February 3, 2025 NORTH HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Monday, February 3, 2025 @ 7:00 p.m. 11279 Center Highway, North Huntingdon, PA 15642 CALL TO ORDER Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL William Chapman, President Present Also Present: Virginia Stump, Secretary Present Josh Andrykovitch Thomas Kerber Present Justin Darazio James McHugh Present Stephen Cross Absent Joseph Dykta Present James Flynn Present Deanna Perlinger, Recording Secretary Nomination for Chairman: Nomination: Mr. McHugh Bill Chapman for Chairman Second: Mr. Flynn Motion Carried: 5 a 0 a 1 (Chapman abstained) Nomination for Vice Chairman: Nomination: Mr. McHugh Tom Kerber for Vice Chairman Seconded: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 5 a 0 a 1 (Kerber abstained) Nomination for Secretary: Nomination: Mr. Flynn Virginia Stump for Secretary Second: Mr. McHugh Motion Carried: 5 a 0 a 1 (Stump abstained) Reorganization Adjournment: Motion: Mr. Dykta Motioned to adjourn (7:02 p.m.) Second: Mr. Kerber Motion Carried: 6 a 0 0 239 February 3, 2025 CALL TO ORDER Mr. Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to approve minutes of December 2, 2024 Second: Mr. McHugh Motion Carried: 6 -0-0. RATIFY EMAIL VOTE FOR ACCEPTANCE ITEMS IN JANUARY Motion: Ms. Stump Motion to approve acceptance of new plans submitted for January 2025's meeting, done via email. Second: Mr. Kerber Motion Carried: 6-0-0. CITIZEN'S INPUT None OLD BUSINESS None 240 February 3, 2025 NEW BUSINESS: S-01-2025 Harper Subdivision This is a proposed subdivision located off of Bickerstaff Road. Casey and Cheryl Harper of 2640 Bickerstaff Road own 18.534 acres. They would like to subdivide off 4.737 acres, 4.617 of that acreage will be for the new lot and 0.12 acres will be added to the dedicated 50' ROW for the purpose of obtaining the required 100' frontage needed to create the lot. The purpose of this subdivision is for a future single-family home. Both lots would meet the minimum dimensional requirements in an R-3 zoning district. There were a couple labeling issues on the plan review, but once the surveyor corrects these issues, can recommend approval with the condition of sewage planning approval by the PADEP. Mr. Andrykovitch showed the property and what would be subdivided. Ms. Stump asked if this was unopened street or a right of way. She wanted to be certain that this parcel was not a flag lot. Mr. Andrykovitch stated he believes it is an unopened street. There were two of them that accessed the original parcel. It may have been previously set up for a subdivision. Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Approve with conditions Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 0 S-02-2025 Sunset Valley I Revision 3 This is a major subdivision on Sunset Avenue in the Sunset Valley Plan Phase I. Pasquarelli Property Management is the owner of the property. These are lots of record from the previously recorded Sunset Valley Phase I in 1958 with the addition of the six new lots on the cul-de-sac of Walter Avenue. The applicant is seeking preliminary approval with three (3) walver/modification requests. The first is a modification request for the length of the cul-de-sac on Solena Court to be extended to 811. Secondly, the applicant is asking for a waiver to several development drawings until they seek final approval. Lastly, they are asking for a modification of the vertical curve and slope of Walter Street to minimize the amount of fill over the sanitary sewer line. Mr. Flynn asked if this plan was before the Planning Commission previously. Several members stated that this plan was presented previously. 241 February 3, 2025 Mr. Flynn asked if this plan was previously approved. Mr. Andrykovitch stated it did not, and they have rescinded the application and now ask for preliminary approval now with the cul-de-sac. Mr. Robert DeGlau stated they were here last year and received preliminary approval. They started the environmental process. At that time, a gentleman in North Huntingdon, knowing that Danny Pasquarelli owed this property, approached Mr. Pasquarelli, and wanted to purchase part of this property, five acres, before they got too involved in this process. After speaking to Ryan Fonzi and Josh Andrykovitch, it was determined that they could subdivide and sell off the five acres. Once you change, or make a major change on the preliminary plan, it becomes invalid and would have to come back to the Planning Commission with the rest of the plan in order to continue with this plan. Mr. Pasquarelli wanted to sell the five acres, the residual track off of Ivanhoe Drive, to this gentleman and then continue with his original plan. They submitted a certified letter to Ryan Fonzi stating the original plan's approval that was given has had changes and now we are back to get approval for the remainder of the plan. This will still have the same number of lots, just less property. This is a plan that was grandfathered in, as it was recorded at the courthouse with 50 foot right of ways, 65-foot lots. The layout was done in late 1950's and recorded in early 1960's as part of the Sunset Valley Plan. They wanted to keep the original recorded subdivision with a few revisions, such as a cul-de-sac. The neighbors wanted the road to end there and not go through. They are trying to fit the grading standards of North Huntingdon that are from 2024-25 in a plan that was designed in 1960. The horizontal and vertical lines we have to adhere to, but the grading standards, road standards, and profile has to be conformed to as much as possible. We are asking for a modification to the entrance near two neighbors properties. The neighbor on the left had a rapport with them for a few months, SO they could keep the grade of the road to the Township's specs. The proposed slope would have gone onto this neighbor's property. During the first approval this neighbor did not see a problem with this request, but as negotiations continued, this neighbor did not want to go through with having his property sloped. This is why they are now asking for a modification on the vertical curve. A retaining wall could help, but it would go right at the public right-of- way and be turned over to the Township. They needed another fifteen or twenty feet to feather out the toe slope onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Flynn asked if this was a crest or sag curve. Mr. DeGlau stated this is a sag curve. They talked to staff, the Township Engineer, in-house, and KU Resources, sO we are confident this will work and stay off the neighbor's property. Mr. Flynn asked if this has proposed lighting. 242 February 3, 2025 Mr. DeGlau stated this is preliminary plan, SO when we do the final plan sets for construction it could have street lighting. Mr. Justin Darazio stated they are requesting a modification for the majority of the plan set, although it is preliminary, they are still required for approval. The modification request was specifically for the development plan set profiles, cross sections, as built, stormwater management, NPDES and culvert crossing. We did not get any existing conditions plans, no GEO Technical report, no utility availability letters. Plans do not show proposed gas or electric service. There is no indication of a planning module or NPDES submission. There is no notification for any permitting for the stream crossing. The modification request includes two vertical curves. The first curve has a calculation that it requires 170 feet, while they are only providing 100 feet. The second curve shows a required length of 490 feet, while only providing 150 feet. There is no proposed lighting, signage, or landscaping. They do not show any sidewalks, indicating an additional modification request may be necessary. There is no stormwater or E&S plan for KU Resources to review. Mr. Darazio recommended tabling this plan until he has more information to review. Mr. DeGlau stated the preliminary plan does not have those requirements, that he can see, and this is a preliminary plan. Mr. Darazio stated according to the ordinance; it is still required for preliminary. Ms. Stump asked if Salena Court would be connected with Sunset Avenue. Mr. DeGlau stated according to the original plan it did connect, but last year when they submitted the plan, the plan showed it with a cul-de-sac. The street will end. Ms. Stump asked if there was a reason they wanted a cul-de-sac instead of a straight through road. Mr. DeGlau stated there was no reason. They met with the Township two years ago because primarily the neighbor, Mark Squillace, was in opposition of the road going through. Ms. Stump asked if Mr. Squillace would have any say SO. Mr. DeGlau stated Mr. Pasquarelli negotiated with him, but there was not a wrong way or right way to approach this. The neighbors in that area did not wanted through traffic. That plan, the one with the cul-de-sac, was already recorded and you signed off on that. They have recorded some plans along her and explained to you that the neighbors would object to the plan if the cul-de- sac did not go in. One could ask how could they object to a plan that was recorded back in 1960, but we know how that goes. 243 February 3, 2025 Ms. Stump asked if all of the neighbors in that area did not want the through traffic. Mr. DeGlau stated he would not say all of the neighbors. With there being no machinery in this area, the only way word of this project would travel is by neighbors. Since neighbors do not talk to each other anymore, the three neighbors at the end stated they would like a cul-de-sac. This took about a year since Mark Squillace had some lots towards the end of this plan and could make it difficult for this plan to go in. There are no objections to this plan in that neighborhood, that he knows of. Getting back to the review from KU(Resources), he can see how they are reading it. The way we read it, with Ryan Fonzi a year and a half ago, was on the preliminary plan we just have to demonstrate the grading of the plan, the road layout, if stormwater could fit, things like that. If you have to go through stormwater reports, NPDES, general permit process, why would you do preliminary? Mr. Darazio stated that they did not prove that they have adequate space to handle stormwater, SO he cant recommend preliminary approval for a plan that shows ponds of an arbitrary size if he cant confirm they are the correct size. Mr. DeGlau wondered why KU Resources approved it last year. Mr. Darazio stated he did not do that review, and Mr. DeGlau agreed that Mr. Darazio was not here for that plan. He did state that he cannot recommend approval of a plan as those are small stormwater facilities. He could have had more comments regarding stormwater, but he did not comment as he did not have a plan to comment on. They are showing stormwater, but just because it is shown does not mean it is adequate. Mr. DeGlau asked why would we do a preliminary if we need to do a final first? Mr. Darazio stated that is just how the ordinance reads. There is not much difference between preliminary and final except for seeking. You can request the modification, as you did. It is still required for preliminary approval. Mr. Flynn stated if he needs more area for stormwater, you will just lose a lot to sell. Mr. DeGlau stated they own all the lots. They agree, like they did last year, they have to do final plan sets. They are seeking the preliminary approval SO they can let the DEP know through the sewer modules and through NPDES that they have an approved plan by the Township. They will not want to approve anything if it has not been approved by the Township. Since we were approved, the staff meeting with Ryan (Fonzi) was that we just come back in with this plan, and take the outsell off the plan, and ask for the modification due to the neighbor changing 244 February 3, 2025 his mind, that this would not be a big change of anything. We cannot move forward on anything if we cant get the modification. If KU (Resources) looked at it differently last year than they are looking at it now, we will not be back for preliminary, we will just be back for final. The idea of the preliminary was for them to be able to approach the third-party permits, knowing that the Township was ok with everything. Last year you were ok with everything. We are doing something different. We are taking an existing plan, and we are fitting in small affordable homes in a Township that usually has bigger lots. These are sixty- five-foot lots. These lots would be found in the 1970's, but substandard today. Mr. Pasquarelli is taking this upon himself to do the amount of grading and stormwater to bring this plan up to date SO that affordable housing can be found in a nice subdivision. Mr. Darazio added that modification requests are for the sag curves along Walter Avenue. Now that the cul-de-sac is show along Salena Court, the only access in or out of the development is from Walter Avenue. Ms. Stump stated she this up due to it being brought up with another subdivision. There were issues with stormwater management. There was a concern that stormwater management was not adequate. We need to hear that the stormwater is manageable beforehand. Mr. DeGlau stated they will just do their final plan and get the NPDES. Ms. Stump stated the other plan only had one way out of the massive subdivision. Would there be any thought to doing mountable curbs at the end of Salena Court in case there was an emergency back in on Walter Avenue and people needed to get out of the subdivision. Mr. DeGlau stated he had already talked to Danny (Pasquarelli) about that because it is graded, even though it is grass. You would have to take off the topsoil off and put gravel down. He did not think there would be an issue with that, along that it is known used would be for emergency, sO neighbors would not just be using it daily. Mr. Dykta asked how far it is from the end of the cul-de-sac to the end of Sunset Avenue. He believes if you put gravel there, it would invite people to use it. Mr. DeGlau stated from the end of the cartway at the end of Sunset, which is a dead end with no turnaround unless a driveway is used, is about 125 feet. It could be however the Township would like it to be, for safety reasons. It could come during the final set plans where you put a base in as gravel and then put grass over it, SO it looks like a lawn, but has a base where a large truck would not sink. 245 February 3, 2025 Ms. Stump stated she was thinking a mountable curb would be what Penn DOT is building on roundabouts. Instead of the emergency to go around the curve, it can responding vehicle having ambulance go straight forward, not slowing down the or fire truck. It could still be paved, just mountable for vehicles, or large out flux of cars. emergency Mr. Kerber stated he would make conditional approval with the conditions were stated in KU Resources letter. that Mr. Flynn stated he would second this motion. Mr. Darazio stated several of the comments in his letter referenced of the modification that is being requested, such as relief from the part set profiles cross section. They were commented in letter development plan seeking preliminary my because he was approval, and they are. a requirement. Some ofhis would not be held if the Planning Commission is comments granting the modification request. Ms. Stump asked if Mr. Darazio is still recommending that this be tabled. Mr. Darazio stated he would recommend based on the content required for preliminary approval, but he did request a modification for those items. Mr. Kerber then changed his motion to conditional approval with the of KU Resources letter being met. conditions Mr. Dykta asked about the cul-de-sac length of 811 feet, and what the we allow. He then asked about the cul-de-sac maximum farms. length we permitted in Altman Mr. Darazio stated maximum allowed is 700 feet. Mr. Andrykovitch stated the cul-de-sac in Altman Farms is the same as what they are asking for this plan. Ms. Stump asked if Mr. Kerber would add the mountable curb to his motion Salena cul-de-sac. on Mr. Kerber asked for Mr. Darazio to provide insight to the mountable curb. Mr. Darazio stated it can be added to the plan at the end. He believes that should be granted to emergency vehicles if they do not intend for this road access to through. go Mr. Kerber asked for the mountable curbs to be added to his motion. 246 February 3, 2025 Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Darazio about his comments on the sag curve. Mr. Darazio stated they asked for additional information to clarify that it can be traversed by construction vehicles, fire trucks, or larger delivery vehicles, to make sure they would not have any issues. Mr. Flynn stated the sag should not be an issue, as you could put a light there. It would actually calm traffic. There may be some low clearance with a truck or trailer. Mr. DeGlau stated they could put two lights there. Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned conditional approval with conditions of KU Resources letter, adding mountable curbs and modifications left until final approval. Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 0 S-03-2025 Tuscan Hills Phase VIII & IX Revision 1 This is a subdivision of single-family lots located in Tuscan Hills Phase VIII and IX. These will be the final two phases in the Tuscan Hills development. Dondia LLC is still the owner and developer of the site. Phase VIII of this plan will include 19 new lots over 9.824 acres, while Phase IX will include 38 new lots over 20.729 acres. In these twO phases you will see an extension of Antonio Drive which ends in a cul-de-sac and the second entrance to the plan that will be coming off of Hahntown Wendel Road. Mr. Darazio stated they still need an HOP and utility connections along Hahntown Wendel Road. No proof of this submission was provided. They are also proposing construction activities on adjacent properties across Hahntown Wendel Road, with no indication of property owner acknowledgment. There is no planning module that was submitted, no evidence or indication of NPDES submission to Westmoreland Conservation District. They did request modification for the length of one of the roads, totaling 930 feet in length. According to their plan they would also need to request a modification for a vertical curve. They did not submit a modification request for Antonio Drive. On the boring log they indicated a presence of a minor coal seam within the site strata which appears that it may be impacted or exposed with proposed grading. We noted in our review that the application should be updated to address any proper measures. It also indicates that there is a potential for pyritic material. There was no landscape plan submitted for review. We are also requesting additional clarification on some of the stormwater management, specially along 247 February 3, 2025 the connection to Hahntown Wendel Road. Based on the content of this application, he suggests tabling this plan. Ms. Stump asked if the coal seam and pyrite could cause an issue with concrete foundation in the ground. putting Mr. Darazio confirmed this would be correct. He stated it was located on several areas where there are grading activities. Mr. Louis Calabria, Lennon, Smith, Souleret Engineering, Inc., stated to the coal seam would be addressed under the in regard in accordance with their Pennsylvania DEP and handled regulations. If it is there, we will have it removed in a responsible way, under DEP supervision. It will be removed and replaced in accordance with existing laws today. Ms. Stump asked if there would be a need for a rubber liner down in a situation like this. Mr. Calabria stated if it is just a minor seam, like the report states, it would be over excavated and replaced fill material and other soil. All of the items just that in the KU (Resources) letter we are working on or addressed and are to resubmit. The one we need to work on was the stormwater management prepared and of that reasoning was under the original approval back in Phase I part was they were permitted to take stormwater from the lower part and through take it now, to preexisting pond that existed prior to Phase VIII and IX. With the new change in a regulations for DEP, we have to reduce that flow from 100 permitted under the old approvals, to now 80 percent. It order percent, to do that which was to make some modifications to move water or make another additional we have which we have some areas on here that are able to do that, but it was not pond, to get it back to you without doing the analysis. right Mr. Darazio stated there are some homes along proposed Phase VIII that will be draining to that basin that was constructed during Phase I or Phase II. We are ok with you maintaining the release rate for the time it was constructed. It was just for those three ponds that are discharging to a different water shed that need to adhere to those standards. His comment was specifically the stream that the basin on the far left will be discharging to, but the regarding two basins that are right off of Hahntown Wendel Road will connect into an stormwater system. As of now you are considering this as one point existing would like to see you break that out for one point for the stream and analysis, I for the existing storm sewer system. one point Mr. Richard Zowacki, Lennon, Smith, Souleret Engineering, Inc., stated from the mapping provided to them from the Township, it does look like the storm sewer they are tying into on Hahntown discharges into the stream. He wanted to know if Mr. Darazio still wanted two separate points of analysis. just 248 February 3, 2025 Mr. Darazio stated you are correct. You still need to prove at that point that the capacity of the system you are tying into still has that. Right now, your plans are currently showing a twenty-four inch and an eighteen-inch pipe connecting into a manhole, which outlets into a fifteen-inch pipe. Break down the points of analysis SO that you show you are not impacting that system detrimentally. Ms. Stump made a motion to table this plan, until there was more information. Mr. Calabria asked if there was an opportunity for preliminary approval. Their plans are in order. It is just a continuation of the plan, as you can see it is that same as Tuscan I through VII. Our engineering comments are prepared to go other than we could not have the analysis in time. He asked if there was opportunity for preliminary approval with conditions of KU (Resources) letter. He did not ask for anything insurmountable; we even had the waivers ready. We are not going to hand them to you here. We would send them in formally for the cul- de-sac, and vertical curve, which is very minor. Mr. Darazio stated there were multiple vertical curves that did not meet the criteria. Mr. Chapman asked if those would need waivers. Mr. Darazio stated they need a modification request for the total length of the cul-de-sac as well as for the vertical curves. Mr. Flynn asked if these were crest or sag curves. Mr. Calabria stated he believed it was a crest. Mr. Darazio stated there were multiple vertical curves where it happened. He did not remember them being very drastic, just noted they did not meet the criteria. Mr. Flynn asked about the design speed. He also asked if the vertical curve was for the design speed of twenty-two or twenty-one. Mr. Darazio believed it was twenty-five. He stated he did not perform the calculation for what it is meeting. They just did not meet the minimum length for that curve. Mr. Chapman asked if they had a motion. Ms. Stump stated she made a motion to table this plan. Mr. Kerber seconded the motion. 249 February 3, 2025 Roll call was taken for this motion: Mr. Chapman - apposed Ms. Stump = for Mr. Kerber = for Mr. McHugh - apposed Mr. Dykta = for Mr. Flynn - apposed Mr. McHugh asked if they could have their review before the Commissioner's Meeting. If they do not meet the conditions by the Commissioner's Meeting, then it is tabled, or thrown out. Mr. Calabria stated if they get preliminary, they still have to come back through for final. They have to meet and satisfy the engineer's comments. have to come They back no matter what. Mr. Flynn stated just like the last one, most of this stuff is preliminary, SO this may change before final anyway. Motion: Mr. Flynn Motioned to preliminary approval with conditions from KU Resources letter. Second: Mr. McHugh Motion Carried: 5 a 1 a 0 (Ms. Stump against) ADVISORY HEARINGS None ITEMS FOR ACCEPTANCE S-04-2025 Ronald Jackson Subdivision Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Accept Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 0 250 February 3, 2025 S-05-2025 Marino Consolidation Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Accept Second: Mr. McHugh Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a S-06-2025 Huss Subdivision Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Accept Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a S-07-2025 Wedel = Amore Boundary Line Revision Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Accept Second: Mr. McHugh Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 0 DISCUSSION ITEMS Ms. Stump asked to reduce the plans / paperwork that are presented to the Planning Commission. She asked for the overall layout and to have multiple elevation pages, and unnecessary pages, omitted. Mr. Flynn stated if there was a Google Drive, they could access, that would be useful. They could open a pdf and see the plans. Mr. Kerber stated we could try it out and see ifit works. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT None 251 February 3, 2025 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Ms. Stump Motioned to adjourn 7:49 p.m. Second: Mr. Kerber Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 0 Meeting minutes of February 3, 2025, were approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, 2025. xhn / / AA bump Planning Commission Chairman Planning Commission Secretary 252