September 9, 2024 NORTH HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Monday, September 9, 2024 @ 7:00 p.m. 11279 Center Highway, North Huntingdon, PA 15642 CALL TO ORDER Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL William Chapman, President Present Virginia Stump, Secretary Thomas Kerber James McHugh Stephen Cross Joseph Dykta James Flynn Also Present: Ryan Fonzi Justin Darazio Present Present Absent Absent Present Present Deanna Perlinger, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Ms. Stump CITIZEN'S INPUT None Motioned to approve minutes of August 5, 2024 Motion Carried: 5-0-0. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS S-10-2024 Lucas Plan Revision 1 This is a boundary line revision between two adjacent lots located at the intersection of McKee Road and Clay Pike. The two lots in question are lots 1&21 that were created ini the original Lucas Plan of Lots recorded in 2004. Dean Tyler Martin and Angie Thompson of113041 McKee Road own Lot 2 and would like to acquire 0.10 acres from the neighboring property and appendi it tot the 1.00 acre they already own where their home is located. The neighboring property, Lot 1, is the Brick 184 September 9, 2024 House Tap & Grill located at 11232 McKee Road which is owned by Donato and Diane Pasquarelli. After the revision, the Martin and Thompson lot (Lot 2R) will increase to 1.10 acres while the Pasquarelli lot (Lot 1R) will be reduced to 1.129 acres. Both lots meet the minimum dimensional requirements in the R-2 district. There are a couple labeling errors ont the plan, but once the surveyor corrects these issues, Ican recommend the plan for approval with no conditions. Mr. Fonzi stated there is a small green strip shown on map between the property of the residence and the Brickhouse Grill will be attached to the Martin and Thompson property. Mr. Pasquarelli was planning to do a stormwater management plan years ago at this spot. We have asked that they maintain an easement to access an existing inlet that would be part of the stormwater plan. Bob Deglau was the surveyor and did get all the corrections back to him, and The Brick House property is currently 1.229 acres in size. everything was satisfied. Motion: Mr. Flynn Second: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Approve Motion Carried: 5 -0-0 S-11-2024 Victor-Cooper Plan Boundary Line Revision This is al boundary line revision between two adjacent lots located at the cul-de-sac of Birmingham Drive in Phase lof the Lincoln Hills residential development. James Cooper of 503 Birmingham Drive owns Lot 141 in Lincoln Hills and would like to acquire 0.42 acres from the neighboring property and append it to the 0.54 acres he already owns where his home is located. This side yard add-on is to correct an encroachment of Mr. Cooper's pool onto the adjacent property. The vacant neighboring property, Parcel C, is owned by Ryan and Carina Victor of 308 Highberger Road in Herminie, PA. The Victor lot is currently 8.776 acres ins size. After the revision, the Cooper lot (Lot 141R) will increase to 0.96 acres while the Victor lot (Parcel CR Residual) will be reduced to 8.356 acres. Both lots meet the minimum dimensional requirements int the R-1A district. There are a couple labeling errors on the plan, but once the surveyor corrects these issues,lcan recommend the plan for approval with no conditions. Mr. Fonzi stated Mr. Cooper has his residence on the lot, and this was coming up on a title search as a red flag because the property line was going through the pool structure. This is being done to correct the property line encroachment. Bob Deglau was the surveyor and did get all the corrections back to him. Motion: Ms. Stump Second: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Approve Motion Carried: 5 -0-0 185 September 9, 2024 S-12-2024 JP Clay Pike Villas This is a subdivision located at the intersection of Clay Pike and Guffey Road. JPI Land Holdings LLC of 1490 Clay Pike owns 0.910 acres of vacant land that has an R-2 zoning designation. The owner would like to subdivide this lot into two separate lots tol build as single-family attached JP received Zoning Hearing Board approval for a 0' side yard setback in May of 2022. This allows the owner to construct this type of dwelling in the R-2 zoning district. Once subdivided, proposed Lot A willl be 0.414 acres and proposed Lot B will be 0.260 acres in size. The owner is also dedicating 0.236 acres oft the parent parcel to increase the right-of-way at the intersection of these State-owned roads. Both proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional requirements for Per the North Huntingdon Township Municipal Authority, no further sewage planning is required because this property was already granted tap allocations from a prior subdivision. There are a couple labeling errors on1 the plan, but once the surveyor corrects these issues, Ican Mr. Fonzi stated that Ryan Jones did the survey work on this plan. The house will be on an angle and the property line will go through it, common wall construction. After checking with NHTMA there is no sewage plan needed. home, or "villa." an R-2 district. recommend the plan for approval with no conditions. Mr. Dykta asked where the driveway entrance would be. Mr. Jacob Petro, JP Land Holdings, stated it would come off Clay Pike Road. Mr. Kerber questioned if the driveway off Guffey Road was temporary. Mr. Petro stated it was temporary and would be going away. Mr. Flynn asked if this would be a shared driveway for both units. Mr. Petro stated it was shared. Mr. Chapman asked if a highway occupancy permit was needed. Mr. Petro stated he already applied and received the HOP. Itjust needs to be transferred. Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Mr. Dykta Motioned to Approve Motion Carried: 5 -0-0 186 September 9, 2024 SP-07-2024 SimBA Holdings This is a proposed 3,200 square foot steel building that will be used as a small boutique fitness space. The property owner, SimBA Holdings LLC, owns 0.66 acres addressed as 14279 State Route 30. The site currently has the vacant Handyman Services trailer located oni it. Thisi is a During the review, it was discovered that the applicant's property was two lots instead of one. To allow this proposed building, the lots must be consolidated, and a separate application plan will permitted use ini the C-1 district. follow. KU Resources has reviewed the plan. Mr. Fonzi turned this over to Justin Darazio, KU Resources. Mr. Darazio stated that during the review we noted that there are two lots on the property SO a consolidation plan will need to be submitted. The plan indicates there is a required landscape buffer, but they plan to use the existing vegetation on the adjacent property, which is not permissible. The landscape buffer needs to be on this property. The. applicant is proposing to use aggregate surface which is not permitted and would require a variance. There was no lighting plan provided for the review. There is no indication that there has been al Penn DOT HOP submitted, or status of that permit. There was no parking calculations provided. There was no proposed signage for the plan. There is no information regarding existing utilities or any proposed grading. There was no zoning table with requirements for proposed conditions to demonstrate compliance. A copy of the current deed was not included to be reviewed. Utility service availability letters were not provided for water, power, gas, communication or sanitary. The current plan does not appear to reflect the required dumpster enclosure and screening. There is no indication of discussion for fire lanes. There were no erosion and control plans submitted or approval from the Westmoreland County Conservation District. There was no trip generation analysis provided. There was no written approval or agreements with NHTMA or MAWC for water or sanitary. The distance between the parking lot and the building should be ten feet, which is not provided. A land operations permit is also needed. This are the larger items missing from the Mr. Cody Stitely, SimBA Holdings, stated that it is currently listed on the KU Resources analysis condition list that this is a minor land development application. On page three out of ten, item 302.3 under article three, it is found that the application qualifies as a minor land development. In the letter from the township, the first sentence, it says "as per the Township request, we have completed a review of the above-described application for the Major Land Development application." He stated many of the items that Mr. Darazio listed were under the major land development, not minor land development. Mr. Darazio apologized, as he did not draft the letter, but believes this is just a application. typographic error. 187 September 9, 2024 Mr. Stitely asked for the article of surprise sO he could look at it. The erosion plan, item 304.6.B, clearly in the ordinance, states that it is only for major land Mr. Fonzi stated that this is a major land development. Anytime you are getting at third-party approval, like from Penn DOT, that puts it into the major land Mr. Steven Harris, SimBA Holdings, asked if the original finding of the letter is Mr. Fonzi stated the minor land development part was the typographic error. Mr. Stitely stated it is referenced twice, if you look at page three, and asked ifit developments. development category. incorrect. is another typographic error. Mr. Fonzi said yes, but all the sections are there for the major as you referenced. Mr. Harris stated they will go back and talk to their engineers. He was a little surprised based on the initial review, it did not seem like some of these things were required. The way he read the ordinance, it did not seem like some of these were applicable for major land development, sO he is confused as to why Mr. Stitely stated every time they get their engineers involved, they pay them every minute they are working on this. It is frustrating when there have been three mistakes found in two minutes. The he corrected himself and stated two mistakes. They already did work with their engineers and the biggest question was if this was a major or minor land development. Due to the comment in here, this changes what the engineers have worked on for the last eight hours. He stated page three is a big mistake, and asked Mr. Darazio and Mr. Fonzi if Mr. Darazio stated for the erosion and sediment control plan, which is just a small portion of the development, they would need that just from the land disturbance, not based off it being a major or minor land development. Mr. Harris asked for clarification if there was a way for Mr. Darazio to show some of the calculations for what is being calculated for earth disturbance. When Mr. Harris looked at it, it is a 3200 square foot building and property where there has previously been a daycare and already development. He is trying to understand where there is a disturbance of that amount of land that some of these things are required. they agreed. would qualify us to meet these requirements. 188 September 9, 2024 Mr. Darazio stated that would have been in the application and he cannot remember off the top of his head. There is land disturbance outside of the Mr. Harris stated there is existing parking already there and a footprint of where the previous building was located. If he recalls correctly, you will need a half-acre of land that had to be disturbed, and we are not going to be anywhere Mr. Darazio stated it is a full acre for NPDES permit, but I am not sure if that is what you are referring to. It is a 3200 square foot building, and you need to install landscaping and a parking lot. There are trees here too. It is going to be Mr. Stitely stated there is confusion as there are no trees that will be cut down. He also stated they are not touching the pavement that is already there. Mr. Darazio advised that land disturbance just entails excavating on the surface of the ground. You do not have to have tree clearing. Even to get rid of existing pavement, as soon as you go under the pavement, it would be considered land disturbance. On the plan it is showing a gravel parking lot, but currently there is a paved parking lot, sO this would be considered land Mr. Flynn asked if the existing topography would be used. It seems like the trailer is lower from State Route 30 by five to eight feet, and the building area is another ten to fifteen feet lower. He asked if the parking lot would be ten or fifteen percent grade. He stated it was hard to visualize as there are no contours on the plan. He asked if the area where the placement of the building Mr. Darazio stated it would be approximately three percent grade, and they would have a little fill but not bringing in land fill from anywhere else. Mr. Stitely stated there would be items they would have to get back to this board about but asked if this was the final findings for KU Resources, or ifan Mr. Darazio stated he could update the document with corrections showing Mr. Fonzi stated typically SimBA Holdings would respond back to the Township, with a response letter. If they would like to meet in person, that would be helpful as well. The Township could go through the letter point by footprint of the building. near close to that. more than just the square footage of the building. disturbance to put in the gravel. is flat, or if they would need to bring in fill. updated document would be sent. this as a major land development. point and make sure SimBA Holdings was on track. 189 September 9, 2024 Mr. Harris asked about the Penn DOT Highway Occupancy Permit, and if this Mr. Darazio stated this would just be the driveway permit, the access. Mr. Flynn stated right now the plan is showing two entrances and with the limited linear feet, you would only be getting one entrance. As per the HOP, you are only permitted one entrance for 600 linear feet. He would be surprised if Penn DOT would allow the two entrances that are on the plan. Mr. Stitely asked even if there were already two entrances they would not Mr. Flynn stated that Penn DOT does not grandfather anything in from what Mr. Stitely questioned about the process from here as their engineers are was the driveway permit or the full development permit. permit to continue with two. others that work with Penn DOT have said. working on a reply to the Township. Mr. Fonzi stated for tonight, he would recommend tabling, sO we can get on the same page and meet before the next Planning Commission Meeting. If there is enough progress by the next meeting, the Planning Commission could give a conditional approval. After that, it goes to the Board of Commissioners for discussion, and they can vote on final approval. Per the MPC Municipalities Planning Code) you have 90 days for the Township to give you a decision. One month tabling is not going to disturb that timetable. If we do get into a situation where you would have to go into another meeting, you could sign a time waiver extension, where we. just give you another thirty or sixty days, and you sign off on it. Itjust states that you waive the requirements of the MPC. If itt tables tonight, it stays at this level. There is no need to go to a Commissioner's Meeting until a decision is made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Flynn questioned if the building looks like it is too close to the property line. He asked where the second lot is located, as it looks like the landscape would be on the old Gloria's property, which is not on their property, sO how Mr. Darazio stated that they did not provide a consolidation plan for the one lot, but yes, the building is encroaching into the set back. The boundary line can they use that tree line as their landscaping. crosses in the middle of the plan. 190 September 9, 2024 Mr. Stitely asked to clarify if the buffer on the left side is the issue, not the Mr. Flynn stated that is correct, because it is not on SimBA Holdings' property. right side. Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Ms. Stump Motioned to Table Motion Carried: 5 -0-0 ADVISORY HEARINGS None ITEMS FOR ACCEPTANCE S-13-2024 Rhodin Revision 1 Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Mr. Dykta Motioned to Accept Motion Carried: 5 -0-0 SP-09-2024 Sheetz North Thompson Redevelopment Motion: Mr. Kerber Second: Ms. Stump Motioned to Accept Motion Carried: 5-0-0 DISCUSSION ITEMS None 191 September 9, 2024 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Motion: Ms. Stump Second: Mr. Dykta Motioned to adjourn 7:29 p.m. Motion Carried: 5 a 0-0 Meeting minutes of September 9, 2024, were approved by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2024. xbd Ea Planninq Commission Chairman Planninq Commission: Secretary XOuhghunp 192