Zoning & Subdivision Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday – July 18, 2006 – 7:30 p.m. at the MCRPC Offices
2491 Highland Road – Hermitage, PA (724) 981-2412

MEMBERS PRESENT

• Samuel Scott, Chairman

• James Hogan

• Clifford McCandless

• Ron Faull

• James Hughes

OTHERS PRESENT

• Peggy Heldorfer, Associate Planner, MCRPC

• Lisa Holm Schrader, Planner, MCRPC

• Bob Kochems, Solicitor, MCRPC

Mr. Scott, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present. Mr. Scott noted that the Minutes of the June 20, 2006 meeting were mailed prior to tonight’s meeting and there being no additions, corrections, or deletions, the Minutes stand approved as mailed.

N E W B U S I N E S S

Preliminary Plan – Martin Subdivision, Lots #1-20 – Sandy Lake Borough – Ms. Schrader presented the plan to Committee members. The site is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and the subdivision includes 20 lots along two cul-de-sacs of 700’ and 200’ lengths. The 200’ length will be added to the existing stub of School Street which is already 200’ long making that 400’ total. Four (4) lots will front on Broad Street and one (1) on Lake Road (SR358). Sewage will tie into existing systems. Water line information is still missing from the plans, so this must be addressed before the plan is final. It is not clear whether the site will use public water or on-lot wells. We have a letter from the Sandy Lake Volunteer Fire Department stating that they will be serving this site.

The stormwater management plan is being reviewed by the Mercer County Conservation District. They have reviewed the Erosion & Sedimentation Plan and made some comments, however no letter specific to stormwater has been received.

The plan was originally submitted in January of 2006 so the 1995 Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance applies. At that time, the plan was incomplete so it was tabled. Additional information was provided and revisions were made when the plan was resubmitted in late May. The Municipal Subdivision Review Form has been returned following Sandy Lake Borough’s review of the sewer and roads.

There is a concern regarding sight distances at the entrance to the site from SR0358. The intersection for Sylvania Road is proposed to be opposite existing Pine Tree Drive, however from the north side of the road the sight distances are not as clear. This is an issue for PennDOT and may require some additional grading and clearing to get the necessary permit.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Hogan to recommend approval with the conditions of clarifying the water supply issue and receiving approval for the stormwater from the Mercer County Conservation District. Mr. Faull seconded. The motion passed.

Modification Request – Norman P. Straub – Wolf Creek Township – Mr. Straub was not able to be present for the meeting. He is requesting a modification to the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance which states that if a lot is large enough to be resubdivided, then the access shall be at least 50’ wide (Appendices, Page 79, #3 regarding flag lots).

Ms. Schrader explained to Committee members that the 25’ easement is the existing easement for the property, however Mr. Straub is now subdividing a single 3.74 acre lot from the overall tract and that would include this access. The remaining lands still have access across a 50’ strip at the west side of that property. Essentially the residence area and most of the buildings on the property are included on the proposed 3.74 acre lot and the remaining lands are the farm fields. The property to the east is also lands of Straub with access toward Bell Road to the east. However, due to the pond on that site there is no access available between the two properties. Although technically the lot is of sufficient size to consider subdividing, for all practical purposes the 3.74 acres would be difficult to further subdivide due to ponds on this property as well. That is the reason for requesting the modification. Discussion included the fact that any further subdivision of the property would require a subsequent modification and the conditions at that time would be for more than the single lot currently using the access.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. McCandless to recommend approving the modification for Appendices; Page 79, #3 regarding flag lots with the condition that the note be added to the plan indicating the modification is only for the proposed 3.74 acre lot. Mr. Faull seconded. The motion passed.

Non-Building Lot plan notation – Discussion with Atty. Robert G. Kochems, Solicitor for MCRPC, regarding the use and validity of the ‘non-building lot note’ which is added on plans when DEP sewage planning is not being requested. Mrs. Heldorfer explained to Committee members that previously the committee/commission was convinced that the note was prohibiting development on the lots even when the development would not require sewage such as a garage or farm structures. The note was determined to be not necessary at that time.

Since that time, it has come to our attention that lots are being developed with houses or garages that do require sewage approval from the local municipality. One non-building lot was to be joined to an adjacent property however it is separate and has a house on it. When this happens, the non-building note on the plan is either left off of the copy provided or otherwise overlooked when the building permit is issued. A revised subdivision is required to remove the note. Deed searches on these properties should eventually reveal this problem however in the meantime the cloud remains on the property.

Mr. Hughes suggested using the language "to allow any permitted use that does not require sewage" and a statement that "resubmission of the plan to MCRPC for review of the subdivision is required to determine the compliance with sewage and DEP requirements in order to have this note removed from the property." Further discussion of the exact wording of the statement will be provided at the next meeting. Also at that time, it will be determined the process for requiring this note on all such plans. This will be administered as directed until it is determined if other changes may be needed within the Mercer County Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Hughes to recommend the use of the DEP note with some modification to the language as noted. Mr. McCandless seconded. The motion passed.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Holm Schrader, Planner, MCRPC

 

Mercer County Regional Planning Commission
2491 Highland Road, Hermitage, PA 16148
mail@mcrpc.com    www.mcrpc.com

 

home    about mcrpc    planning projects    community development    transportation    zoning    subdivision