5-18-15 peters township public hearing3be5b086-2a15-4083-a63d... · 2015 public hearing ......

1

Lois Sikoski, Court Reporter(412) 559-7501

PUBLIC HEARING

PETERS TOWNSHIP COUNCIL HEARING

2015 PUBLIC HEARING

CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR EDDY LAND COMPANY FOR

PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENT ON PARCEL B IN THE

CROSSING 6 PLAN

TRANSCRIPT of stenographic notes of

testimony taken and proceedings had in the

above-entitled matter at the Peters Township Municipal

Center, 610 McMurray Road, McMurray, PA 15317 on

Monday, May 18, 2015, starting at 7:30 p.m.

PETERS TOWNSHIP COUNCIL

David Ball, Vice Chairman

Robert Lewis

Monica Merrell

Frank Arcuri

Gary Stiegel

Meghan Rolla-Jones

Michael Silvestri, Manager

Ed Zuk, Planning Director

John Smith, Solicitor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2


P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. BALL: I'd like to open the public

hearing for conditional use request by Eddy Land

Company for a patio home development on Parcel B in

Crossing 6 Plan.

Mr. Silvestri. Roll call.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mrs. Rolla-Jones.

MRS. JONES-ROLLA: Here.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mr. Arcuri.

MR. ARCURI: Here.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mr. Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: Here.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mr. Ball.

MR. BALL: Present.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mr. Berquist. I'm not

sure if he'll be here.

Mr. Stiegel.

MR. STEIGEL: Present.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mrs. Merrell.

MRS. MERRELL: Present.

MR. BALL: Rise and join us for the Pledge

of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)

MR. BALL: The purpose of this evening's

public hearing is for review of an application by

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3


Eddy Land Company to develop a patio home development

on Parcel B in the Crossing 6 Plan. The property is

zoned R2 multifamily. And the use, as permitted, is a

conditional use. And as part of the process, the

Council will also accept comments from the public on

the request.

This evening's hearing was advertised in

the Observer-Reporter on May 4th and May 11th. The

hearing notice was placed on the Township bulletin

board as the last site, and cable television. In

addition, all surrounding property owners received a

written notice, and the property was posted.

Council will not be acting on this matter

this evening. Council has 30 days from the conclusion

of this hearing to make a decision.

Because this request is a conditional use,

Council may also add reasonable conditions relative to

the specific proposal and location.

Prior to accepting comments, the staff

will be making a brief presentation on the matter,

followed by a presentation from the Applicant, after

which, we will have Council questions, and then

comments from the audience.

This is a legislative hearing. A legal

record will be produced by the stenographer. So if

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4


anybody has a -- if anybody is going to speak, you need

to be sworn in. So I would ask that anybody that

wishes to speak, please stand now, and the stenographer

will swear you in.

(Witnesses severally sworn.)

MR. BALL: All right. I'm not quite sure

what that was. A woodpecker.

Okay. Mr. Silvestri. Your comments?

MR. SILVESTRI: Okay. Before I start, I

would like to place some items in the record. There's

an application dated March 9, 2015 by David Moritz,

vice president of the Eddy Land Company.

I'm not sure what -- does anybody have any

kind of electronic devices that might be doing that?

I'm sure it's electronic, I would guess.

Secondly, a conditional use narrative for

the Crossings Plan dated March 2015; five architectural

renderings of building designs; preliminary land

development plan drawings by Gibson-Thomas Engineering

Company dated March 13, 2015; a memo from Ed Zuk,

Planning Director, dated May 15, that includes a

property analysis and 16 conditions recommended by the

Planning Commission; a letter dated May 14, 2015 from

Thomas McMurray, president of the school board,

requesting a public street be extended to the adjacent

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5


school property; a letter dated April 22nd, 2015 from

Ed and Mei Hwang of 204 Maid Marian Drive raising

specific concerns about the plan; a letter dated May 8,

2015 from Gary and Valerie Marsh of 205 Maid Marian

Drive, raising specific concerns about the plan. And

you have all of those in your docket. And then a

letter dated May 18, 2015 from the police chief, fire

chief, and EMS director stating the need for emergency

access of a 20-foot width controlled by an electronic

controlled rolling gate.

MR. ARCURI: Mr. Silvestri, I think that

you said that the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Marsh was

dated May 8. At least that's what I thought I heard.

But it's actually May 6.

MR. SILVESTRI: The 6th, I stand

corrected.

As Mr. Ball stated, this is a conditional

use hearing. The use is a permitted use. The property

has been zoned -- let me just put this up here. The

property has been zoned Multi Family since 1969, and

has been developed both as Multi Family and some

single-family development.

The Comprehensive Plan, which has been

revised a number of times, continued to show this as

Multi Family property, and the current Comprehensive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6


Plan also does.

So the role of the -- the role of Council

this evening is to review the proposals concerned on

surrounding property owners, and consent to the

conditions warranted, based on the property situation,

and comments.

This proposal is conceptual. And any

conditional-use approval does not apply to the site

plan or land development plan approval. So the plan,

theoretically, could look quite different in the final

form. Generally, they don't change to that extreme.

Council will not act this evening.

Typically, Council will wait to review the transcript.

And with that, within 30 days at the conclusion of the

hearing. If the hearing closes this evening, then most

likely, this would be acted on at the June 8th meeting

of Council. And at the time, Council will then, based

on the transcript and testimony, make a decision to

approve or deny the plan and approve said conditions.

The Planning Commission has reviewed the

plan and has recommended 16 conditions. Some of --

some of which include an enhanced planted buffer of

25 feet, when the norm is 15 feet; eliminating the

walking path on the buffer, a 16-foot paved road to the

school district property; condition, the building be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7


sprinklered; condition, on-site recreation of paved

road recreation will be provided; that the units in

this development would be no closer than 30 feet from

Lot 110 and 100 feet from Lot 111 on Maid Marian Drive.

And Council will take into

consideration -- when they set the final conditions as

part of the plan, Council can modify, add to, or

eliminate conditions recommended.

Some of the key points in this plan, I'm

sure we'll probably go over. Your Applicant has, in

his request, asked for a waiver from the Zoning

Ordinance requirement that this be a -- one large

property, condominium-size development on common

ground. They're asking to have these as fee simple

lots, in essence. And that is something that the

solicitor can comment on during the process, if need

be.

They're also -- the current plan shows

private driveways. And the Planning Commission

recommended public streets. There was a review by the

traffic engineer. The traffic engineer felt that the

plan would not generate enough traffic to cause a

traffic study. So no traffic study has been prepared

for this hearing.

That's roughly it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8


Ed, do you have anything that I missed?

MR. ZUK: No. You did pretty good.

MR. SILVESTRI: Okay.

MR. BALL: Okay. Do you want to comment

about the Planning Commission recommendations,

specifically? Or just in general?

MR. SILVESTRI: You know, I did pretty

much, yeah, I think.

MR. SMITH: You moved toward the important

ones?

MR. SILVESTRI: Yeah.

MR. BALL: All right. Okay.

Does anybody, on the Council, have any

initial questions or comments before we get to the

developer?

MR. ARCURI: I have a question,

Mr. Silvestri. You indicated that one of the waivers

was directed toward making these individual lots as

opposed to one big condominium plan lot. Would that

change then trigger any further zoning requirements

that the Planning Commission would then need to address

as far as, I don't know, setbacks and whatnot?

MR. SILVESTRI: Well, that would be

something that would have to be reviewed, then, with

the site plan because then there would be issues of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9


setbacks and side yards, et cetera.

MR. BALL: And the general layout seems

apparently conditioned on these being private roads?

MR. SILVESTRI: The initial plan -- and I

know that that was a discussion at the Planning

Commission level. And I think that the developer

should comment on that as part of the proposal.

MR. BALL: Do you have anything else right

now? Mr. Smith?

MR. SMITH: No. We looked at this plan

last week before they came in to the Planning

Commission. We do probably have some questions, once

they put their presentation together, relative to

setbacks, whether they go to seed bearings or any of

those things as well, if they go to lots.

MR. BALL: Great. Developer, will you,

please, state your name and address.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Good evening. My name is

John Schleicher. I'm with Gibson-Thomas Engineering,

9951 Old Perry Highway, Wexford, PA, 15090.

As discussed, we're here for the public

hearing for conditional use, which, in this case is a

patio home development. It's located -- just to

reiterate some of the zoning and the acreage and so

forth. It's 15.76 acres, located in the R2 Multi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10


Family Residential Zoning District, where all uses are

a conditional use.

As stated, we are proposing a patio home

development. Some of the other authorized uses are

town house development and garden apartments.

The proposed density of 54 patio homes on

the 15.76 acres is 3.4 units per acre. The permissible

density is 7 units per acre, which would total --

permitted 110 units on the 15.76 acres. So we're

proposing roughly half of what the permitted density

will allow.

Some of the other -- some of the other

things to point out with this development, we feel this

is a good transitional-type zoning from Single Family

to -- there's institutional with the school district

property behind us. A similar development is located

along Crossroads Drive, with a very similar product.

These will be spaced a little bit farther apart. And

they're anticipated to be a little bit higher-end than

the existing units along Crossroads.

We're proposing enhanced buffer yards,

both with regard to the width and substance. You know,

we will preserve the maximum amount of vegetation as

possible in the 25-foot buffer, as well as enhance it,

particularly in, you know, sensitive areas. And we

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11


will follow through with that with our land development

submittal. The required buffer setback is 15 feet.

And we're proposing 25 feet. And we're also agreeable

to many of the -- we're agreeable to all of the items

discussed last week with the Planning Commission, as

well we've recently had several meetings with the

Planning Department and Planning Director.

There's also some substantial stormwater

management amenities proposed with this. There's an

existing stormwater facility in the southwest portion

of the site. That will be enlarged, as well as

enhanced to provide stormwater management for the

existing drainage area as well as the proposed

development.

One of the conditions imposed -- or

recommended by the Planning Commission is that the

water quality aspect of this facility be designed to

provide that -- that volume and that water quality

component for all of the tributary area, including some

of the existing -- existing residential development.

And again, we are -- we are agreeable to that.

MR. SILVESTRI: Mr. Schleicher.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes, sir.

MR. SILVESTRI: If you don't mind, what

you pointed to, I have that, the one -- the colored one

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12


that you had done. And it might be more visible for

people to see.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Oh, okay.

MR. SILVESTRI: Thank you.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Again, this is a

conceptual -- conceptual plan just to be able to, you

know, present what our intentions are as far as the --

as far as the product, in a -- in a very, again,

conceptual site layout.

We do show a walking trail throughout the

development. And that was another point of discussion,

that the walking trail would be designed outside of the

25-foot buffer setback, and also further removed from

the existing residential properties, which we are

agreeable to.

MR. SILVESTRI: Which is like -- you want

to --

MR. SMITH: You're no longer on the

overhead? So you're going to have to --

MR. SILVESTRI: You're pressing the wrong

button. It's the middle button. The light -- if you

can put it back on the map.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Also, as discussed, the

proposal is for fee-simple lots as opposed to a

condominium design, which the Ordinance requires patio

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13


homes to be uniform with the condominium design.

We believe that a fee-simple product is

just more marketable and just better for the end user.

There's issues with financing with the condominium

concept. It would not change -- again, it will not

change our design. And to answer the question on

some -- we would be looking for some zoning relief with

regard to possibly front setbacks and side setbacks.

We believe we can adhere to the rear setback

requirements on all of the lots.

MR. BALL: What is your side yard setback

in this concept?

MR. SCHLEICHER: In this concept, we have

16 1/2 feet between units, or roughly eight-foot side

yards. I believe the zoning requires 15-foot side

yards. So we would --

MR. BALL: And what are your side yards?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Twenty-five feet. And

actually, one of the recommended conditions is, you

know, that we work with -- with the Planning Department

on right-of-way width and setbacks, which -- and,

again, we're willing to do in order to bring all

roadways up to public -- public road standards.

The geometry -- the paving structure of

the roadway itself will be brought up to public road

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14


standards. We would be working with the Planning

Department to maybe modify the right-of-way width and,

again, some of the setback requirements. But the

geometry of the roadway -- you know, the horizontal

geometry and the vertical geometry, as well as the

paving width and the paving structure itself would all

meet public road standards.

MR. BALL: So you intend these to be a

private road?

MR. SCHLEICHER: No, sir. We now -- we're

agreeable to designing it to public road standards.

MR. BALL: Well, I mean, you're going to

dedicate them?


MR. SMITH: And I think -- just so the

Board knows, my understanding is with this initial

concept of the driveway, that's what's creating your

front setback as used, because they wouldn't have to do

that. Now, with the road, they're going to have to.

So I think that was the Township -- at

least the Planning Commission, I believe, recommended

or requested making those roadways -- to make them

public and keep the zoning. Again, we can play with

the front yard setbacks, that otherwise wouldn't be a

problem for them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15


MR. ARCURI: And the front yard setbacks

that are required are, what, 25 feet?


MR. SILVESTRI: Twenty-five feet from the

right-of-way.

MR. SMITH: From the right-of-way. When

you have a driveway on the right-of-way, the road,

we're going to have a right-of-way. It pushes it back

a little.

MR. SILVESTRI: Part of the rationale for

having a road with the right-of-way is the proposal

will either -- to fit in, to have individual lots, then

those lots would have to front on a road. So they

could just front on a driveway.

MR. ARCURI: So the setbacks would be

shorter than 25 feet?

MR. SMITH: They are. Where we measure it

from, if it goes from private to public is the

difference.

MR. ZUK: Right. On the right-of-way, it

probably -- you may need a variance on the 25 feet.

MR. ARCURI: So it would be short.

MR. ZUK: Yeah.

MR. ARCURI: That's the answer. Okay.

Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16


MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes. And the reason for

us changing from a private driveway design to the

public road design is just based on the Planning

Department's recommendation, I guess, with some issues,

you know, with previous developments having private

driveway designs of long-term maintenance and so forth.

MR. LEWIS: We'll take that one.

MR. SCHLEICHER: I did -- this kind of

shows our fee simple lot design. So I think we covered

that.

If there's any questions at this time, I

would be glad to do my best.

MRS. MERRELL: I do have a few questions.

When you were talking about the variances, the

setbacks, the potential variance, and you alluded to

the fact that you agreed with most of the Planning

Commission recommendations...

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes.

MRS. MERRELL: ...does that include the

sprinkler systems installed in the homes?

MR. SCHLEICHER: We would like to further

discuss that. And if this seems like an appropriate

time.

MRS. MERRELL: You're suggesting homes

that are going to be closer than what we feel is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17


comfortable -- one of the rationales that we have for

that is the density. The sprinkler systems protect the

homes if something does happen. So that would be a

question I have.

I did have a question also about the pond

you referred to.


MRS. MERRELL: Is that going to be a pond

with standing water? Or is it stormwater where it will

drain? Are you proposing it as a water feature?

MR. SCHLEICHER: That's correct. Our

conceptual design is for it to be and to have a

permanent pool, minimal depth, just enough to maybe

have a fountain or something, to aerate the water, as

well as be an aesthetic amenity.

MRS. MERRELL: We do have a few of those

in the Township. The aeration would probably be good.

I have a question about the walking trail.

Do you consider that to be the recreational amenity?

Or is there still going to be a fee that would be

required for that, in lieu of the recreational amenity?

MR. ZUK: Well, that's down the road,

right now. I don't know if the walking trail alone

would satisfy --

MRS. MERRELL: I would hope not.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18


And then the other question I had. You

made some comments about the difficulty with financing

if this wasn't set up as individual lots. Do we have

any substantiation of that, from like the banking

industry or people telling you that? Or -- I mean, you

seem to use that as one of the reasons why this should

be approved that way. So I'd like to know a little bit

more about, you know, what exactly -- what's being

seated.

MR. MONTGOMERY: I can speak to that.

Pardon me. David Montgomery, attorney for the

developer.

MRS. MERRELL: Hello.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Hi. And my address is

100 Ross Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15102.

This came up at the meeting of the

Planning Commission last week, this issue about

financing. And this developer's experience is that

banks are -- have increased their requirements for down

payments for potential buyers for -- for condominium

developments as opposed to fee simple. And the recent

experience has been that banks are requiring a 40

percent or more down payment for this kind of purchase.

And that was confirmed. The chairman of the Planning

Commission is an attorney in the real estate industry,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19


confirmed that during the hearing last week. But

that's been his general experience in the -- in the

industry, as least as of recent dates.

MRS. JONES-ROLLA: And I can speak to

that, too, again, due again what I do for a living.

It's because the condominium associations can foreclose

on the properties, and be -- after the banking crisis

that we had in 2008, a lot of them are not -- either

they won't permit it or they're requiring a substantial

down payment because they feel the foreclosure risk is

really high.

MRS. MERRELL: I had one last -- thank you

very much.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Oh, you're welcome.

MRS. MERRELL: I had one last question for

the engineer.

This plan is also being -- is this

developed by the same group that's developing the one

up on Angle Crossing 6. At any point in time, when

these were being envisioned, was there ever a thought

that the connecting road should come from Crossing 6

down into that road? Just, to me, it seems logical,

but I don't know the topography. It seems as high as

it would be to get to the school district already.

MR. ZUK: Well, we looked at that. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20


one of the first things that I looked at with our

engineer, Mark Zemaitis, was the possibility -- can I

use the highlighter? And can we go to an overheard

aerial?

MRS. MERRELL: The other picture shows it

better.

MR. ZUK: This property right here is an

open space parcel that was set aside as part of the

Crossings development. Very, very steep. I don't want

to put -- it's way over 25 percent. To get a road up

through that steep topography, through all of those

woods, up through Crossbow Court, based on our

engineer's review, would not be feasible.

MRS. MERRELL: Is it equivalent to what it

would take to get up to the school district property?

MR. ZUK: It's a lot less steep.

MRS. MERRELL: It's a lot less steep.

MR. ZUK: On this property -- the subject

property is a lot less steep. And I don't know if we

have contours that we could show.

MR. SILVESTRI: Wait until I can find it.

MRS. MERRELL: It was a question. I just

wondered. Because I know there's some concern about

the access through the neighborhood, and given that the

properties are both owned by the same company, it would

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21


have seemed perhaps like a good solution. That's all I

have right now. Thank you.

MR. BALL: One more question on your road

plan. Clearly it is not showing any connection to the

school property. Would you like to comment on that?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes. Thank you. I

would.

And just to back up a moment. The

question on recreation, you know, again, we've been

working, and will continue to work, with the Planning

Department on meeting those recreation requirements

and/or, you know, doing -- doing the fee in lieu of.

A couple of the recreation components --

and it's going to be a more passive recreation. This

product is intended for the empty-nester-type market.

But the -- again, the stormwater facility with the

enhanced landscaping, enhanced water feature, perhaps a

waterfall.

MR. BALL: Can you go back over --

MR. SCHLEICHER: Actually, if you wouldn't

mind. Can you go back to the overhead because I want

to point out the topography. We do have a little bit

of topography that overlaps on to the -- the open space

Parcel 620, from the Crossing 6, is -- is very steep in

this area. And to throw a percentage on it, I would

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22


say over 20 percent in this portion. And then even

steeper up here (indicating). Here is roughly where

Crossbow Court cul-de-sac is. To get a road anywhere

either to here (indicating) or to the school district

property would, you know, probably be prohibitive.

And then, too, to follow-up with your

question on the access. Again, that was one of the

recommendations of the Planning Department and Planning

Commission. And we are agreeable to that, for an

emergency access to the school district property, from

the public road of the Crossing 7, consisting of -- and

it's in the recommendation, I believe, of a 33-foot

right-of-way, did we decide on? And a 16-foot paved

cartway that would be gated, and, again, for emergency

access to the school district. And it would extend

from the end of the public road, back to the school

district property.

We did not update our plans based on the

Planning Commission meeting and the recommendations,

just because things would tend to get convoluted that

way.

MRS. MERRELL: So you're proposing it

would go straight. It would go out at the roundabout

and then up the back towards what is known as PV field.

Okay.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23



MR. ARCURI: Where would it go? I'm

sorry.

MRS. MERRELL: To the back of Pleasant

Valley, the new field.

MR. ARCURI: Oh, it would go in that way.

Okay. All right.

Are you done? I have a couple of

questions.

MR. SMITH: I had a couple of questions.

I'm sorry.

The -- the -- the pond, is that -- that --

is that currently existing?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes. And the contours

don't show up real well --

MR. ARCURI: Okay.

MR. BALL: -- on the overhead. But

roughly this -- this surface area here is the existing

pond. So as you can see, it's going to be expanded

to -- again, this is conceptual, but this would be a

permanent pool. And then, the -- the area above that

would allow for the stormwater detention during storms,

which would then eventually de-water back to the --

back to that permanent pool.

MR. ARCURI: And who would ultimately be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24


responsible for that pond? Would it be the homeowners

association? Or would it be the Township?

MR. SCHLEICHER: I believe it would be the

homeowners association.

MR. ARCURI: And is that pond going to be

fenced? I mean, if you're going to have a walking

trail going right near there, I mean, that I could be

like, you know, an attractive nuisance for individuals?

Is that going to be fenced? Or do you know?

MR. SCHLEICHER: We've not -- we've not

gotten that far in our detail design. It's something

we would be agreeable to, if Council saw fit.

We would design the facility with

three-to-one side slopes, which would, I guess, it's

good and bad. It would allow, you know, fairly easy

access out of the thing.

MR. ARCURI: Okay.

MR. SCHLEICHER: In the event of --

MR. ARCURI: You had made a comment that

-- that you were going to do the 33-foot right-of-way

to the school district property with a paved surface of

a 16-feet width. And I noticed that we got the -- the

one letter that I think was put in here -- I think it's

dated today's date from the police chief, the fire

department, and the EMS. And they're requesting that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25


it be 20 feet and have the capability of supporting

large fire apparatus.

Do we know whether or not a 16-foot

right-of-way would be sufficient for those needs? Or

do we need 20 feet?

MR. SILVESTRI: That would be -- the chief

specifically requested 20 feet, because they felt that

the 16-feet would not be adequate, you know, getting

vehicles in and out of there in an emergency.

MR. ARCURI: And I noticed in the -- in

the Planning Commission's recommendation, it says, "All

units shall be constructed with monitored fire

suppression systems determined to be acquired by

adopted Peter Township Building Codes." And my

understanding is that if it's separate lots, it's not

required; correct?

MR. SILVESTRI: That is correct.

MR. ARCURI: Could we still make it a

requirement, even we make it individual lots?

MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, John. I'm just

thinking. Did the question become whether you could

condition that approval? I think that's something we

would have to look at on the closing of this.

MR. ARCURI: Because I don't think that

there's any -- most of these empty nesters, if they're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


going to be paying $700,000, they're selling a house.

They're going to have 40 percent to put down, you know.

And then I had a question for Mr. Zuk,

because I didn't understand what this last sentence

means. No. 16 says, "No warranting of the plan density

is being made with conditional use approval." What

does that mean?

MR. ZUK: That means that they're showing

us a conceptual plan that has 54 proposed patio home

units.

MR. ARCURI: Right.

MR. ZUK: If Council ultimately decides to

approve this conditional use, we're not saying they can

have 54 units. It's just strictly conceptual. Based

on designs -- final designs. That density may go down.

It may go up a little bit.

MR. SILVESTRI: Specifically what Ed is

referring to, the Ordinance, specifically states in the

conditional use process, that the granting of

conditional use approval is not warranting any

approvals of site plans or a land development plan.

That it's just conceptual, without revisiting the

Ordinance.

MR. ARCURI: So if it comes back -- if it

comes back and it's more density, or there are features

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27


that we don't like, do we have to still then approve

it?

MR. SMITH: Well, if it meets your

(inaudible) if it's a modification from this

application, that's something we would waive at that

time. You also have the ability, potentially, to

condition approval based on a number of units too, or

not to exceed.

MR. ARCURI: Okay. Thank you.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yeah. I was just going

to try to address those items.

We're okay with limiting the density to 54

units. Well, based on the -- based on patio-home

design. But then, beyond that, I think we'd like to

take this opportunity to maybe address the fire

suppression question.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. With respect to

fire suppression, I do support and understand. In the

first place, the prevailing in the Commonwealth,

these -- this fire suppression would be required. And

Peters requires it under a grandfathered ordinance that

pre-dated the Act 1 fire suppression regulations in the

Commonwealth.

But with respect to the spacing. These

are going to be 16 1/2 feet apart, which affords a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28


great deal of safety for these units that wouldn't

otherwise be the case if they were a densely patio-home

community. What your ordinance says has to be a

minimum of six feet. So these could be as close as

six feet together. And that presents a much different

environment than 16 1/2 feet apart for fire

suppression.

With respect to fire suppression, the

state law requires that homeowners be given an

opportunity to install this. And the buyers are

required, under the law, to tell-- or the developer is

required, under law, to tell the buyer they have a

right to have fire suppression and to have it

installed.

The developer -- if this body deems it

appropriate, it's also willing to introduce some extra

fire suppression measures, such as 5/8ths inch drywall,

which would provide an hour of fire protection for

these units as sort of a middle ground, between the

fire suppression, and nothing at all, which would be

the case for a single family development.

So we think that middle ground might be an

appropriate way to proceed here. And, quite frankly,

the buyers, these empty-nesters, we found, don't really

want these -- this fire suppression, in the form of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29


sprinklers when they're gone half of the year in

Florida, and they have accidents, and they have

unanticipated damage and cleanup to their units. So we

think that a middle ground with the 5/8ths inch drywall

would be sufficient to meet the safety concerns and the

expectations of buyers.

MR. BALL: You're talking for all of the

bearing wall?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Exterior.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Exterior. The exterior

ones.

MR. BALL: Again, fire-rated walls?

MR. MONTGOMERY: Right.

MR. ARCURI: And is that different than

what we did at Hiddenbrook?

MR. ZUK: It is. Hiddenbrook's are all

sprinklered.

MR. ARCURI: Oh, I understand. But they

don't have any other -- they don't have the drywall?

MR. ZUK: I don't think they do. But I'm

not 100 percent sure.

MR. ARCURI: And do you know what the side

yards are?

MR. ZUK: Bill Depreston would. I think

had both sprinklers and some fire stopping.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30


MR. ARCURI: Okay.

MR. ZUK: And what was your other

question?

MR. ARCURI: At Hiddenbrook, what's the

side yards on those houses?

MR. ZUK: Well, the way the ordinance was

approved -- or the way that development was approved,

they could go to as close as six-foot.

MR. ARCURI: But they were required to be

sprinklered; correct?

MR. ZUK: Right.

MR. ARCURI: I mean, in actuality, how

close are they?

MR. ZUK: I think, you know, it varies.

There are some that are close, like six feet apart, and

then some are 30, 40 feet apart.

MR. ARCURI: Okay. Thank you.

MR. LEWIS: I have a couple of questions.

MR. SILVESTRI: Any new ones.

MR. LEWIS: Based on what I've observed

here, you're presuming that all of these units can be

-- and I'll use the characterization, be on the

high-side with parking -- garage and extra parking in

front of the house? Is that consistent with the

contours that are out there?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31


MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes, sir. The units

are -- will be designed with a two-car garage and a

driveway capable of parking an additional two cars in

the driveway. Driveway grades will generally be

roughly four percent, I would say, not to exceed

ten percent.

MR. LEWIS: If rear side garages become a

necessity, your concept of your plan changes in the --

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes, sir. But we're

anticipating front entrance garages. And we have a

very specific unit design or unit selection that all

include two-car, front-entrance garages.

MR. LEWIS: That would be my next

question. They appear to be pretty typical floor

plans. The elevations are slightly changed from your

dormer up above. It's left hand and right hand. But

the diversity of what these units look like is a far

cry from what my expectations would be. They're too

similar.

Mr. Ed.

MR. ZUK: They're too similar?

MR. LEWIS: That's my thought.

MR. BALL: Would you like to talk about

the elevations?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Sure. If you could go to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32


the colored. There are three -- there's three units

designed right now or anticipated for this market. And

in order to -- to have the flexibility with this type

of design, they're all three the same width. What

varies is the depth, and with that, the second story --

the second floor varies too. So there's three-bedroom

options and there's four-bedroom options. And, again,

there's sunroom options and things like that.

But from the front elevation, yeah, you're

right. They're very similar. But that's kind of

necessitated by this design where, you know, we're kind

of pre-determining the width on these.

MR. BALL: What's the general living area

square footage?

MR. LAWRENCE: It ranges from 1800 to

3,500.

MR. BALL: I'm sorry?

MR. SCHLEICHER: It ranges from 1,800 to

3,500 square feet.

MR. LEWIS: I think there needs to be some

kind of variation. I don't think you could have a

uniform cookie cutter front elevation of a house, if

you're going to have that in the variance.

MR. BALL: What's the footprint of the

houses, generally?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33


MR. LAWRENCE: I just want to say these

are just conceptual.

MR. SILVESTRI: I'm sorry. You need to --

I know who you are.

MR. LAWRENCE: John Lawrence from Eddy

Land. These are just conceptual drawings. That is to

quickly -- the idea is just for a craftsman look, which

is made up of low-maintenance materials, the

HardiePlank siding and stone. So this isn't the final,

by any means.

MR. BALL: I understand, John, but what is

the general footprint you envision?

MR. LAWRENCE: It ranges -- the widths are

all the same, 42 feet. And then, as the units get

bigger, they get deeper. The fronts are all different.

This product that's now at the Crossings now is brick.

So this is just a different craftsman style elevation

that's made with low-maintenance materials, which is

the HardiePlank siding and stone.

MRS. MERRELL: So do I see that you're

proposing some variation be based on the color and the

material changes?

MR. LAWRENCE: There is -- there are

several colors you can pick. They're -- fee simple is

our idea. So, you know, the buyer gets to pick.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34


Whereas, at the Crossings, it's all one-colored brick.

And the units are very different. It's just the

craftsman style, although, that's the same, which is

the HardiePlank siding and the stone.

MR. BALL: These look like fairly steep

roofs? What is the pitch?

MR. LAWRENCE: It varies. I don't know

off the top of my head.

MR. SCHLEICHER: It's exaggerated right

there.

MR. LAWRENCE: Yeah. It's the same that's

on the existing phase of Crossings.

MR. LEWIS: Out of respect. We're making

a transition here in our zoning code. I'm very

troubled over this element of how to make this

transition to accommodate plans like this, without

making it look just like cookie cutter abilities (ph)

the uniform size of these. I'm just looking for

diversity. I'm looking for variety. And I think

that's -- with the concept of not being a hardship on

you, but to make it a little more appealing

development.

Maybe you got to go back to some of the

Dublin photographs and things like that that Ed could

share with them. I want to mention Dublin. The

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35


planner that we had, that persuaded me to go this way,

I believe it was a land-use plan from Dublin, Ohio, and

brought with him some, I thought, interesting options.

So...

MRS. MERRELL: I feel the same way on

that, Mr. Lewis. I kind of agree with you. And one of

the things that I -- what made me concerned, based on

the setbacks that exist, is that this would, in my

mind, preclude future variances. If someone wanted to

change it, they could change the porch or add a porch

or do something different.

With what you're asking, with variances

now, I would say that there would be very little

latitude for a homeowner to do anything else that would

make it more personalized. I wouldn't support it. I

mean, I would not support that, particularly given the

density that we're talking about.

MR. LAWRENCE: Our experience has been

they're more concerned with the maintenance-free

element. The craftsman style is probably our most

popular right now, even the high-end stuff. So it's

the popular style. And they want low maintenance.

MR. BALL: What is the price range here,

if they came out here?

MR. LAWRENCE: They start in the mid fours

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36


and they'll go up to 700 or 800. I mean, we've done

some expensive ones.

MR. LEWIS: And where are we with our

evolution of the community looking for sidewalks?

Because this would pretty well preclude enough space to

have sidewalks in front of these properties?

MR. ZUK: We're trying to increase new

developments in requiring sidewalks. I think we can

work with the developer and put some sidewalks in here

and connect these two to the sidewalks that exist in

the existing Crossing development on Crossbow Court.

We have sidewalks in that development that go all the

way down to Route 19. So we're hoping to work with

this developer and connect all of those sidewalks. So

folks that live in this neighborhood, and this future

neighborhood, could walk down to Atria's or Giant

Eagle. And we think that will benefit them in

marketing as well as keep some traffic --

MR. LEWIS: It's a healthy walk. It's a

healthy walk, I know that.

MR. ZUK: A lot of people do it now.

MR. SILVESTRI: I don't know that I would

state that -- that this development design would

preclude sidewalks. I think there's room for

sidewalks. And I think it's -- you know, you can make

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37


a condition of that.

MR. ZUK: I think the Planning Commission

has a condition.

MRS. MERRELL: I don't see it.

MR. ARCURI: You got a ten-foot utility

easement and then a 25-foot building line. You're not

going to put the sidewalk over the utilities.

MR. SILVESTRI: It's been done.

MR. ZUK: You can put the sidewalk in

within a 33-foot right-of-way.

MR. LEWIS: I just think it's something

that, you know, I believe we're trending toward to

encourage --

MR. ZUK: We discussed --

MR. LEWIS: -- to rise above the

challenge, given that.

MR. ZUK: I think we discussed that a lot

at Planning, and -- and didn't make a specific

condition. Because it's in our ordinance now, that we

can require it. And I'm sure the developer is

agreeable to some sidewalks. So we'll see what the

common design shows.

MR. LEWIS: Okay.

MRS. MERRELL: In -- in that area, there

is also a reference to guest parking. What -- what

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38


constitutes the guest parking?

MR. ARCURI: I didn't see it on there.

MRS. MERRELL: It says, "guest parking

areas to be maximized to alleviate on-street parking."

MR. ZUK: Did we see this one?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Right. And just to --

just to make the follow-up on the sidewalk and walking

trail question. We do intend to introduce sidewalks

to -- to the development, as well as a walking trail

system. So we'll work with the Planning Department

to -- to incorporate that into our design, as well

as -- and I believe this was one of the conditions.

We'll attempt to connect it from the other Crossbow

Court through the northern portion of our development.

Our developer does not control those --

those existing parcels. But to the extent that we can

get permission to extend, you know, a walking trail,

through there, we will effort to do that, in addition,

again, to the internal -- to an internal sidewalk

design.

And the guest parking, where -- where it's

appropriate -- and we'll try to spread them out

throughout the development. We, again, conceptually

have shown three areas here for guest parking. Again,

just where the -- where the space permits, as well as

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39


kind of try to have them strategically placed

throughout the development. So that two-car garages,

two cars in the driveway, and then, again, to the

extent practicable, some off -- off-street guest

parking as well.

MR. LEWIS: We do not have a regulation

with regard to any number of -- let me see what you

call it, guest parking facility?

MR. ZUK: We do not.

MR. LEWIS: I know we've been troubled in

various plans. We've been in and out of a number of

those.

MR. ZUK: That's why the Planning

Commission placed that condition, and "guest parking

areas be maximized to alleviate on-street parking

issues." It would be very important, as we're going

through the next step, to maximize that and create as

much as we can without negatively impacting where lots

are and the units are being built, buffered,

landscapes, green.

MR. LEWIS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BALL: Anything else?

MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I wanted to address

condition 6. And that's the extension of Maid Marian

to the school district property line.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40


The school district's side of the property

line is not yet developed. They don't have a road

coming up to their property line. So the developer

would agree to grant this right-of-way as a condition

now, but doesn't want to be forced into creating some

sort of a paved pathway until the school district has

something to meet it. Because we don't want to have a

paved road to nowhere for some indeterminate amount of

time. So I think the reasonable condition would be for

right-of-way now, with the agreement, when the school

district is ready for some sort of connection, to have

that 16-foot cartway, at that point, rather than doing

that immediately.

MR. BALL: Or 20.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Or 20.

MRS. MERRELL: Mr. Silvestri, on that

idea, you had mentioned something about a pathway --

excuse me. Where is it? Something about a school

path.

MR. SILVESTRI: Right.

MRS. MERRELL: Is that a different issue?

MR. SILVESTRI: Yes, it is.

MRS. MERRELL: So...

MR. SILVESTRI: There was a -- a school

path for walking from Will Scarlett to the school

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41


property. That was an easement that was granted

between the school district and Mr. McDowell, who owned

the property, Sam McDowell. And we, at the time, back

in the early '90s, we took over a series of school

paths from the district. And they granted them to the

Township. And they were all recorded except for this

one. And researching it, what I'm surmising is the

reason that one never got recorded is because when you

look at the data on the deeds, there was no assigns to

it. And it stated that once the relationship between

Mr. McDowell and the school district ended, so did the

easement. And, obviously, that relationship has, you

know, ended when the property was sold. And the school

district no longer wanted the easement. So, you know,

that easement, I don't believe -- we showed it to the

solicitor.

MR. SMITH: Yeah. We don't think it

exists.

MRS. MERRELL: So it's a non-issue, then?

MR. SMITH: Right.

MR. BALL: All right. The developers are

through for the moment. We'll now take comments from

the audience. I would request that when people want to

speak, please come up and state your name and address

and try and keep your comments as brief as possible.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42


And, you know, if we've heard the same comment three or

four times -- you know, I don't think it will be a

problem with what we have here. But in any case, so

how many people wish to speak? Okay. So let's take

the second row on this side first.

MR. SMITH: And, Mr. Chairman, just to

remind the Board, the individuals that speak, you have

the ability to question the developer. So if you have

questions, they're here to -- just like the Board asked

questions, you may ask questions as well of the

developer. If that happens, obviously, you can come

back up to the podium for the record.

MR. MARSH: Good evening, I'm Gary Marsh.

I live at 205 Maid Marian. My wife, Valerie, is here

with me tonight. We were here Thursday evening, and

participated in the Planning Commission meeting.

And when Mr. Silvestri was reviewing the

conditions, there were a couple that I didn't hear.

And I thought we had established. I just wanted to

start by clarifying that.

If you could look at this -- to show you

where we live and why we have concerns, we are right

here at Lot 110 (indicating). And our neighbor, the

Langs, are the other lot that was mentioned. And when

we talked last Thursday, my understanding was -- and I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43


think part of this was cited -- that there would be no

walking trail in the buffer zone between our house and

the proposed dwelling here. This is only about a

30-foot distance. And I'm hearing walking trail again.

Tonight. And I -- maybe I misunderstood. So just

wanted to clarify that.

MR. ZUK: One of the Planning Commission's

recommendations as a condition is that the walking

trail cannot be located within the 25-foot buffer.

MR. MARSH: Okay. The other walking trail

would be in a different location?

MR. ZUK: Correct.

MR. MARSH: Another thing that we thought

we had established --

MR. SILVESTRI: All right. I'm sorry.

MR. MARSH: Wait a second.

MR. SILVESTRI: We're trying to show that.

MR. MARSH: Oh. Oh. I'm sorry.

MR. SILVESTRI: We don't have the right

screen.

MR. MARSH: Oh, yeah. There's Marsh.

MR. SILVESTRI: There's Marsh there.

MR. MARSH: And Lang right there

(indicating).

MRS. MERRELL: Which lot are you, sir?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44


MR. SMITH: He's that one.

MR. MARSH: That's 205.

MRS. MERRELL: Is it Lot 110 or 111?

MR. MARSH: Lot 110.

MRS. MERRELL: Okay. So this says, then,

that "the outside inner units shall be constructed

closer than 30 feet" --

MR. MARSH: Right.

MRS. MERRELL: -- "adjacent to the lot."

And then they wouldn't have the walking trail in that.

MR. ZUK: 25-foot.

MR. MARSH: Right. Now, related to this,

if you want to get me back here so I can point --

MR. ARCURI: There you go.

MR. SILVESTRI: Okay.

MR. MARSH: We were concerned -- I mean,

obviously -- as my other -- my neighbors who are here

tonight, will say, we were disappointed to learn that

these were going to become a town house or patio home

units. We were told 20 years ago, when we bought this

property, that they were going to build single family

dwellings. These are -- the end of Maid Marian

consists of 500,000 to $900,000 houses. And they all

look very different. Like Mr. Lewis was pointing out,

there's great diversity. Then Sheriffs Court, which

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45


runs up along here, (indicating). There's a couple of

residents from Sheriffs Court that will speak to this.

And they have issues with privacy from these units in

this area (indicating). But this is one of the nicest

streets probably in Peters. And these are houses that

exceed one million dollars up here (indicating). So

it's kind of a shocking transition to think of this

density of patio homes adjacent to single family units.

And if there's nothing that can be done

about that, we're trying to maximize our privacy and

then -- and safeguard our property values, if we choose

to sell our house some day. So my understanding was

that these two -- this unit would not be constructed

because we need to physically separate this whole --

this whole plan from the residential neighborhood. And

I thought we had agreed that we were going to have a

buffer that runs across this area (indicating). This

would not be constructed. And these two units would be

placed directly across from these two (indicating).

And that the setback -- the front setback of these

homes would be increased, these two. The first two

that would be -- as you entered the new development,

would go from 25 to 50, which is the setback of our

home. And so all of the homes on this street,

Maid Marian, would have a 50-foot front setback. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46


we thought that would look awful to have these be so

far in front.

Actually, I had a -- I made a little

drawing here. You'll never see that, I guess.

MR. ARCURI: You can see that a little

bit.

MR. SILVESTRI: Put it more in the center

there.

MR. SMITH: Up a little bit.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Up. Up. There you go.

MR. MARSH: So what we're -- here's our --

here's the Marsh home. Here's the Hwang home

(indicating). And what we're thinking, if I understood

correctly from Thursday, we'd have this buffer zone

that would be across from each other. There would be

no unit here (indicating). This would become part of

that pond area park. And we're not sure -- there's a

cul-de-sac there now. And there's some talk about

keeping that cul-de-sac in. And I -- that one picture,

you don't see it, but in the ones you do.

Now, if you talk about this cul-de-sac, we

think that the best thing would be to have the front of

these new units aligned with the front of our houses.

So that it would like -- especially the first two, so

when you come down the street and you transition into

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47


this new development, the first two houses are

equivalent to the ones that are there. And then they

would start to transition in and be closer as you went

up the road. But I'm just saying that the 50-foot,

which that was a condition -- correct, was the front

setback? I didn't hear that tonight.

MR. ZUK: It's a recommended condition,

yes.

MRS. MERRELL: From us, yes.

MR. MARSH: For the first two?

MR. ZUK: Right.

MR. MARSH: But I'm saying, it depends on

where you measure that. Because if you measure that

from the circle, that would be obviously too far back.

MR. ZUK: It will be measured from the

right-of-way.

MR. MARSH: From the right-of-way.

MR. ZUK: Not the circle.

MR. MARSH: Okay. All right. But the

idea is that if we'd still -- we're hoping that -- that

that is a condition that is maintained for -- you know,

for the aesthetics of this.

MRS. MERRELL: Mr. Zuk, is that a well

developed (ph)? Not a cul-de-sac? It looks like a --

MR. ZUK: They're making a temporary

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48


cul-de-sac there. They're talking about the first one.

MRS. MERRELL: Oh. Excuse me. Okay.

MR. MARSH: Yeah. The first two.

MRS. MERRELL: I know what you're saying.

I get it.

MR. MARSH: Because I think you did

mention that our house would be a minimum of -- this

first unit here, 34, would be 30 feet. And then this

would be 100, which makes them directly -- pretty much

across from each other.

MR. ZUK: Actually, you could see here,

there's a temporary cul-de-sac there.

MRS. MERRELL: I see it.

MR. ARCURI: Yeah. It's on the

photograph.

MRS. MERRELL: You know, the one plan

shows it more clearly than the other plan. I see now

what you're referring to.

MR. ARCURI: I have a question here. I

mean, I understand what he's saying. I think that's a

good idea. But are they still keeping that one lot or

is that one lot going away? Because you were saying

it's supposed to be two and three.

MR. ZUK: Right. Let's light up --

MR. MARSH: Because you were still talking

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49


54 units. And I didn't hear a reduction in the total

number of units, and I think you mentioned --

MR. ZUK: The way the Planning Commission

had recommended that the condition to be worded is that

this unit on this side can be no closer than 30 feet to

this property line. And any unit built here

(indicating) has to be 100 feet from this property

line. So I'm pretty confident it's saying that they

will not be able to get three units in there.

MRS. MERRELL: So that --

MR. MARSH: Well, the first one would be

shoved back is the point?

MR. ZUK: Correct.

MR. MARSH: It would be pushed up. This

would, essentially, be the first one. I think it would

look best -- I mean --

MR. ARCURI: And then, they're going to

have 50-foot setbacks.

MR. ZUK: The first two, yeah.

MR. MARSH: The first two.

MR. ARCURI: On each side.

MR. MARSH: On either side. It would be

this -- this unit (indicating).

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yeah. Okay.

MR. MARSH: And this (indicating).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50


MR. ARCURI: Okay.

MR. MARSH: Now, another condition that

was mentioned last Thursday was that there would be

special planting in the buffer zone. There was going

to be evergreens and things planted for aesthetic

reasons.

But for our privacy, and for our

neighbor's privacy, we were told that they would plant

more densely, and maybe more mature things in this area

(indicating). Because our driveway comes right up

along this property line, and our garage doors face

this unit (indicating). So when you open the door,

you're going to see this new house. So we would like

to have this planting done very densely here, basically

creating a natural barrier. And I think it would -- if

you did it on both sides, as you come down the street,

past the residential units, and then you come into this

new -- it would be sort of the gateway to the new

development. And keep it physically distinct. I think

this would just be awful because it's too blended

together.

But what I was going to bring up tonight

is that this planning be done early on, because this

could take years to develop all of these homes. And,

you know, I think another condition, that makes perfect

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51


sense, would be that the planting, especially along

here and along here (indicating), be done as -- in the

very early phase of the project. Maybe even the first

thing they do, is create the buffer zone here and here

(indicating), and plant it thoroughly. For -- you

know, for the sake of our privacy. Okay.

So that was -- I did send Mr. Zuk an

e-mail this morning. That wasn't mentioned on the

record today when you cited the material.

MR. ZUK: Yeah. I did receive it. And I

gave it to Mr. Silvestri.

MR. MARSH: Okay.

MR. ZUK: And we will factor that in --

MR. MARSH: Okay.

MR. ZUK: -- in our decision-making

process.

MR. MARSH: I covered the points that was

in the e-mail. Okay. Well, thank you very much.

MR. BALL: Thank you. Okay.

Continuing on the second row. Yes, ma'am.

MRS. VAIRA: I'm Linda Vaira. My husband

and I live at 115 Will Scarlett Road. We've been

residents of the Township since 1969. Excuse me. I

have retainers. I sound like Daffy Duck. Excuse me.

Okay.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52


So we've been in the Township for 46

years. We've lived on our property at

115 Will Scarlett Road for 16 years. And as Mr. Marsh

said, when we bought that home, we were told by the

developer, at that time, that he was planning to build

2- or 3 million-dollar-plus homes back there, and make

them estates, and preserve that woods behind us.

May I hand you some information that I --

and I only have four because I ran out of paper.

MRS. MERRELL: Thank you.

MR. SMITH: Since we do have a court

reporter, and a record, Mr. Chairman, let's go ahead

and mark this, perhaps, as Vaira 1, so we can refer to

it.

MR. BALL: That would be Exhibit 01, which

is a note to the Planning Commission, which will be

submitted. Thank you. It will be made part of the

record.

MR. SMITH: Mrs. Vaira, do you have an

extra one?

MRS. ROLLA-JONES: Thank you.

MR. BALL: There's a photocopy.

MRS. VAIRA: I would like to put this

small map, if I may, under here. Is that how I do

this?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53


MR. SMITH: We just had it up there;

didn't we?

MR. SILVESTRI: Yeah. Hold on.

MRS. VAIRA: I want to show the woods and

everything, if I could, on this. And I don't know if

that's going to show right.

Here's where Mr. Marsh was speaking of,

coming up Maid Marian here (indicating). Here's that

piece of land that was in question that we thought

owned -- was owned by the school district, and then by

the Township, and now by the builder. That was the

piece of the question. What we want to speak of

tonight, on behalf of my neighbors, is 115, 117 and 119

Will Scarlett Road. If you look at these properties,

you're going to see how close our houses are to the

back of our properties. Our back sidewalk -- yes.

MR. SILVESTRI: If you don't mind, I'm

going to switch it back to the laptop.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay.

MR. SMITH: Because it shows it a little

better --

MRS. VAIRA: Does it? Okay.

MR. SILVESTRI: -- on the drawing.

MR. ARCURI: I don't think so.

MRS. VAIRA: There it is. Yeah.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54


MR. SILVESTRI: Yours. Hold on. Wait a

minute. You see it.

MRS. VAIRA: I do see it. Thank you,

Mike. Thank you.

Today, I measured our back sidewalk to our

property line. It's 22 feet. Twenty-two feet. That's

our -- our property is shaped like a hambone. It's

wide and it comes down real narrow. So we have a very

large front yard, which is on a cul-de-sac, which is

lovely. And then, in the back, we have about

five acres of very heavy woods. And there are trees

back there, I know, that are over 100 years old. It's

oak trees. It's beautiful.

And, now, from what I understand, most of

those trees are going to be -- of course, because -- so

what our misunderstanding was that we were going to

have a few homes back there. And now we're going to

have 54 homes. We'd like to propose that Units No. 8,

9 and 10 consider be eliminated from this plan, just to

give us some privacy. We're going to be looking right

at the back end of peoples' houses. We're so close

back there. If you look at that little map I gave you,

and you look where 115 was, 117 especially, our back

yards are very, very shallow.

And that walking path that they're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55


proposing, within that 25-foot easement, even if it's

outside of that 25-foot easement, it's still going to

be very, very close to our property, especially with

all of those trees taken out. Our privacy is really

going to be affected.

So I'm reiterating what Mr. Marsh said.

We'd also like to know that they could leave the

existing woods in that easement. There's some

beautiful oak trees back there. And we're hoping that

they can be maintained.

And one of our biggest issues is where --

Mike, could you show this where this -- the plan, again

please?

MR. SILVESTRI: Sure.

MRS. VAIRA: The overview.

MR. SILVESTRI: Hold on. I lost my --

give me five here. It's coming.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay. If you look -- okay.

Good. I'm still there? This road comes along here

(indicating). And, of course, cars have headlights.

And our house sits right here (indicating). This is

where our houses sit. And that's where that road is.

And we're going to have headlights in our back windows.

We sit low. This property sits higher. We have a

retaining wall in our backyard. So that property sits

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56


higher. And that street coming around is going to

flash headlights in our -- in our -- right in our home.

MRS. MERRELL: So you're asking them not

to put the houses, and then to put additional trees

along that curve?

MRS. VAIRA: We'd like to see if that road

could be moved elsewhere. Is there another way for a

street to be put in there, so that that's not coming --

I mean, we're going to be sitting on our patio saying

"hi" to people as they drive by in our backyard. The

front yard, you could. You're going to have a street

in your front yard. But none of us ever thinks that

we're going to be looking at cars driving through our

backyard. So I don't know. I'm not a planner. It's

just something that we look at. And it upsets us to

think that they're going to be driving -- cars driving

so close to our property.

And I also reiterate what Mr. Marsh said.

We would really like to have the developer put a mature

buffer between our homes -- something mature and quick,

sooner than later, just to protect us and give us some

privacy. We'd like to know, too -- our neighbor wanted

to know, what was the rear setback on these? Is there

a rear setback?

MR. ZUK: Twenty-five feet.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57


MRS. VAIRA: Twenty-five feet is rear.

Okay.

MR. ARCURI: And that does not include the

buffer; right?

MR. ZUK: Correct.

MR. ARCURI: So it's 50 feet, plus like

22 -- like in her case, 22 feet to --

MR. ZUK: No. No. Twenty-five-foot

buffer, and then if they create individual lots, the

rear setback is 25 feet.

MRS. VAIRA: And having been a resident

for so many years, what attracted us to Peters

Township -- first of all, we found a house that we

could afford -- and we were newlyweds -- but was that

all properties had to be on a half-acre lot. Now, I

understand -- with an R2, I understand the diversity

and everything Residential 2, so you could have more.

But now I think what I'm hearing is they want to build

these really, really big houses, but they don't want to

have to use a half-acre lot. So they're asking, "Can

we do it another way and call it something else?" So

see what I mean? This is like your cake and eat it

too. I just --

MRS. MERRELL: By Joe, I think you've got

it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58


MRS. VAIRA: And I -- something isn't

sitting right by me. I mean --

MR. ARCURI: I don't think that they're

really, really big houses. What did you say? 1,800.

MR. LAWRENCE: It's very small. The

average house is 2,200.

MR. ARCURI: Right. That's not a very --

that's not a big house.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay. And I'm also looking

at the plans. And I know they are, you know, just

submitted plans, at this point. But what they're

building -- just built now, coming up behind the K-Mart

and Costco, these houses are all brick. They're all

brick homes. And they're in about the same price

range. And now we're talking about maybe siding in the

same price range. And I question the maintenance

factor because these are going to be maintained by

these -- the homeowners' association. So I can't

imagine why people -- they're not?

MRS. MERRELL: I don't know.

MR. LAWRENCE: HardiePlank is more

expensive than brick. HardiePlank is.

MRS. VAIRA: Is it?

MRS. ROLLA-JONES: I could attest to that.

That's what my house is.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59


MR. LAWRENCE: I know. It's a

maintenance-free product. This HAO is not maintaining

the siding. It's a fee simple. We're hoping to

raise --

MRS. MERRELL: They're private lots.

MR. SILVESTRI: Yeah. Individual

homeowners.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay. So if it's a private

lot, and it doesn't need to be a half acre, but it's

R2, so it would be a patio home? I'm sorry. I'm just

not getting that.

MR. BALL: Plus, that's a permitted use in

R2.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay.

MR. BALL: Our zoning is kind of

different.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay. I see. Okay.

MRS. MERRELL: The perception is they seem

like big homes on small lots because they're so

different from what you are used to seeing, a half

acre. It does look like a big house.

MRS. VAIRA: And these would be maintained

by the people who buy the homes?

MR. ARCURI: Mr. Zuk, those -- those

houses that were built down on Mallard, what's the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60


square footage of those? Twenty-five hundred?

MR. ZUK: Approximately. Very common.

MR. ARCURI: Do you know where Mallard is?

MR. SILVESTRI: Those are the ones off of

Valleybrook Road.

MR. ARCURI: Next to the --

MRS. MERRELL: Have you seen those?

MRS. VAIRA: I'm sorry. I thought you

were speaking to each other. The ones on Valleybrook,

the new one?

MR. SILVESTRI: Yeah. I think it's --

MR. ARCURI: Right next to the bank.

MRS. VAIRA: They're very pretty. They're

very tasteful.

MR. ARCURI: That would be about the

typical size --

MRS. VAIRA: Okay.

MR. ARCURI: -- of what they're proposing

to build --

MRS. VAIRA: I see.

MR. ARCURI: -- I would think.

MRS. VAIRA: So our biggest concern is

that those houses are really close to our backyard. If

they were in our front yard, you can live with it. But

when you can't sit on your back patio and get privacy,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61


and also that street with headlights in our -- in our

homes. It's going to affect three houses.

MR. ARCURI: Thank you.

MRS. VAIRA: Thank you for your time.

MR. BALL: Next one on the second row.

MR. HAMMER: My name is Mark Hammer. I've

been a ten-year resident. I live at 114 Will Scarlett,

which is just barely off the map here. We'll

experience some peripheral effects from this.

A couple of quick points. I would request

that some thought be put into evaluating property

values, adjacent holdings to see whether -- how this

would affect positively or negatively. You know,

that's one of the attractions to Peters Township from

surrounding suburbs. Included in that, I think, should

be a traffic study. You know, by all intensities,

they're 400 and 700 K homes.

MR. SILVESTRI: In that range.

MR. HAMMER: So empty-nesters are not --

you're probably going to average more than two homes --

two cars per home. You're talking 120 cars going

through here. And anyone that's traveled the Maid

Marian Road, it's quaint and a soft side street right

now. You know, the construction process aside, you

know, when this is all said and done, the initial

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62


traffic, I think, could be a significant factor to be

involved. There's a limited number of access ways from

19 and Waterdam into this area. And they all -- and

they all feature side streets.

I do welcome the idea that it's fee

simple. I think that's an improvement.

And my last point here. I haven't been to

many -- any council meetings. So I do see a heavy

percentage of the time spent here today talking about

density. You know, to me, it's a shouting problem.

And we're just trying to put too much stuff in here.

And the ripple effects of the project come with it. So

I request that that be re-evaluated.

MR. ARCURI: Actually, the density, I

think, according to the Ordinance, can be 7 units per

acre. And this is 3.4 acres per unit. So...

MR. HAMMER: Yes, I understood that. So

it's like half of what was allowed in my house. Is the

law correct in this? People were coming to Peters

Township for some relaxation, and breathing, and a

better community. I did. You know, I have a half

acre.

MR. ARCURI: I'm not despairing that there

won't be any problem.

MR. HAMMER: I'm just saying the ordinance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63


is the ordinance.

MR. ARCURI: And that's what we're talking

about.

MR. HAMMER: Yeah.

MR. ARCURI: So you're not stuck with it;

right?

MR. HAMMER: We're not stuck with

anything. I mean, you can do anything, you know.

MR. ARCURI: Yeah.

MR. HAMMER: But my point is you're having

these -- you're having some conflict of living styles

here. And you have the sole basis of the normal.

They're very nice. No doubt. But this is the donut

hole in the midst of a different philosophy, half-acre

homes, other than the Crossing 6, half-acre homes, you

know, mature -- more mature trees, 100-year-old oaks,

et cetera.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

MR. HAMMER: So I'd just ask that the

philosophy be looked at to see if it's in line with

whatever attraction to Peters has been before.

MR. SMITH: Just, sir, before you sit

down. So you know, this Board, when an Applicant comes

before them, the zoning district has already been

chosen in advance for this Board. The Applicant has

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64


followed the zoning ordinances in place. So they have

to apply the district that the Applicant has sought

approval in. So I understand your point. But this

Board can't go back and rezone that R2 multifamily

right now.

I mean, in the future, if you're talking

about big-picture issues, it's something that they look

at periodically in their Comprehensive Plan. For

tonight's application, they're very limited in what

they can do relative to an R2.

MR. HAMMER: Yeah. I understand that.

And it wasn't trying to redo the R2. I think it would

be more of a question of setbacks. And you're talking

about setbacks. We're talking about sprinkler systems.

MR. SMITH: There are definitely things in

there. You know, some of these setbacks, they are set

forth in the R2 district already before the Board.

Modifications, and extending those, may be a different

issue, though. So I appreciate that.

MR. HAMMER: You're welcome. Thank you.

MR. BALL: Okay. The third row. Anybody

there? Fourth row?

MR. EAKIN: How are you doing? I'm Larry

Eakin. We are on Lot 604, or it would be 1011 Sheriffs

Court.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65


I'm going to be speaking for the residents

on Sheriffs Court, Eakins, Trombettas, which are in the

back room, and the Grebbs. The Dulants want to stay

neutral, for obvious reasons.

A couple of things. I want to get it

really reconciled now because I keep hearing this. And

this is really starting to bother me. When I -- we

built our house about 11 years ago. And so Edward,

said, "We're going to put these estate-type homes back

there." So they must have changed the zoning because

there's no way -- either that or we were lied to. And

every single homeowner on that street was lied to that

they were ever going to do that. Or they changed the

zoning. So just tell us that you changed zoning.

MR. SILVESTRI: The zoning was not

changed.

MR. EAKIN: Then tell me how the heck the

builder could say that? Maybe it was oral. But you

can't tell people that. If it was never -- R2 was

never going to have R1 houses; right?

MR. SILVESTRI: The developer, when he --

and I understand the problem. The developer, when he

proposed to develop a portion of the property, did

develop a portion of it as single family. You know, in

time, the ordinance allows you to go either way. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66


he did -- you know, the original plans showed portions

of it as Multi Family and portions of it as Single

Family.

And I do agree, at one time, there was a

proposal to have the rear as a continuation of Single

Family. But the property has always been zoned R2.

MR. EAKIN: That changed recently, over

the last six months?

MR. SILVESTRI: In 1969 is when --

MR. HAMMER: But we were told this ten

years ago.

MR. SILVESTRI: Right. By the developer.

MR. EAKIN: Okay. By the developer.

Okay.

So that aside, I still feel, the best

outcome -- and I'm definitely going to try to work with

what we're doing here. But I want to say this, just to

be the record. The best outcome, in a whole area with

very, very well-to-do homes of people making major

investments in their house, would be single family

homes, three-quarters of an acre today, which would be

like 15 to 20 homes versus 56 units. I want to state

that. But I want to try to put the best interest going

forward and try to move forward with this.

So I have about five things I want to talk

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67


about, based on the meeting we had Thursday. Because I

was here Thursday night and made some comments and

also, I heard some things. The first thing was around

the access road up to the Township -- or up to the

Peters Township school system. As I thought through

that -- and there was already a large discussion about

putting that in. I actually think it's a good thing

for both sides because not only will it put so much

density in homes and cars, the emergency could be on

our end. If we ever needed -- that gate should be

gate-locked. It should be only used for emergency

uses. But I also say that if I need a LifeFlight,

which I know they LifeFlight out at the top there, they

might come and get me too. So I actually think the

access road is very good. So I'm just making a

statement. I think it's good. But it only should be

for emergency users. Original discussions about

opening it up for special events, no way. We could

never deal with that, with all of those cars. So I

just wanted to state -- to state that. That's a good

thing.

The other -- this other area around

privacy and safety. When we talked on Thursday, we

really thought it wasn't a good idea to have a walking

trail along -- these are -- you know, the people I'm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68


talking for. This is the Marshes here. But these are

all our homes right here, along here (indicating).

Okay. We don't think it's good to have a

walking trail along there for privacy purposes and

safety purposes. It's going along our yard. We don't

know who is going to be walking along there. It should

be most of these residents here.

But we had a problem with that. And a

lot of other -- everybody else that night felt kind of

the same way. So there may be some trail that pulls

over into the other Crossing 6 cul-de-sac on the other

side. But, you know, I speak for the other neighbors.

We don't really want a walking trail along the Sheriffs

Court Crossing 6 properties, if possible.

What we do think is very important is

what -- what Mr. Marsh talked about, is putting this

barrier up. We have a 25-foot buffer area. You know,

specifically this house here is very tight to this

barrier area and my home right here (indicating). But

I also feel, to bring some separation of that plan to

our plan, there should be a heavy, dense well-mature

evergreen barrier in that buffer zone. That would --

and by the way, it works both ways. Those people are

going to be looking right in my backyard. So I think

they should have to be able to have privacy in their

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69


own back yards themselves. And they don't have to look

at -- look at the backyard of my house.

So I really believe the buffer zone should

really -- they should be here (indicating). And I

can't speak as much here. But for sure, it should be

here like this (indicating). So that these homes all

have proper privacy and safety protection from somebody

that was, you know.

MR. SMITH: And, sir, before you move go

off that point. I know the other gentleman talked

about a buffer zone. And I'm not sure the developer

had commented on, whether that would be something that

you would be amenable to do? Is that -- council, just

quickly --

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yeah. I appreciate that.

MR. SMITH: And I'm not taking your time,

sir. I just want to answer the question, while it's

here, when you're referring to what it is. So maybe

there's a dispute as to what it should be. I haven't

heard the developer talk about these buffer zones and

vegetation areas.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes. Thank you. I

appreciate that opportunity. I was looking for a

segueway to try to address those things.

And just to -- to maybe back up a little

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70


bit. We're agreeable to the conditions set forth by

the Planning Commission, with the exception of the fire

suppression, we would like, you know, some

consideration on. And then, the emergency access road

being constructed at a later time. Other than that,

we're agreeable to -- to the conditions set forth,

including the 50-foot building setback on the first

units coming in from Maid Marian, including the 30-foot

setback from the Marsh property, to the first units on

the north side of Maid Marian, as well as the 100-foot

building setback on the westerly side on the southern

side of Maid Marian.

So -- so those conditions -- but again,

there was a lot of discussion at the Planning

Commission meeting, and we are agreeable to those. So

thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that.

Also, the walking trail being located

outside the 25-foot buffer setback. We'll definitely

work toward that. And, again, incorporate a sidewalk

design with a walking trail designed to -- you know,

we're sensitive to our neighbors' concerns. And we've

even -- and, again, we're here for a conditional use.

MR. SMITH: Well, you know what, sir -- I

don't mean to stop you. I don't want to take this

individual's time. But my specific question was, could

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71


you explain what you're willing to do from a landscape

buffer for these people that have raised that issue?

MR. SCHLEICHER: Yes. Absolutely. Thank

you. And we agreed to have that landscaping plan

during the final -- the land development review process

to work with the Township on that. And the Planning

Commission and the Planning Department, as well as I

think we used the example of a double row of

evergreens. And we, you know, we'll plant as mature of

trees as feasible, you know, to handle it and not --

not impact the survival rate of the -- you know, the

bigger trees sometimes. But, you know, we're willing

to commit to a double row of evergreens and, you know,

what I would consider, you know, sensitive areas of the

proposed buffer zone.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Eakin, do you have any

specific questions about the --

MR. EAKIN: Oh, I keep hearing about the

sensitive area. The sensitive area, to me, is that

whole -- that's basically that whole area here; right?

This is -- this is -- let's just make sure I

understand. "Sensitive" doesn't mean here and here and

here (indicating). It means this (indicating)

continuously heavily -- right? And then, but you

may -- may have that here. I can't speak to that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72


because I really -- I'm helping out.

MR. ARCURI: Well, this -- the Planning

Commission recommendation is the buffers through the

whole 25-foot -- right of --

MR. EAKIN: It should be the whole way

around.

MR. ARCURI: Yeah.

MR. EAKIN: Okay.

MR. ARCURI: Now, whether they're going to

make it more dense in the areas that people have come

in and commented on, 8, 9 and 10, and along Sheriffs

Court, you know, I would assume that's what he's saying

that you want to look at.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Right. And our

intention, too, would be to preserve any mature trees

in that 25-foot buffer. So, to say, you know,

specifically exactly where we would have the double row

of evergreens, I think would be a little bit

short-sighted. But it will be enhanced.

MR. BALL: In the process, when they come

in with their site plans, which is down the road a bit,

part of that is -- is landscaping. And, at that time,

I think the developer will address specifically.

MR. ARCURI: And it will show you what

type of a tree and where it's going.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73


MR. SMITH: I just think the Board --

obviously, there's -- they can condition, certainly, at

this point, or just generally, that there will be

landscaping to whatever satisfaction. We're all on the

same page as to what that might be.

MR. ARCURI: Right.

MR. SMITH: I understand the specifics

were going to be later on.

MR. BALL: I think that -- that, you know,

we've heard your concerns, certainly when we consider

the conditions.

MR. EAKIN: Well, I have a little reason

why I'm so sensitive on this. I'm going to bring this

up, too, so that you guys can police this. But, right

now, what's going on over the hill -- and there's been

lots of promises of landscaping, benches, street

lights, things like that. The neighbors on the hill

have been promised. And those have not happened yet.

So I just want to make sure, as a commitment, that this

is going to get done. That's all. Because if they're

not getting those things done, I want to make sure that

it gets done for the whole hill. I mean, it's a great

development the whole way around.

MR. SMITH: It seems like the Board

handles both sides of that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74


MR. EAKIN: Okay. And then just two other

concerns. I did have some concerns around siding.

Just what the level of quality will be around that

relative to what's been built. We all have built

brick -- completely brick everywhere. I mean, all

those homes around there, even the town homes were

mostly brick too, especially on Sheriff Court. So I

did have some concerns about the siding. I don't

really totally understand that. But that's something

you should consider a little bit more heavier.

And I guess one of my questions was

answered, just to make sure I understand. So in the

back of those homes, there's also going to be a

setback, meaning that -- so on this house here, I'm

guessing that -- if I just tell you how I'm

understanding this right. There will be 25-foot from

the back of this house to that buffer area; right?

MR. ARCURI: These are separate lots;

right?

MR. ZUK: I didn't hear you. I'm sorry.

What was the question?

MR. SMITH: I think he asked if there's a

25 feet setback?

MR. ARCURI: Rear yard.

MRS. MERRELL: Rear yard setback.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75


MR. ZUK: Twenty-five foot perimeter,

no-touch, no build around the entire site. And each

individual lot will have specific setbacks. The

ordinance requires 25-foot front, 25-foot rear and

15-foot sides.

MR. BALL: I think his question was is the

25 measured from the edge?

MR. ZUK: It's from the lot line.

MR. SMITH: From the lot line.

MR. EAKIN: So I understand, just simple

math here. From my lot line to the back of that house

is going to be 50 feet. Okay. That's all I wanted to

understand. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.

MR. MONTGOMERY: That's not true. That's

not the right answer.

MR. ZUK: It might not be quite 50.

MR. EAKIN: It sure doesn't look like

he --

MR. SMITH: I think the developer

reviewed it. If the Board wants, they can respond to

that.

MR. EAKIN: That's this number, 29.

Specifically a good one to use as an example.

MR. SCHLEICHER: I just wanted to kind of

get myself refreshed on -- we did -- we did prepare a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76


lot line plan. And the 25-foot bufferyard is -- is not

part of any -- we would anticipate it to be an

individual lot. And then, with that, there would be a

25-foot rear setback. I guess that particular unit is

a little bit -- since it's on an angle, that would be

interpreted as a side or rear. So I wouldn't want to

commit to saying it's going to be 50 feet, you know,

from the boundary.

MR. SMITH: But it seems like it would be

more than 25.

MR. SCHLEICHER: It will be more than 25.

It would be a minimum of 40 feet, I guess, with that,

depending on whether that ends up -- again, with this

being a conceptual plan, whether that would be a side

yard or a rear yard, it might vary.

MR. ARCURI: Okay.

MR. EAKIN: Thank you.

MR. BALL: Anybody else?

MR. MARSH: One question, please.

MR. BALL: Sure.

MR. MARSH: Gary Marsh, 205 Maid Marian

Lane. Just as a matter of protocol. To what extent do

the residents get to review his modified plans, you

know, all of these things we're talking about? I

assume there will be another drawing some day that will

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77


incorporate all of these things?

MR. SILVESTRI: We're talking about is --

the process is that once the conditional use process is

over, and Council sets up the conditions for the plan,

then the developer would have to submit a site plan and

land development back to the Planning Commission. And

then, what happens, at that time, then another letter

is sent out to all the property owners letting them

know that the plan is in. And that will go -- and you

have the time -- the opportunity to review that and

make comments at the meeting. And because this is a

conditional-use process, it will go to both the

Planning Commission and then again to Council again.

So there will be at least two more public meetings.

And the plan would be available in advance.

MR. SMITH: It will be definite, at that

point, once you move to the next level.

MR. MARSH: Okay. So there's another

round of what we just did. Round two.

MR. SILVESTRI: It's not a round-two

hearing. It's a different type of resolution.

MR. MARSH: Well, that's good. Thank you.

MR. LEWIS: It's a public meeting.

MR. SILVESTRI: Right.

MR. BALL: Anybody else?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78


MRS. VAIRA: I'm sorry. We do have one

question here.

MR. ARCURI: Come up here.

MRS. VAIRA: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm

Linda Vaira, 115 Will Scarlett Road.

If you look at number -- the one we

questioned. I want to walk over here. I can't see the

numbers. Is this eight?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: No. 9.

MRS. VAIRA: That's 9. Okay. Here's

25 feet. And I'm looking at this. And here's where

the Browell's house is and this is where our house is

(indicating). And here's 25 feet. This will take

about 10 right here. So I'm questioning that -- where

do you measure that 25-foot setback? Like from the

back of the house? Or from the corner? Or -- you

know, that -- that -- that looks like about a 30-foot

setback.

MR. SMITH: Well, ultimately, if they --

they don't meet the setback -- and this is somewhat

conceptual, really, the way they have these laid out.

They would need a variance. They would have to go to

the Zoning Hearing Board to ask for that to be waived

or shortened. Or they have to reconfigure that lot --

or that homeowner lot. I wouldn't put too much talk

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79


into how they're sitting on the plan.

MRS. VAIRA: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BALL: Anything else? Any Council

members have a comments or have a question?

MR. ARCURI: I have a question. It has to

do with the right-of-way for the school district. Do

we have any timeframe as to when the school district

would build a road up there?

MR. SILVESTRI: No.

MR. ARCURI: And so what happens if it was

ten years, who would be responsible for paving?

MS. WORDEN: In light of the district's

desire to have something, I would suspect it would be

sooner than later. We can inquire with them as --

MR. ARCURI: And I would think that we

need to know, though, because, otherwise, I would

prefer that if we're going to do that, that they put it

in.

MRS. MERRELL: I would agree that that

needs to be planned out. Do we know what the phasing

for this development might be? Because I'm sure

that -- I'm not sure. You know, they may want to do it

whenever there's a potential for it to be connected.

The same reason the developer doesn't want to extend it

until it's there. You know, there has to be some

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80


coordination. Do we know the phasing for this?

MR. ZUK: Well, you could answer that.

MR. LAWRENCE: As far as timing?

MRS. MERRELL: Right. I mean, most plans

are developed in phases.

MR. LAWRENCE: We're going to do the pad

pit (ph) first and then have the second. So it will be

two phases. And then it would take probably --

MRS. MERRELL: So a right side and a left

side?

MR. LAWRENCE: I don't know which one,

first or second. But it would be four years probably,

start to finish.

MRS. MERRELL: So do you see there being a

value to doing the road, if the school board would

commit to doing it, you would continue it up whenever

they were ready to go?

MR. LAWRENCE: Yes.

MR. ARCURI: So would that --

MR. LAWRENCE: That would.

MRS. MERRELL: That would answer it then?

MR. ARCURI: How married are you to the

walking trail because I really don't think anyone is

willing to use it, when they could walk down the

street.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81


MRS. MERRELL: They have sidewalks.

MRS. VAIRA: They would have sidewalks,

yeah.

MR. ARCURI: I thought they're putting

sidewalks there, if there are sidewalks?

MRS. VAIRA: I guess.

MR. BALL: I don't know. It may be

something to discuss.

MR. ARCURI: Okay. That's all I got.

MR. BALL: Anybody else? Okay. I think

the consent of Council, at this point, is that there's

some things that you really need to be cognizant of,

obviously, from the residents. There's concern for

buffering, for the quality and density of the

buffering, for many of the setbacks. From the

Township's perspective, you know, very interested in,

you know, sidewalks and the phasing of it, and the

connecting street, things like that. So do you have

anything else that you need from us at this point.

MR. ARCURI: Other than a decision?

MR. BALL: I mean, any information that

anybody would like to enter into the record? Staff

have any? John?

MR. SMITH: Just so the citizens know,

once this record is closed -- this is the record for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82


which the Board will use to make their decision. So we

can't come to the next meeting and ask them about "X"

and "Y" or put in new evidence. They can't take any

further evidence other than this hearing. So once they

close the record, it will be closed.

MR. BALL: That's why I'm asking, all the

information is in there? Does anybody see a reason

this hearing should not be closed?

MR. ARCURI: Well, I have one more thing.

I think, Mr. Zuk, didn't you receive an

e-mail today from someone?

MR. ZUK: I did.

MR. ARCURI: We need to mark that as an

exhibit and make it part of the record. So that way,

everybody who sends something or mentioned that they

sent something has everything in the record.

MR. ZUK: It is an e-mail dated May 18th,

2015 from Mr. and Mrs. Marsh. And it's relative to --

MR. ARCURI: What she talked about

earlier? Well, I still think we should make that part

of the record and mark it Exhibit 2.

MRS. MERRELL: As well as the documents

from Mrs. Vaira.

MR. SCHLEICHER: That was already in.

That was 1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83


MR. SMITH: Just so we make sure that any

objector, or anybody here, or the Applicant, if you

want a copy of this exhibit, you can take a look at it.

MR. ARCURI: I move to close the public

hearing.

MR. LEWIS: Second.

MR. BALL: Any discussion on that? All in

favor?

(Chorus of ayes.)

MR. BALL: Opposed? Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5-18-15 peters township public hearing3be5b086-2a15-4083-a63d... · 2015 public hearing ......

Documents