April 7, 2025 NORTH HUNTINGDON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Monday, April 7, 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 Joshua Haydo Stephen Cross Present Joseph Dykta Present James Flynn Present Deanna Perlinger, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to approve minutes of March 3, 2025 Second: Mr. McHugh Motion Carried: 7 a 0 : 0. CITIZEN'S INPUT Robert Watt, 7505 Diane Avenue, stated he wanted to discuss the change in plan for the medical plaza. The original plan that was approved by the Commissioners showed there was a connector to Thompson Lane. With Summit Drive being SO narrow, we see a lot of potential for accidents. His wife was almost hit several years ago. There is already a commercial building at the bottom of Summit Drive. Having all these vehicles from the proposed medical plaza turn onto just Summit Drive is a hazard. Gayle Young, 140 Summit Drive, stated her comments are also about the Lincoln (Corner) II Plaza. There are a lot of hazards. We are contending with a lot on this tiny road. There is the machine shop. We have Dairy Queen. We 257 April 7, 2025 have Pitt Rental. We have Route 30 traffic, and we also have the actual residents. If you sit in the parking lot of the machine shop between 4 (PM) and 6 (PM) you see good examples of these issues. The Dairy Queen traffic drives straight down the turning lane. No fault of their own, there are people trying to turn into Pitt Rental at the same point residents are trying to use the turning lane to go up Summit Drive. There are also the speeding vehicles on Route 30 that we have to contend with, as we see road rage accidents all the time in this area. The trucks from the machine shop pull out of their lot and often block Summit Drive, SO you cannot turn off Route 30 to get to their homes. There is rush hour backups that block Summit Drive. There are individuals that believe they can exit through the back of the Summit Plan, which there is no exit to Pennsylvania Avenue. Not having the connector is not sufficient. It will definitely impact the residents, which is not keeping them safe. She has two young children that she would like to continue to walk around the neighborhood and does not believe she can do that as the traffic increases. Maria Stone, 221 Everest Drive, stated the capacity of their existing road as it is, at the entrance, is barely handling the traffic that goes up there. As a board your purpose, I believe, is to promote and protect public health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of North Huntingdon Township and the public in general. By not having the connector in Lincoln (Corner) II Plaza, this is putting North Huntingdon Township residents safety in jeopardy. By admission at the last meeting regarding this plaza, the entrance to Summit Drive is too narrow. The turning radius, for coming out of the plaza and going on Summit Drive, is too wide of a turning radius. The grade of Summit Drive is too steep for commercial traffic. The school buses, resident traffic and adding commercial vehicles as well as those using the plaza is an additional hazard. There is no secondary access to the neighborhood in the event of an emergency. Last year there was an accident at the bottom of the hill (Summit Drive) and her son's school bus driver asked if she could walk to Sheetz to pick up her son, as there was no way to get the bus up the hill. She believes all of these issues are violations of codes that are being overlooked. She believes this is a dereliction of duty of the boards part with the plan being approved as it is. Your job is to keep us safe and pushing these plans through puts the residents and people visiting Lincoln (Corner) II Plaza safety in jeopardy. Brenda Pecora, 231 Everest Drive, reports that many children, including Maria's two young children, play outside in the Summit neighborhood. If there is an accident or any type of construction on Route 30, we have people trying to find an exit out the back of the Summit Plan to access Pennsylvania Avenue or North Thompson Lane. It does not matter if there a "No Outlet" sign posted or not, but it is actually up right now. These people are already aggravated because they are stuck in traffic, SO they speed up Summit Drive and then speed around the streets until they finally realize they cannot get out while up in the neighborhood. Originally there was supposed to be a connection to North Thompson. Lt McCurdy wrote a letter that he was skeptical on using Summit 258 April 7, 2025 Drive as an entrance and an exit. He proposed that Summit Drive only be used as an entrance. She would like to think that Commissioners, elected official for North Huntingdon, are supposed to have the residents best interest at heart. They do not want 300 extra vehicles coming in and out of this road. Norwin School District did a study, and it was not safe for a bus to make a turn onto Summit Drive. It was not safe for a bus to turn out of Summit Drive onto Route 30. Now we are going to add, and she is not sure where the numbers came from, there was a study done and certain times of the day, morning, and afternoon, and she hopes that is when the study was done, Route 30 is a mad house to for them to get out. There are times she sits at the bottom of the hill (Summit Drive) for at least six to seven minutes to try and get out in the morning. Lt. McCurdy wrote this letter, and he has been on the force long enough to know what goes on up and down Route 30 regarding accidents. She hopes that the removal of the connection to North Thompson is not being eliminated for the developer due to costs and keeping them lower for the developer. She hopes this will not put residents more at risk just to save the developer's money. She has two young drivers and when people exit Dairy Queen, they drive down the middle turning lane. If you are sitting, waiting to turn onto Summit Drive from the turning lane, you have people coming right at you. This is not safe. You cannot have 300 plus cars accessing this residential road. She is asking you, as North Huntingdon Township Commissioners, who have North Huntingdon Township residents best interest at heart, as elected officials, please do not make this the only entrance and exit. The residents are not trying to be difficult; this will really hurt the beautiful neighborhood where senior citizens walk, children play, and dogs are walked. Please do not add all this traffic to our beautiful little neighborhood. Kevin McHugh, 14071 Route 993, as a trustee and the Assistance Chief of Larimer Volunteer Fire Department, he is here tonight to represent the fire department and express the concerns his department has regarding S-08- 2025. The main concern is the subdivision will lead to an addition fill site that will enter the special flood hazard area which is shown on the FEMA National Flood Layer Map. During a rain event this could restrict the creek flow and increase the chance of flooding out the fire department, which sits directly on the creek bank. Additionally restricting flow in the special flood area could cause the creek along Route 993 to flood more often, cutting off many residence and businesses in the service area leading to longer and more troubled responses. They have seen the area between Larimer and Irwin flood numerous times in the past years with the water taking an extended time to recede before allowing safe travel again. 259 April 7, 2025 OLD BUSINESS SP-01-2024 Lincoln Corner Plaza II Revision This plan was previously approved in 2024 with several conditions. Since the approval, the site plan has significantly changed and new drawings have been submitted. Justin Darazio from KU Resources has reviewed the revisions to the plan. Josh Haydo from Wooster has reviewed the updated traffic study. Rege Sofranko, Ascent Consulting & Engineering, civil consultant for this project and Zack Stehle, staff engineer at Trans Associate Engineering that perform the traffic study introduced themselves. Mr. Sofranko advised the revisions are the building used to be a two-story building. It was roughly 14,000 square feet. It is now down to 9,591 square feet. The other change is there was a connection to the west that went down to the Phase I Lincoln Corner Plaza. That has been removed and the driveway replaced with a drive out and parking. There is a pedestrian connection that would go between the two parcels. The driveway, as previously approved, would be used as an in and out. Mr. Andrykovitch showed photos of the initial approved site plan and the new proposed plan. Mr. Sofranko showed where the initial connection was removed and only be a sidewalk with steps for pedestrians to use. Mr. Dykta asked for the reasons for these changes, the smaller size and removal of connector. He also asked if there would be less people coming into this facility. Mr. Sofranko stated there were some constructability issues with the retaining wall that would be required in order to make the connection. Mr. Stehle stated due to the reduced leasable square footage, there has been a reduction in trip generation to this site. There are comparable trips entering and exiting Summit Drive. The last study, which was approved, considered two entrances and exits to this facility. One from North Thompson and the other from Summit Drive. Because of the reduction in the trip generation, because of the reduced one-to-one access, the trips coming in from Summit Drive remains the same. Ms. Stump asked why they are doing this, specifically why the connection is being blocked off SO you cannot access North Thompson Lane. Mr. Sofranko stated with the way the lot is configured you can see the constriction as the lot goes to the west, width wise. There were large retaining 260 April 7, 2025 walls that would be required. Contractors were stating there are constructablity issues to physically construct this. Ms. Stump stated there is erosion of this site coming down onto Route 30. Is this the reason for making the footprint of the building smaller? She asked if they had plans to reinforce the hillside that abuts Route 30. Mr. Sofranko stated the hillside will be replanted and reseeded. Ms. Stump questioned just reseeding this hill. She asked if nothing was going to be holding up the hillside. She asked if there would be anything done to keep it from eroding. Mr. Sofranko stated that anything that was disturbed would be replanted and reseeded. Ms. Stump stated the first development has nothing holding the parking lot area up. It is plain dirt. She asked if this new development would be reseeded as the first was done. Mr. Sofranko stated he was unaware ofhow the first development was done. This one will probably be hydroseeded. Ms. Stump asked Mr. Andrykovitch why nothing was ever done to the hillside next to Route 30. This seems to be safety issue if you are in the parking area and the hillside gave way down to Route 30. Mr. Andrykovitch would have to check and see shy nothing was ever seeded. Mr. Darazio stated they will not be touching the hillside directly off of Route 30, within the right of way. The retaining wall in the front would abut up to the right of way. This morning, they submitted a modification request as the retaining wall in the front is going to be one and a half feet from the right of way. The ordinance requires a three-foot separation. Ms. Stump stated she was the one that questioned the traffic study the first time around because it show the traffic going up the hill going faster than the traffic coming down Route 30. She stated the traffic coming down the hill goes sixty miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. The speed coming down the hill at rush hour is bad. Due to the closest traffic light being in Jeannette, there is nothing to slow traffic until you reach North Thompson Lane. Mr. Stehle advised he has the eighty-fifth percentile speeds. The east bound, or going up the hill, was recorded at fifty miles per hour. The west bound, going down the hill, was recorded at fifty-three miles per hour. They collected ATR data which evaluate speeds and are utilized to determine the sight distance required 261 April 7, 2025 to maneuver into and out of Summit Drive. This demonstrates that you can see greater than one thousand feet in one direction. There is no safety constraints due to sight distance in this area. When data is collected, it is not during the peak hour. Off peak hour speeds are generally higher than peak hours due to more congestion on the road way causing stop and starts. Off peak hours has fewer vehicles, unimpeded, traveling typically at higher rates of speed. Mr. Dykta stated a key reason for the previous recommendation to the Commissioners was due to the connector to North Thompson Lane. Now without the connector there, this is a big concern. Mr. Cross stated when Mr. Dykta asked about the building and the connector, we received one answer for both. He asked what was behind the reduction of the size of the building. Mr. Sofranko stated it went from two stories to one story. The building was stretched out when the connection road was eliminated. Mr. Cross asked if the only reason from going from two stories to one is to take advantage of space not dedicated to the connector road. Mr. Sofranko stated it was to utilize the largest footprint that they could, while supporting the required parking. Mr. Cross asked if the connector was removed due to what it would take to put the wall that would be required. Mr. Sofranko stated there are constructability issues with being able to physically build a wall and have the laybacks to construct the wall while remaining on their property without going onto the neighboring property and requesting a construction easement. Mr. Cross stated that they are not stating it cannot be done, it would just cost more money. Mr. Sofranko stated to stay within their lot, it was physically not possible to construct the wall, to lay the slopes back and stay on the property. It would require a construction easement from the northern property owner. Mr. Kerber asked, since this will be a smaller building, how many fewer cars, or what percentage has it dropped of vehicles using this facility. Mr. Stehle stated he only has the most revised study with him. He does not have numbers to compare. He can say that compared to the approved study, the number of trips entering and existing during peak hour is comparable to what was in the approved study. The traffic should continue to flow as it does today. 262 April 7, 2025 The proposed access on Summit Drive is only 120 feet from State Route 30. It is not anticipated that the traffic going to Lincoln Corner Plaza II should be going into the residential area. Mr. Flynn question how many parking spaces were on the approved plan. Mr. Sofranko stated it had forty nine spaces and this plan has forty seven spaces. He stated they still have more spaces than required. Mr. Andrykovitch stated the approve plan had sixty parking spaces, but the revised plan has forty five. Mr. Flynn asked if there were any special exemptions with the proposed plan, otherwise itj just looks like they would be voting on the removal of the connecting part between Lincoln Corner I and II. Mr. Darazio stated they reconfigured the dumpster. On the approved plan, the garbage collection company was able to come in, with the front loader, and exit without having to back up. On the proposed plan, the dumpster is nested in the back western corner which would require the garbage truck to back into the stalls and do a three point turn, or back into or out of the facility. There are also some minor traffic comments that Wooster has brought up that need a response to. Mr. Sofranko stated most days the garbage is picked up prior to the facility being open, SO there would not be any cars in the lot. If there was a holiday, or they were running late, they would not have to back onto Summit Drive, they could back up on site and then pull out headfirst onto Summit Drive. Mr. Darazio stated there was a modification request of the retaining wall being within three feet of the development. Besides that, they satisfied all the conditions, plan comments, in his letter. Mr. Chapman asked if the updated traffic has been reviewed and if it is similar to the original plan. Mr. Joshua Haydo, Wooster & Associates, stated Mr. Chapman's statement is accurate. Ms. Stump asked ifit is a safety issue for the garbage truck to have to do a three point turn, and would they have to use parking spaces designated for customers. Mr. Darazio stated this would be within the development but would not have adequate spacing if there were vehicles in the lot and would be unable to pull straight through. The truck would have to back out the entire length of the 263 April 7, 2025 development. The only place to make the three point turn without backing into the stalls would be the eastern side. Mr. Sofranko stated the parking spaces would only be used for a three point turn, as the garbage truck could still remove itself by backing up to the eastern side of the site. Mr. Flynn stated trash is not usually picked up during the day. It is picked up during the night. Ms. Stump asked if our trash contract require the trash pickup not to be there any earlier than 7:00 AM. She thought this would fall under the noise ordinance as well. Mr. Andrykovitch said there is a difference between commercial and residential trash pickup. He does not believe the 7:00 AM pertains to commercial pickup. Mr. Cross stated he would like to hear from the attorney that is present. Tricia Henning, Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, the attorneys for the landowner just north of the property, the Danenberg's and Matt Hayes, Gateway Engineers introduced themselves. Ms. Henning handed out packets to the board members and stated they have a handful of concerns. They have questions and concerns about the grading and limits of disturbance as well as the possible impact construction will have on the retaining wall. They have attempted to get answers to their questions. They have been in contact with the developer's attorney since the end of November. They have been trying to get information but have been unsuccessful in doing SO. The major concern is how close the building is to the retaining wall. The previous plan had a proposed retaining wall just a few feet away from the existing retaining wall. The updated plan no longer shows a proposed retaining wall, instead the building is close to the existing retaining wall. She is looking to find out how they are going to build this, what are the proposed excavation limits and are they going to go on the Danenberg's property. Mr. Hayes showed the probable excavation limits on a diagram to be able to put the rear wall in for the Lincoln Corner Plaza II building. With the surface grades at the front and the finish floor elevation, it is approximately a seven to eight foot deep excavation at the rear wall, which is close to the property line. Local, state, federal codes for excavation, sloping and shoring show a one and a half horizontal feet for every one foot of excavation. This would put you about ten and a half feet dimension. It is one thing to go over the property line, but something entirely different when you have a twelve foot tall retaining wall within this ten foot zone. The dimension label shows the twelve foot high wall 5.43 feet away the corner of the building. They want to know what the expectation limits the 264 April 7, 2025 developer is putting on any contractor SO they are doing everything they should do, not creating any hazards for themselves (digging out the toe of a giant wall) or if they are using any other means or methods to safely ensure the building while making sure the existing wall is not going to be impacted by what is being done. Ms. Henning explained the other pictures in the packet she handed out actually shows the wall as well as the flags from the surveyor. This shows how close the wall is to the property line. The second set of photographs are screen shots from what the property looked like from the street. The developer's contracted tree company came on the Danenberg's property and took down most of the trees on the Danenberg' property without permission when they did work on the developer's property. These were mature trees that were taken down. With what the developer is doing, is this going to be safe now that there is no trees on this hillside? Mr. Hayes stated removal of trees and vegetation has created erosion for his client. Now it is up to his client to go through their own processes to in order to stabilize the hillside SO they are not cited for erosion issues or they are not creating a nuisance for the proposed construction. There is always the long term issue of any large tree with great roots that remain stable, elevates the stability of this slope. This would difficult to immediately reestablish. There is an unknown long term loss with the tree loss. The short term issue is that his client needs to reestablish the stability of this hill, at their cost. Ms. Henning stated there is an excavation limit issue where they do not see how this will be built without going onto her clients property. The excavation is likely to negatively impact the retaining wall. The erosion issue was due to the trees being removed without the Danenberg's permission. The Danenberg's are being told to trust the developer, it will be fine, when things have been done without their permission. They are looking to have help from the board to show that they will not come on the Danenberg's property and negatively effect the large retaining wall. Ms. Stump stated if they are not concerned about the erosion in the back of the property, why would they be concerned about the erosion in the front of the property. This creates a trust issue. Mr. Cross pointed out the approval that was given with the original plan, in no way gave them right, assumed or otherwise, to cross the property line to cut trees, do any excavation, anything beyond the property line. Any recourse for what has been done would have to go through the legal system. The approval for the original plan was already given. Ifthey do anything outside that scope, which you have shown, then there is a court system to handle that matter. Ms. Henningjust wanted to make everyone aware of the big picture. 265 April 7, 2025 Mr. Cross wanted to make sure everyone knew that what they are looking at tonight is the revision of the building and the other access way to take people out to North Thompson Lane. This does not revise this entire plan, nor does it put the plan back to square one for discussion. We are here tonight to discuss whether we are willing to accept the proposed changes. The revisions that they are proposing tonight are still not going to address the issues the Danenberg's are having. The discussions we have are still not to guarantee that they wont cross the property lines. Even if we approve this, it still does not give them the right to go across any property line. The issues Danenberg's have need to be taken up with the legal system. Ms. Henning was just hopeful there would be something to address the stability of the retaining wall that is already there. Mr. Dykta stated we are the ones that recommend plans to the Board of Commissioners. We do not approve them; we just recommend them. The Board of Commissioners would be where the real fight is at, whether they approve them or not. Mr. Chapman stated our issues are the extension that would connect to North Thompson Lane and the building. Mr. Flynn stated the building is within the ordinances of the Township. The twelve foot high retaining wall decreases in height as it gets closer to the building. The other retaining wall was taken out. Ms. Stump stated, originally, we approved this with the driveway going towards North Thomspon Lane. There is a red light at North Thompson Lane, which makes it safer to get out onto Route 30. Motion: Mr. Cross Motioned to Deny Amendments to Previously Approved Plan Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 7 a 0 a 0 266 April 7, 2025 NEW BUSINESS: S-08-2025 JP Land Holdings Route 993 Subdivision This is a proposed subdivision located off of State Route 993. JP Land Holdings LLC is the owner of the vacant 15.722 acre parcel. They would like to subdivide off 1.525 acres (Lot 3 - shown as yellow on the map), leaving the remaining lot (1-R, shown as blue on the map) with 14.194 acres. Both lots would meet the minimum dimensional requirements in an Industrial zoning district. There were a couple labeling issues on the plan review, but once the surveyor corrects these issues, - - can recommend approval with no conditions. Mr. Chapman asked if this was zoned Industrial. Mr. Andrykovitch stated yes, it is. Ms. Stump asked why they want to subdivide to make a non-buildable lot in a flood zone. Considering all the regulations, this lot would not be buildable in a flood zone. Mr. Andrykovitch stated currently there are no utilities here. You could fill it up out of the flood zone. Jake Petro, 761 North Whitmore Drive, stated the parcel shown in yellow (1.525 acres) was filled in over the last year with a less than one acre grading permit issued by the Township. It is now up to the grade of Route 993. There is basically a building plane there now. That is not in the flood way, which is the important zone to look at on the map. The flood way is determined by FEMA and that is a no go zone. You cannot go in it or through it. This is not in that zone. According to North Huntingdon, you can fill SO you are out of the flood zone. They have been working with West Penn Power and North Huntingdon Municipal Authority, Water Authority and Columbia Gas to get utilities to this property. Some utilities are not the easiest to get there, but it is doable. One of the main reasons to do this subdivision is there is a pull off that is further down in the blue zone that already has an HOP permit. Penn DOT will not give two HOP Permits that close on one property. He is hoping to get an HOP permit for the yellow area of the map. Ms. Stump asked how he was able to get permission to put fill on the property that was right next to the flood zone. Who was it that gave him permission to put fill here. Mr. Petro stated this is not in the flood zone. A civil engineer drew plans and submitted the grading application to North Huntingdon and were granted a permit for this. They did not go into the flood way. They have had the Water Conservation District and DEP to the site. They have not had any issues with the plans. He and his civil engineer have been in contact with FEMA. When the flood way is determined, FEMA does not use a surveyor, they just draw general 267 April 7, 2025 areas for the flood ways. He had his surveyor contact FEMA to firm up the actual areas of the flood ways, SO they could be certain they did not go in the flood way areas. Ms. Stump asked if they have done any LOMR, change to the flood plain map. Mr. Petro stated there has not been any change SO far. It is their decision, but there are some areas where this may change. Mr. Flynn asked if this was in a detailed area. Anything outside of this area does not restrict the flow of water. Mr. Petro stated FEMA is big on fines, SO he wants to make sure he does not go over the line and into the flood zone. He has future plans and is doing his due diligence right now. Mr. Cross asked about the grading permit and it being for just this one and a half acre. He asked if the permit did not include the other fifteen acres. Mr. Petro stated the grading permit was for under one acre of land. He stated there was part of this area they did not need to touch. They only did plans for this one acre. Mr. Flynn asked if there were plans for additional fill on this site. He also questioned if anything was effected in wetlands or any of the flood plains. There is a large stream that if they wanted to fill over it would require a 105 permit. Mr. Petro stated if they do move forward on this, they will get a full NPDES permit. Nothing, to their knowledge, has been disturbed in any wetlands or flood plains. We have no plans to fill over the large stream, everything is offset from the creek. Mr. Cross asked about the future plans, possible future fill. Are we going to see a succession of subdivisions for one acre lots? Mr. Petro stated they hope to go a little further into the blue (15.722 acre) area. To do multiple one acre subdivisions is not permitted, we needed room off the roadway to work and make it useable. This parcel is now usable ground and is part OfLERTA program. He also stated he is aware to move forward would require an NPDES permit. Ms. Stump asked if the Westmoreland Conservation District has viewed what was done. 268 April 7, 2025 Mr. Petro stated they took this one step further. When they did their one acre grading permit, you do not have to do this, but you can send your plans to the Conservation District to review, to review the sediment erosion plans. Mr. Flynn stated when they are sent to the water district it also goes to the conservation district. Plans are sent to Turtle Creek Valley. Ms. Stump asked due to this, which is labeled a non-buildable lot, how is there a slab ready there? Mr. Petro stated there has been no slab poured. This is ready to be a building pad. They are working with North Huntingdon Township Municipal Authority on the other end of the property. They can do a 450 main line extension and get public sewage to this property. The main point of the subdivision is the HOP Permit, which does not happen quickly. Eventually once he can get the utilities to the property, it can be a buildable area. Mr. Chapman asked Mr. Andrykovitch if he was still waiting on labeling issues. Mr. Andrykovitch stated they have been cleared up. Ms. Stump asked about the ordinance. She thought there was one stating they could not do a subdivision to create a non-buildable lot. Mr. Andrykovitch stated he is unaware of an ordinance like that as we just did a subdivision last month similar to this one. Mr. Flynn stated the grading was already put in place and now we have to watch if this backs up anything upstream from this point. Mr. Cross asked Mr. Kevin McHugh(Larimer VFD) if the discussion has cleared up and answer any of the concerns of the fire department. Mr. Kevin McHugh stated their biggest concern was if this continues further down the flood plain. Mr. Kerber asked if there is anything more done to this area, Mr. Petro would be coming back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Petro agrees with that statement. Ms. Stump asked if a big warehouse was put on this property and it creates impervious surface and through MS4 they are addressing drainage issues, is that going to cause problems with MS4? 269 April 7, 2025 Mr. Andrykovitch stated he does not believe SO. That would any type of building put on this property would be going through simultaneously with storm water management permit and go through reviewal process with the township engineer. Mr. Flynn stated if he comes back through, this parcel would be a major land development and he would need an NPDES permit to build, which will fall under the Act 160 plan and have all the stormwater management. Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Approve Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 1 (Mr. McHugh abstained) RZ-01-2025 Joseph Bock Plan The Township has received a request to rezone two lots at the end of Clifton Drive from Residential (R-1A) to Commercial (C-1). A map of the area is attached. Joseph Bock of 10542 Melrose Drive owns both lots. The site is comprised of two parcels from the Taylor Estates III Plan recorded in 1996. The parcels in question both abut commercial (C-1) property to the south on State Route 30. The existing commercial presence in this commercial zone is comprised of a cabinet shop, retail tv store, barbershop, insurance agency, and used car lot. There is also one single family home located to the south of the two lots. The zoning of the lot for the single family home is C-1. There are currently no structures on either parcel. North Huntingdon Township owns the property directly to the west and north of both parcels. Another vacant parcel owned by Mr. Bock is to the east. Houses from the Taylor Ridge Plan are to the north and northeast. The current owner wishes to rezone to C-1 commercial with the intention of utilizing the land for a dog kennel. A rezoning request requires a public hearing before the Board of Commissioners, which is scheduled for April 10th, 2025, at 6:00P.M. at the Town House. However, prior to the public hearing, the Planning Commission must provide a recommendation to the Commissioners regarding this request. Mr. Andrykovitch advised there is no applicant here tonight. Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Table Second: Mr. Cross Motion Carried: 7 a 0 a 0 270 April 7, 2025 ADVISORY HEARINGS None ITEMS FOR ACCEPTANCE S-09-2025 Sumpman Boundary Line Revision Motion: Mr. Kerber Motioned to Accept Second: Ms. Stump Motion Carried: 6 a 0 a 1 (Mr. Flynn Abstained) DISCUSSION ITEMS None CHAIRMAN'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mr. Cross Motioned to adjourn 8:16 p.m. Second: Mr. Kerber Motion Carried: 7 a 0 a 0 Meeting minutes of March 3, 2025, were approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 2025. XA Ha h X ump Planning Commission Chairman Planning Commission Secretary 271