TOWNSHIP OF SALISBURY
LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
7:30 PM
March 9, 2010

A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the Township of Salisbury was held on the above date at the Township Municipal Building located at 2900 South Pike Avenue, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Present were Commissioners Beck, McKitish, Hebelka, Schreiter, Hassick, and Licht. Also present were Mr. Tettemer, Township Engineer; Attorney Ashley, Township Solicitor; Mr. Soriano, Township Manager and Ms. Sopka, Director of Planning & Zoning. Commissioner Snyder was not present.

CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Beck called the meeting to order.

Ms. Sopka advised that Major Subdivision/Final Land Development plan for 3109 Birchwood Drive has been withdrawn for the meeting. It is rescheduled for the April meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
On motion of Mr. McKitish, seconded by Mr. Hassick the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with correction as noted to the recorded vote roll call. Mr. Snyder was not present for vote.

432 East Emmaus Avenue – Felton & Egan Minor Subdivision
Preliminary/Final Minor Subdivision of parcel #640692491840 equal to 1.186 acres to be divided into three Single-Family Residential lots.

Present were Mr. Chris Kerkusz, Engineer from Martin H. Schuler Co. and Mr. Patrick Egan, Owner.

Mr. Tettemer highlighted the Township Engineer’s review letter dated March 2, 2010.

Ms. Sopka stated her comment review letter dated February 1, 2010 is from the first submission but advised that with their second submission all comments have been addressed.

Mr. Hebelka reviewed Mr. Kerkusz’s letter of February 12, 2010 requesting a waiver for item #2 SALDO 10.12 Sidewalks and Curbs and item #4 SALDO 10.16 Street Trees and Landscaping. This waiver requests will be changed to a deferral requests. Mr. Kerkusz will comply.

Discussion ensued in reference to the easement, the setback requirement that comes from the ultimate right-of-way and one common driveway for three properties. Mr. Tettemer requested that the driveway be designed to 24 feet wide to allow a car to enter and/or another to exit (at the same time) and 40 feet deep to allow for parking, if necessary. Mr. Kerkusz stated that the driveways are split at the property line and only common at the point of intersection to meet the Ordinance requirement. The easements have been recorded.

Mr. Beck inquired if a catch basin is going to be installed. Mr. Kerkusz stated that there is an existing catch basin as there is no storm or sewer proposed.

Mr. McKitish inquired about the minimum setback lines. He stated on the plan it shows a width of 70 ft. Mr. Tettemer clarified that it is a R3 Zone, therefore; the minimum setback line is a width of 90 ft.

Mr. McKitish inquired, relative to Lot #2, if a non-conforming lot is being created because of the setback requirement. The setback requirement in question is the porch that has a cellar door access to the home. Discussion continued and Mr. McKitish advised that he would like this looked into further because the line being created needs to be placed to create a conforming lot. Mr. Kerkusz stated that the property line will be moved from the cellar door regardless, and all requirements will be reviewed and changed if necessary.

The underground oil tank was in question. Ms. Sopka advised that the State requires the removal of underground oil tanks. Mr. Beck stated that the oil tank must be removed. Mr. Tettemer advised Mr. Kerkusz that the tank must be removed before the plan is recorded.

Mr. McKitish believes that there is a cistern on Lot #1, possibly located underneath the cement porch and recommends this be found for safety reasons.

Mr. Beck referenced the deferral request for trees and inquired if there are any trees located in the front of the property. The trees located in the front of the property are not true street trees. Mr. Kerkusz was advised to replace any trees that will be removed in kind. Mr. Tettemer suggested adding trees to the rear of the property on the south side.

Mr. Beck opened the floor for public comment regarding the Felton & Egan subdivision. Ms. Michelle Chaladney of 411 Yeker Farm Lane inquired what are the price range of the homes and if the trees in the rear of the property will be removed. The other residents, including Ms. Cynthia Wassum of 407 Yeker Farm Lane, expressed concerns in regard to the rain gardens, the poor drainage, the flooding of their basements and Selvaggio not taking responsibility for the upkeep of the street or snow plowing. Mr. Beck stated that the individual should consider contacting a State Representative for assistance. Ms. Sopka stated that these issues are separate from the Felton & Egan site plan review. It was determined by the Planning Commission and Township Solicitor that the complaints did not relate to the subdivision under review and should be handled by Township personnel at a different time.

It was noted that the 90 day time extension does expire May 3, 2010.

A motion was made by Mr. Schreiter, seconded by Mr. McKitish, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to table the project. Mr. Snyder was not present for vote.

3333 Lehigh Street – Land Development
Land Development Plan of Parcel #549562793127 incorporates approximately 8.158 acres of land in the Commercial Zoning District C-3. The property incorporates automobile service and sales. Chapter 27-117.1.A requires Site Plan review by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners for any reconstruction or expansion of more than 2,000 sq. ft. in floor area of industrial, apartment, office or commercial buildings. Applicant proposes constructing a 4,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing service garage. Additional waivers and deferrals are requested.

Present were Stephen A. Pany, Engineer of Pany & Lentz Engineering Co.

Mr. Tettemer highlighted the Township Engineer’s review letter dated March 2, 2010.

Ms. Sopka highlighted her review letter dated March 4, 2010 and concurred with the Township Engineer’s letter. She stated that the proposed use is an extension of a previously approved auto dealership. Ms. Sopka stated that she evaluated the project for the Zoning requirements and it is in compliance.

Mr. Pany stated that he is requesting the following waivers and deferrals:

SALDO 3.2.D.3 – a waiver request that the plans be reviewed as a preliminary/final plan.
SALDO 5.3.F.2 (h) – a waiver request referencing the contours, as it is submitted on a 1,000 scale area map as a supplemental.
SALDO 10.4.L.4 – waiver request to continue to maintain the cartways that currently exist as previously discussed.
SALDO 10.12.A – a deferral request regarding the sidewalks along Lehigh Street and 33rd Street. Most of the areas are not paved but there are a few areas with a concrete sidewalk.
SALDO 10.12.E. – a deferral request regarding the curb line along 33rd Street. The curb line will be maintained and remain as it currently exists.

Additionally, Mr. Pany is requesting SALDO Section 10.16 for street tree and landscaping be changed from a waiver to a deferral request. The objective for this deferral is to provide visibility.

A motion was made by Dr. Licht, seconded by Mr. Schreiter, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend granting approval of the waivers and deferrals as amended to the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Snyder was not present for vote.

Discussion was made in reference to the preliminary/final plan. Mr. McKitish questioned Mr. Tettemer if the plan is clean enough to be a final plan. Mr. Tettemer stated that the developer should submit additional plans after all changes have been made, therefore; when submitted to the Board of Commissioners, the plan will be clean.

A motion of Mr. McKitish, seconded by Mr. Schreiter, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Scott Chevrolet Service Addition at 3333 Lehigh Street with the appropriate comment, conditions, waivers, deferrals and all appropriate regulations and Ordinances stated to have the plans reviewed as a preliminary/final. Mr. Snyder was not present for vote.

OTHER BUSINESS
None

ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Schreiter, the Planning Commission voted to adjourn the meeting.

Meeting adjourned.