kurt Zintner and Alternate members John
Miller and Natalie Macy. Township Planning Consultant E. Van Rieker, Township Solicitor
Alexander M. Glassman, Township Engineer James E. Blanch, P.E., Zoning Inspector Conor
McCann, Township Manager Roman M. Pronczak, P.E., IT Director Nicole Leininger and
Recording Secretary Courtney Clemmer were also present. Planning Commission member Joseph
Fay was absent.

Chair Corti called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chair Corti introduced the members of the
Planning Commission and Township Staff introduced themselves to the public that were present.

IT Director, Nicole Leininger, explained how to use the Zoom technology for the meeting.

1. Approval of Minutes

Chair Corti called for any comments or questions on the July 14, 2020 meeting minutes from
the Planning Commission, Township Staff or the audience. There being none, Vice Chair
Shorin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Conway to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2020
meeting of the Planning Commission. Chair Corti made a formal roll call vote: Vice Chair
Shorin, aye; Secretary McGowan, aye; Mr. Habboush, aye; Mr. Conway, aye; Mr. Zintner,
aye, and Chair Corti also voted to pass this motion. Mr. O’Hara abstained from the vote as he
was absent from the July 14, 2020 meeting. The motion passed 6-0.

2. Review of Ordinance #4-252 – An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by (1)
amending the definition of “Family” and adding the definitions of “Group Home” and “Sober
Living Environment” in Article II, Section 160-7 [word usage and definitions]; (2) amending
Article V, Section 160-13 [Use Regulations]; (3) amending Article XII, Section 160-60 [Use
Regulations]; and (4) striking the reference to “Park and Recreation District” in Article VI,
Section 166-27(F)[Park and Recreation Overlay/Development Regulations/Screening].

Township Solicitor Alexander Glassman offered an explanation of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Glassman said that the goal of the ordinance is to update the definition of “family” to
comply with the current definition as defined by the court of law. He explained further that
“Sober Living Environments” and “Group Homes” will be permitted in only R-1 and R-5
zoning districts.

Vice Chair Shorin asked if this proposed ordinance was in place when the sober home was
being proposed at 813 Stonybrook Drive, would it have been approved. Mr. Glassman said
that if this ordinance was in place and the proper documentation was provided, the sober home
would have been an approved use.

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 2 of 14

Vice Chair Shorin commented that he would prefer the proposed ordinance include further
specifications and restrictions to avoid a similar situation to the Zoning Hearing Board case for
813 Stonybrook Drive. Mr. Glassman said that the concern with furthering restrictions or
conditions in the ordinance is that it would go against the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA).
Mr. Glassman explained that courts are finding that group homes and sober living homes are
being held to regulations and conditions that are not imposed on regular single-family homes,
which ultimately is unfair treatment. Mr. Glassman said that additional conditions besides the
parking restriction would potentially go against the FFHA rulings.

Vice Chair Shorin asked if there has been research studied to compare other townships and
surrounding areas. Vice Chair Shorin argued that there is not enough detail in the proposed
ordinance to prevent another tumultuous Zoning Hearing Board case, like 813 Stonybrook
Drive.

Mr. O’Hara said that it appears that there could be a large number of people living in a home
based on the wording of the proposed ordinance, even with the parking restrictions. Mr. O’Hara
would like to see more control over sober living homes. Mr. Glassman said that there is not
currently a limit on the number of residents allowed in either a “Sober Living Environment”
or “Group Home” because of the FFHA guidelines. Mr. O’Hara asked if there is another way
that the proposed ordinance could be edited to restrict the number of individuals. Mr. Glassman
said that the more restrictions added would increase the risk of violation of the FFHA.

Vice Chair Shorin said he would prefer to see more stipulations on the oversight of a “Group
Home” or “Sober Living Environment”.

Mr. Rieker explained that to follow the guidelines of the FFHA, the Township cannot impose
unfair treatment of group homes or sober living environments that is different in any way from
a single-family dwelling. Mr. Rieker explained that due to the wide range of residential zoning
districts in Whitpain Township, restricting “Sober Living Environments” or “Group Homes”
to the R-1 and R-5 districts limits them to lower density areas.

Audience Comments

Tracie Walsh, 997 Sunset Drive – Ms. Walsh confirmed that R-1 and R-5 zoned districts would
allow for sober living homes because of the lower density but asked if there was a restriction
to only allow “sober homes” in commercial districts. Ms. Walsh also asked if there will be a
restriction on the number of residents permitted in a sober home based on square footage or
guideline putting a limit on the number of unrelated individuals allowed to live in the same
single-family dwelling. Mr. Glassman said legally, “sober living environments” must be
allowed to take part of a residential use in a residential community. Mr. Glassman because of
the update on the definition of “family”, there is not allowed to be a restriction on the number
of people living in a sober home. For example, Mr. Glassman said there would be building
code regulations that would limit the number of people in a building.

Ms. Walsh asked for confirmation that there are no restrictions on the number of individuals
living in a “sober living environment” or “group home” but a family of unrelated people are

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 3 of 14

restricted to 5 people. Mr. Glassman said that the Township currently limits the number of
unrelated individuals living together to 5, but to comply with the FFHA, there can be no limit
on the number allowed in a “sober living environment” or “group home”.

Michele Oswald, 223 Winged Foot Drive – Ms. Oswald asked how many other municipalities
were reviewed that are comparable to Whitpain Township in terms of how they are managing
to also comply with the law. Mr. Glassman said that along with reviewing the law, they also
reviewed neighboring municipalities to help modify the definition of “family”, “group home”
and “sober living environment”. Ms. Oswald asked if the municipalities studied were
comparable to Whitpain Township based on the residents and population. Mr. Glassman said
he did not have that information. Mr. Rieker emphasized that the law has clearly stated that
these groups of individuals are not to be treated differently from a single-family. Mr. Rieker
explained that, based on court statements, these types of living arrangements function as a
family.

Ms. Oswald asked what research was studied to account for the placement of “sober living
environments” and “group homes” and if the impact on the surrounding neighborhood has been
good or bad. Mr. Glassman shared that there is currently a group home functioning in the
Township that has had no impact on the neighbors and would expect the same for any future
occurrences. Ms. Oswald strongly recommended more research into long-term effects.

Craig Remar, 870 Valley Road – Mr. Remar said he believes more work could be done
regarding the drafting of the proposed Ordinance and would like to see the Township take a
more aggressive approach. Mr. Remar said he would like to see the Township implement an
occupancy certificate. Mr. Remar said he is concerned for safety including how qualifications
of management for the proposed living scenarios will be examined.

David Doll, 1502 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike – Mr. Doll commented that the proposed ordinance
is a great improvement but would still like to see further restrictions for “sober living
environments” and “group homes”. Mr. Doll asked if Mr. Glassman has reviewed Norristown’s
guidelines pertaining to the definition changes. Mr. Doll shared that Governor Wolf signed
into law guidelines for requirements on management of facilities such as these and asked if the
Township has considered any of these mandates. Mr. Doll asked if the individuals living in
these types of homes are considered “handicapped”, who will assure all occupants qualify. Mr.
Glassman explained that a property to be used as a “sober living environment” or “group
home” would be required to file a change of use with the Code Enforcement Department and
with further adjustment to the Ordinance, the qualifications of occupants may also be examined
at this point, too.

David & Lisa Wheeldon, 998 Sunset Drive – Ms. Wheeldon questioned why this topic is being
brought back for review when just a year prior, a large number of Whitpain residents opposed
a sober home at 813 Stonybrook Drive. Ms. Wheeldon said she was disappointed during the
meeting due to the lack of information provided and the responses to questions asked. Ms.
Wheeldon emphasized the need for further research on surrounding municipalities standards
on the topic.

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 4 of 14

Joseph & Suzanne Antonello, 1030 Blue Rock Lane – Ms. Antonello asked for clarification on
the definitions of “transient” and “non-transient” and would like to see more regulations on
such in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Glassman said that the definition of “group home” says
to create a non-transient residential setting. Non-transient is not included in the “sober living
environment” definition because occupants may be seeking treatment for shorter periods of
time. Secretary McGowan asked if there could be a minimal 14-day stay required for a “sober
living environment”. Mr. Glassman said that he would need to review the FFHA for
confirmation.

Secretary McGowan asked Chair Corti if it would be appropriate to continue discussion at a
later meeting once more information is gathered. Chair Corti asked for further audience
comments.

Tracie Walsh, 997 Sunset Drive – Ms. Walsh asked that because sober homes are for-profit
businesses, is there a special tax that could be imposed on them. Ms. Walsh asked what the
limit of parked cars would be for 813 Stonybrook Drive, for example. Mr. Glassman explained
that besides the minimum off-street parking, the property would be required one additional
space for each staff person/non-resident and one additional space for every additional two
residents above the allowed five. Mr. Pronczak said that this was calculated previously and
according to the building code, the maximum occupancy of 813 Stonybrook Drive could be
eight occupants and the proposed Ordinance adds additional restriction to assure there will be
adequate on-site parking.

Ms. Walsh asked for further criteria on how the residency would be monitored and if there is
a way to require the occupants to show proof that they qualify as “handicapped”.

David & Lisa Wheeldon, 998 Sunset Drive – Ms. Wheeldon said that based on the lack of
responses to questions asked by residents, a lot could be learned from the transcripts from the
previous Zoning Hearing Board meetings regarding 813 Stonybrook Drive.

Igor Sikavica – Mr. Sikavica asked if there have been any reports of federal courts not allowing
a sober home in order to balance other legitimate interests without imposing on the FFHA or
be discriminatory. Mr. Glassman said that the parking guideline does not impose on the rights
of the proposed uses, however any further restrictions would impose. Mr. Sikavica shared a
case in Florida, similar to the 813 Stonybrook Drive application, that also accounted for the
interests of surrounding neighbors that did not go against the FFHA. Mr. Sikavica offered to
forward the study to Mr. Glassman.

Frederick Hall, 825 Stonybrook Drive – Mr. Hall said he is appalled at the proposal of this
Ordinance. Mr. Hall emphasized his discomfort when the sober home located at 813
Stonybrook Drive was in operation and fears for future “sober living environments” in the
immediate area. Mr. Hall said that the creek adjacent to his property floods his home and is
concerned that an increase in parked cars in the area will only accentuate his troubles.

Craig Remar, 870 Valley Road – Mr. Remar reiterated the need for occupancy certificates and
for verification that occupants are “handicapped”.

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 5 of 14

Chair Corti did not ask for a motion to recommend Ordinance #4-252. Chair Corti
recommended all participants with comments attend the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr.
Pronczak said that the Board of Supervisors have not scheduled a meeting date to review the
proposed Ordinance. Chair Corti asked for the opportunity to review a revised version of the
Ordinance.

Mr. O’Hara asked for all case studies forwarded by audience members be forwarded to the
Planning Commission members as well.

3. Review of Ordinance #4-254 – An Ordinance amending the Township’s Zoning Ordinance
by (1) adding a definition for “Independent/Assisted Living Facility/Personal Care Home” to
Article II, Section 160-7 [Definitions/Word Usage and Definition]; (2) adding article XXXIX
entitled “I/AL – Independent/Assisted Living Overlay”; (3) adding the “I/AL –
Independent/Assisted Living Overlay” to Article IV, Section 160-11 [Zoning
Districts/Enumeration of Districts]; and (4) adding the “I/AL – Independent/Assisted Living
Overlay” to the zoning map, as incorporated into the Township’s Zoning Ordinance Article
IV [Zoning Districts/Zoning Map] and applying it to three properties identified as
Montgomery County Tax Map Parcel Numbers 66-00-06340-00-2, 66-00-06334-00-8, 66-
00-06336-00-5.

Present for Presentation: Marc Kaplin, Representative for Centre Square Hotel, Inc., Centre
Square Investment Partners (Reed Family)
Jed Marmot, North Point Senior Living
Matt Caffrey, Lennar

Mr. Kaplin explained that the proposed Ordinance is referring specifically to the former
Reed’s Restaurant & Nightclub property that includes 3 parcels that are approximately 20
acres total. Mr. Kaplin said that the goal for the property includes a senior living facility on
the front of the parcel developed by North Point Senior Living. Mr. Kaplin said that he had
been working directly with Township Staff, the Board of Supervisors and Township
Solicitors and it was recommended to consider a senior living facility on the lot. Mr. Kaplin
said that he was then encouraged to consider a proposal for the remaining 14 acres. Mr.
Kaplin said that considering the improvements at the intersection of Skippack Pike and
DeKalb Pike and working with Lennar Homes, they were able to develop a plan for a small
townhome community. Mr. Kaplin shared that he presented his plans to Township Staff back
in 2018 and 2019 and continued work with Township Manager Roman Pronczak and
Township Solicitors to draft the proposed Ordinance.

Regarding the proposed development, Mr. Kaplin explained that there would need to be an
additional access for emergency vehicles and found the best option would be from Fairview
Avenue. Based on surveys done by both Mr. Kaplin and the Township, there would need to
be clarification as to which sections of Fairview Avenue are private and public before any
development of an additional access road.

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 6 of 14

Chair Corti asked if the right-of-way is wide enough for the proposed emergency access. The
Applicant replied that the right-of-way for emergency access is 50-feet wide.

Mr. Marmot explained that the proposed senior living facility would be a total of 80,000
square feet to include 90-units. Mr. Marmot said that 65 of those units would consist of
assisted living and the remaining 27 would be dedicated to memory care. Mr. Marmot said
that approximately 5% of residents drive and there would be ample parking available to
account for staff, residents and visitors.

Chair Corti asked why there were 110-units as the density for the senior care facility in the
Ordinance but only 90-units were presented. Mr. Marmot said the discrepancy is to account
for flexibility in case of the need for additional 2-bedroom units. Chair Corti asked if there
are elevators in the building. Mr. Marmot said yes, and that many residents use elevators
instead of stairs. Mr. Marmot explained that there will be two elevators, one for staff and
deliveries and the second for residents. Chair Corti asked if there will be a generator in case
of a power outage. Mr. Marmot said yes, a natural gas or diesel generator with a minimum
run time of 24-hours. Mr. Marmot explained that the proposed facility will be heavily
monitored by the Pennsylvania Department of Health and they will be required to get proper
licensing as a personal care home.

Vice Chair Shorin asked if there will have to be any modifications made to the Ordinance to
account for Covid-19. Mr. Marmot said that they have considered making adjustments, such
as phased dining times, but they are still not finalized as recommendations regarding Covid-
19 are ever changing. Vice Chair Shorin asked if any of the information presented will need
to be altered. Mr. Marmot said no and that any changes would be operational, not building
related.

Mr. O’Hara asked if the proposed zoning change affects any other parcels in the Township.
Mr. Kaplin said the proposed Ordinance was specifically designed for this property. Mr.
Rieker said that it could be applied to another parcel, but it would be at the discretion of the
Board of Supervisors and include recommendations from the Planning Commission.

Mr. O’Hara asked if the proposed Ordinance would give the owners the right to build the
townhouses along with the senior living facility.

Mr. Kaplin shared a rendering of the proposed 28 townhouses that was reviewed by the
Montgomery County Planning Commission. The MCPC recommended the consideration of
additional landscaping and sidewalks and Mr. Kaplin shared they will meet all requirements
once they are in the land development process. Mr. Caffrey shared that the proposed
townhouses are three-stories tall. Chair Corti asked for the total height of the buildings. Mr.
Caffrey said less than 40 feet to conform with the Township Zoning Code.

Mr. Zintner asked if there have been any updated traffic impact studies performed, specific to
Skippack Pike. Mr. Kaplin shared a PennDOT drawing prepared by “Traffic, Planning and
Design” that show updates to Skippack Pike including widening and the addition of lanes.

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 7 of 14

Mr. O’Hara asked if they would be able to comply with the Township tree canopy ordinance.
Mr. Kaplin said they will consider the tree removal once they are in the land development
phase but will comply.

Chair Corti said, speaking for the Planning Commission, they are comfortable with the
allowance of the senior living facility but have concerns regarding the proposed townhome
development, including the emergency access, high density and the feasibility of abiding
with the Township tree canopy ordinance.

Mr. Zintner said he agrees with Chair Corti and recommends leaving the back portion of the
property undeveloped. Mr. Conway and Ms. McGowan also agreed.

Vice Chair Shorin agreed that the townhome proposal seems too dense. Vice Chair Shorin
said that he feels that this proposed Ordinance is one of the most controversial items
discussed by the Planning Commission and that it was not properly advertised to the public.
Vice Chair Shorin would like another opportunity to review the Ordinance once it has been
edited and better advertised. Vice Chair Shorin asked who would be responsible for the
maintenance of the emergency access road. Vice Chair Shorin said he does not feel
comfortable making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors until there is better
clarification regarding the final plan.

Mr. Habboush agreed that the proposed Ordinance was not properly advertised to the public
and that the proposed townhouse development is too high of a density. Mr. Habboush said
that the mentioned access road from Fairview Avenue is currently unpaved and only 15-feet
wide. Mr. Habboush is also concerned with the possibility of worsening flooding on Fairview
Avenue with the addition of the townhouses.

Mr. Conway agrees with Chair Corti and would like to see the senior living facility without
the townhouses. Ms. McGowan said she agrees and would prefer the back parcel to remain
R-1 zoned.

Ms. McGowan asked for further explanation on the possibility of the proposed Ordinance
being applied to parcels besides the one in discussion. Mr. Rieker said that the proposed
Ordinance is specific to the three parcels listed, however, the application on other parcels
would be dependent upon legislative approval by the governing body (i.e., Board of
Supervisors).

Mr. Kaplin shared his frustration with the opposition against the proposed townhouse
development considering the number of discussions with Township Staff urging the
development of the back parcels. Mr. Marmot also shared his disappointment with the
comments from the Planning Commission after the time spent developing the proposal. Mr.
Marmot explained that the acreage remaining after the development of the senior living
facility allows for .5 acres per dwelling plus space for a buffer.

Mr. Rieker said that given the history of the proposals given to the Township, Staff felt it
would be best to secure a master plan for the entire 20-acres. Mr. Rieker agrees there are still

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 8 of 14

details that need to be learned but he likes the idea of residential development compared to
commercial.

Audience Comments

Kathleen DiClementi, 1115 Fairview Avenue – Ms. DiClementi explained that Fairview
Avenue is a private road and that the access road previously discussed would include the
existing gravel pathway and proceed into the grass before connecting to the public portion of
Fairview Avenue. Ms. DiClementi said she does not want emergency vehicles driving down
her street. Ms. DiClementi that she is also concerned with people cutting down Fairview
Avenue to bypass the intersection of Skippack Pike and DeKalb Pike. Ms. DiClementi is also
worried with the possible troubles to the well water that services her home. Ms. DiClementi
is nervous about the increase of flooding with the proposed development. Lastly, Ms.
DiClementi is concerned with the number of students who would be attending Stony Creek
Elementary School considering the school is already overcrowded. Ms. DiClementi said she
was disappointed with the lack of notice regarding this matter.

Dolores Botto, 1187 & 1199 Fairview Avenue – Ms. Botto shared her opposition to the
proposed development as she does not want people cutting down Fairview Avenue.

Barbara Verica, 1020 Carriage Lane – Ms. Verica said she does not understand why the there
is an Ordinance proposed instead of the Developer going through the Zoning Hearing Board.
Ms. Verica also said she is not in favor of the high density of the proposed homes. Ms.
Verica reminded the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Plan for Whitpain
Township states that the intersection of Skippack and DeKalb Pikes was supposed to be the
center of the Township and the proposed development does not seem like an appropriate use.

Tracie Walsh, 997 Sunset Drive – Ms. Walsh agreed there was not adequate notice to
residents regarding this proposed Ordinance. Ms. Walsh argued that 28 units would have
approximately 56 cars and that would be too much added congestion for that intersection.
Ms. Walsh said that cars will use the emergency access to cut through from DeKalb Pike to
Skippack Pike and recommended a barrier to restrict cars.

Edgar David, 740 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike – Mr. David said he is attending the meeting
representing the Whitpain Township Shade Tree Commission. Mr. David is concerned with
the huge clearing of the tree canopy for the proposed development along with the difficulties
of expanding the access road over a stream.

Christian Radomicki, 980 Clover Court – Mr. Radomicki said that the recent hurricane
caused severe flooding on his property and expects further detrimental flooding if the
proposed development is approved. Mr. Radomicki also said that the owner of the parcels in
discussion has not been maintaining the grass and that it has been overgrown. Vice Chair
Shorin asked if he had photos of the flooding. Mr. Radomicki said yes.

Mr. Kaplin explained that the access road will be blocked off and only emergency vehicles
will have access. Mr. Kaplin said that neighbors and residents have been aware of the

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 9 of 14

proposal and were invited to a public meeting previously. Mr. Kaplin said that he has proved
to the Township Solicitor that they have the PECO right-of-way to construct the emergency
access road. If there is opposition to the townhome development, Mr. Kaplin recommended
the Township purchase the property.

Harold Sprecher, 1348 DeKalb Pike – Mr. Sprecher had worked with the Reed Family and
Mr. Kaplin to develop the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Sprecher agrees that the zoning needs to
be updated to account for today’s needs and advancement. Mr. Sprecher said that the Reed
family has discussed reopening the restaurant, which he feels would cause more difficulty for
nearby residents. Mr. Sprecher argued that the proposed housing development would hardly
be noticed as it is in the middle of a forest.

Michelle Montijo, 1139 Fairview Avenue – Ms. Montijo is disappointed that the developer
has not spoken directly to the neighbors about the proposal and access road. Ms. Montijo said
that the removal of trees conflicts with the Township’s need for tree canopy. Ms. Montijo
finds it ironic that the Township would suggest a project that would remove so much of the
tree canopy. Ms. Montijo also said she was unaware of the proposed Ordinance and that the
meeting should have been advertised better.

David & Lisa Wheeldon, 998 Sunset Drive – Ms. Wheeldon was unaware of the proposed
Ordinance and said that the meeting should have been better advertised.

Christian Radomicki, 980 Clover Court – Mr. Radomicki echoed Mr. Sprecher’s comment
saying the proposed homes will be in the middle of the swamp, however, that is the concern,
because of the flooding on the parcel. Mr. Radomicki is concerned for the increase of
students to Stony Creek Elementary School and the increase of traffic.

Chair Corti declined a motion to recommend Ordinance #4-254 due to the lack of
unanswered questions and requested to review the Ordinance again once changes have been
made.

Mr. Kaplin emphasized that this Ordinance is regarding a zoning change, not a land
development application and asked for clarification on what additional information is needed.
Chair Corti said he wants information on the right-of-way of the proposed emergency access,
the density of townhomes, consider phasing of the projects, a traffic analysis/study to
determine how a full access driveway at Skippack Pike would operate or even be feasible and
confirmation that the Developer will comply with the Township Tree Canopy Ordinance.
Chair Corti would like to see the Ordinance proposal advertised again with the name and
title, “Former Reeds Nightclub & Restaurant” included.

4. Review current Zoning Hearing Board cases:

a) NO. 2213-19: 720 PENLLYN PIKE, LLC requests the following variance relief from
the Whitpain Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended: (1) Article V, Section 160-14
relating to lot area and width requirements in the R-1 Residence District; (2) Article V,
Section 160-15 relating to front yard setback requirements in the R-1 Residence District;

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 10 of 14

       (3) Article V, Section 160-17 relating to side yard requirements for single family
       dwellings requirements in the R-1 Residence District; (4) Article V, Section 160-19
       relating to rear yard setback requirements in the R-1 Residence District; (5) Article
       XXIII, Section 160-157 relating to IN Institutional District use regulations; (6) Article
       XXIII, Section 160-158(A) relating to area and width regulations requirements in the IN
       Institutional District; (7) Article XXIII, Section 160-158(D)(1), (2), (3) relating front
       yard, side yard, and rear yard requirements in the IN Institutional District; (8) Article
       XXIII, Section 160-158(D)(4) relating to required setbacks in the IN Institutional District
       when abutting a residential use or district; (9) Article XXIII, Section 160- 158(D)(5)
       relating to required space between buildings in the IN Institutional District; (10) Article
       XXIII, Section 160-158(E) relating to required buffering of parking in the IN Institutional
       District; (11) Article XXIII, Section 160-159(B) relating to off-street parking
       requirements in the IN Institutional District; (12) Article XXIII, Section 160-160 relating
       to IN Institutional District additional controls for exterior lighting and setbacks; (13)
       Article XXXI, Section 160-241 relating to expiration of special exceptions and variances.

           a. Applicant proposes a 6-lot residential subdivision and development on the
              property located at 720 and 730 Penllyn Pike (further identified as Tax Parcel
              Nos. 66-00-05374-00-5 and 66-00-05371-00-8) within the Township’s R-1
              Residence and the IN Institutional Districts. Proposed lots 1, 2 & 3 are split zoned
              and located within the R1/IN/FP Districts, and lots 4, 5 & 6 are located within the
              IN/FP Districts only.
           b. Chair Corti stated that typically the Planning Commission remains neutral on
              Zoning Hearing Board applications. The Planning Commission chose to remain
              neutral on the subject application.

       Present for the Applicant: Thomas & Mary Ann Messmer, Property Owners
                                  Bernadette Kearney, Esq., Attorney
                                  Mark Salamone, Applicant
                                  Rolph Graf, Graf Engineering, LLC
                                  Greg Richardson, Traffic Planning & Design

       Ms. Kearney reminded the Planning Commission of the previous presentation of eight units
       and shared that they have since reduced the number of units to six after meeting with
       Township Staff. Ms. Kearney said that the setbacks have been increased based off past
       Planning Commission comments. Ms. Kearney said that they performed a soil study on the
       property and have determined there is no floodplain. Ms. Kearney said that the proposed
       development would be the lowest density compared to the surrounding area.

       Mr. Zintner asked if there has been consideration for accommodating emergency vehicles
       in the proposed development. Mr. Graf said they have not yet contacted the Fire Marshal
       but will comply with the requirements to allow for emergency vehicle turnaround. Mr.
       Zintner asked for the proposed length of the private drive. Mr. Graf said that each lot is
       approximately 100-feet wide so the total length of the drive will be about 220-feet long and
       25-feet wide. Mr. Zintner asked if there would be on-street parking allowed. Mr. Graf said
       no, on-site parking will be adequate.

Whitpain Township Planning Commission
August 11, 2020
Page 11 of 14

Mr. Conway asked if the previous application proposing an ambulatory surgical center is
still active. Ms. Kearney said yes.

Mr. Zintner asked if the updated plans have been shared with the neighboring residents.
Ms. Kearney said yes.

Vice Chair Shorin said the front two lots seem too close to Penllyn Blue Bell Pike and
recommended them being further off the street. Mr. Graf said that the front lots are set back
off Penllyn Blue Bell Pike 30-feet from the right-of-way, which complies with the
Township requirements but will be set back further considering the placement of sidewalk.
Chair Corti recommended the installation of a berm with landscaping along the lots that
back up to Penllyn Blue Bell Pike. Mr. Graf said they would consider a buffer.

Vice Chair Shorin asked if the owners of the back lots would be responsible for the
maintenance of the ponds in the rear yards. Ms. Kearney said the Township would require
a declaration of some sort.

Mr. Rieker agrees that a buffer separating the front lots and Penllyn Blue Bell Pike would
be best.

Audience Comments

Edgar David, 740 & 760 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike – Mr. David argued that the Township
does not favor higher density developments. Mr. David said that the proposed development
does not fit in with the surrounding area and does not give back to the Township. Mr. David
said he prefers to see four houses proposed.

John Comonitski, 563 Village Circle – Mr. Comonitski clarified he is not opposed to
development but wishes the Developer would support the current zoning code allowing for
the development of four homes instead of six. Mr. Comonitski is frustrated because there
has been no valid reason to account for six or more houses.