Planning Commission
Tuesday, May 11 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11,
2010
MINUTES
Members Present
Theodore Hauptman
Dr. Arthur Friedman
Steven B. Long
Edward Ingle
Evan J. Stone
James E. Kinney
Others Present
George Komelasky, Supervisor Liaison
J. Jerome Skrincosky, Township Planner
Bryan McAdam, CKS Engineers
Robert M. Pellegrino, Township Manager
Michael Solomon, Director of Zoning and Planning
Vincent Deon, Supervisor
Frank Rothermel, Supervisor
Eileen Silver, Supervisor
Excused
Keith Garverich
Chairman Stone called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM at Richboro Middle School and led the
Pledge of Allegiance. There was also a moment of silence for our men and women in the armed services.Mr. Stone
thanked the public for participating in the process for the consideration of this rezoning request.
Mr. Stone provided the ground rules for tonight's meeting.He stated that there will be no vote
taken this evening and that all the submitted information will need to be reviewed, including the Township's
independent traffic review.Since there are a few names of those who signed up for Public Comment, Mr. Stone stated
that they can address the Commission.When they are completed, the remainder of the meeting will be devoted to
questions from the Commission for the applicant.
At this point, Public Comment was received.
Les Welson, 79 Nathaniel Road, stated that the process is flawed because the Planning
Commission provides opinions to the Board of Supervisors, but they can't guarantee that what is presented will be
built.
Jerome Lutin, 51 Nathaniel Road, stated that the Planning Commission should weigh all factors
and that there is little reason to cut slack from the requirements.
Jack Lawson, 24 Carmelita Drive, stated that the Township doesn't need another supermarket.He
added that traffic is a major concern and recommended that the project be denied.
A resident of 15 Sharon Drive stated that something else should be considered for the
property.
Mr. Stone stated that the Planning Commission cares deeply about the community and wished that
the submitted information was provided earlier.He added that it will be reviewed for next month's meeting.He further
stated that the process has reached a situation of point and counterpoint, which should be avoided to bring this
matter to a conclusion.
At this point, the meeting was open to questions of the applicant from the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Stone inquired about the economic gap analysis and Mr. Hecker requested clarification.Mr.
Hauptman requested that it identify if the project is needed in this market.Mr. Stone further added that it study the
retail in the community.Mr. Stone added that his research shows that Richboro doesn't need another supermarket.Mr.
Hecker added that the Munson Report includes some of these items, but will provide additional information if
requested by the Commission.
Mr. Stone inquired about what the Dreher Group develops.Rich Dreher from the Dreher Group
stated that his company has developed shopping center and retail for over thirty years, primarily in Eastern
Pennsylvania.Mr. Stone inquired if Giant is the only anchor that has been pursued.Mr. Dreher stated that it was the
only pursued anchor because of its predictable traffic generation to generate financial capital.Mr. Hauptman inquired
how the economy impacts tenants.Mr. Dreher responded by stating that it does have an impact.
Dr. Friedman inquired what would be done if the zoning change is approved, but the project
can't be built as proposed.Mr. Dreher stated that he would need to deal with a contingency plan if needed.Dr.
Friedman stated that is exactly what concerns the Planning Commission.Mr. Stone added that it's not a good idea to
split-zone properties.As a result, the proposal leaves unanswered questions.
Mr. Stone inquired if high density residential could be considered in order to finance the
commercial aspect of the project.Mr. Dreher stated that the market cannot support it.
Mr. Hauptman stated that he visited the site and that the proposed buffer is not
substantial.Mr. Dreher added that it is greater than the other two supermarkets.
Mr. Kinney inquired if there are other projects from the Dreher Group in the center of a
Township or a Borough.Mr. Dreher responded that there are in areas such as West Windsor, New Jersey.Mr. Long inquired
if any projects have a restaurant as an anchor.Mr. Dreher responded that they do not because restaurants have the
highest failure rates and can only support so much.Mr. Long also inquired about the applicant's experience with
PennDOT.Mr. Dreher stated that he has interacted with PennDOT on many occasions.Mr. Ingle inquired about other
projects and Mr. Dreher stated that Giant is the anchor of other developments as well.
Mr. Stone asked if the applicant would develop by-right if the zoning change is not
approved.Mr. Dreher stated that he would then have to look at other options, but the Giant is the engine for the
project.Mr. Hauptman inquired about vacant tenant spaces being replaced.Mr. Dreher stated that from experience others
will enter the market.
Mr. Stone asked how traffic impacts could be addressed if the zoning change is approved and it
is realized that the improvements cannot be done.Jim Dimmerling, traffic engineer for the applicant from Dimmerling
Consulting, Inc., stated that traffic will need to be reanalyzed if certain development doesn't take place, including
an analysis of proposed improvements at the Giamo project.
Dr. Friedman stated that it is the function of the Planning Commission to flush out issues and
potential impacts.As a result, he would like to see an economic gap analysis.Mr. Stone agrees and added his concern
over split-zoned properties, especially with respect to delineating the zoning line.He added that a zoning change
cannot be conditioned in Pennsylvania further adding to his concerns.
Jim Constantine, planner for the applicant from LRK Architects, reviewed the Comprehensive
Plan, specifically with respect to revising property boundaries to coincide with property lines, converting
properties in commercial zones to commercial uses, and mixed-use.Mr. Constantine further added that the access drive
could serve as a boundary to maintain the residential buffer.Mr. Stone added that he's not sure anything could be
done with the residentially zoned property anyway.Mr. Kinney added that Shop n'Bag was there first and then the
abutting residential, which is the opposite with respect to this project.
Mr. Skrincosky stated that the Comprehensive Plan was based on 1999 maps.He added that the maps
tended to be based on parcel lines, but there were some inconsistencies.Mr. Stone asked Mr. Skrincosky why you would
want to split-zone a property to which he responded that it should be avoided at all costs.
At this point, Mr. Hecker provided an architectural rendering of the proposed Giant.Mr.
Skrincosky gave an overview of the by-right uses, conditional uses, and special exception uses in the C-2 Commercial
District.He also provided an overview of the requirements under the Village Overlay District.
From a stormwater management perspective, Mr. Stone added that anything will be better than the
existing conditions.Mr. Stone inquired if Giant has only one prototype.Mr. Dreher stated that they have several
prototypes, but the proposed Giant with this plan is not a prototype store.
Mr. Kinney inquired if there is a guarantee as far as aesthetics shown in the rendering.Mr.
Dreher stated that this rendering has been approved by Giant.Mr. Kinney stated that the Township has been burnt in
the past when construction does not look as originally presented.Mr. Hecker stated that the design can be a condition
of approval.
Mr. Skrincosky provided an overview of the shopping center requirements, which Mr. Hecker
advised he is aware of the criteria.
Mr. Long inquired about issues related to stormwater.Greg Glitzer from Gilmore Associates, the
applicant's engineer, stated that the site provides options to improve stormwater management.He stated that the plan
will address runoff volume and incorporate porous pavement.In response to Mr. Long who wanted to clarify for the
public, Mr. Glitzer stated that porous pavement doesn't have sand in it thereby allowing water to infiltrate.Mr.
Glitzer also added that underground stormwater management will be incorporated and stated that this project allows an
opportunity for a riparian buffer to be incorporated.
Mr. Long inquired if the connector road will be porous pavement.Mr. Glitzer responded that
parking lots are more conducive to this type of asphalt.Mr. Ingle inquired about the raingarden.Mr. Glitzer stated
that it is a depressed area with special soil and plantings.Mr. Kinney requested clarification of the riparian
corridor.Mr. Glitzer stated that it is essentially a buffer along the stream area.
Mr. Stone inquired if the stormwater management approach changes depending on the zoning.Mr.
Glitzer stated that it does not change.Mr. Kinney asked if flooding will be alleviated.Mr. Glitzer stated that there
are opportunities to have a positive stormwater management impact.Mr. Kinney inquired if the proposed development on
the Giamo property will take pressure off from a stormwater perspective.Mr. Glitzer stated that he hasn't studied it,
but it will probably have an impact especially with respect to volume.
Mr. McAdam stated that it is preferable for pass-thru water to be managed on site.Mr. Glitzer
responded by stating that he would like to incorporate these controls if possible.Mr. McAdam further added that
agreements are often entered into with respect to maintenance of the porous pavement.In response to Mr. Long, Mr.
McAdam stated that the agreement dictates who polices the required maintenance.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 PM.
Respectfully Submitted:
Michael T. Solomon
Director of Planning and Zoning
| 
