November 15th EVT Planning Commission Meeting Recap

Once again, East Vincent’s Planning Commission executed their responsibilities with dedicated and determined professionalism, addressing two highly charged issues last night.

The 724 Corridor report composed by Chairman Jason Herron and distributed to the Commissioners last month, received positive observations and suggestions from all of the Commissioners. The PC is keenly aware of the urgency to provide the Board of Supervisors with a long-term land-use strategy for the corridor, and appears committed to having its findings ready for the BoS very soon, likely by the
January BoS meeting.  It is Chairman Herron’s intent that the PC’s study be reviewed and remarked upon by the BoS and then presented to the public for its input.

A final report would then contain commentary and analysis from all of the stakeholders and represent a true consensus upon which the Township could then actively pursue development projects.

What makes this study challenging is that East Vincent contains no historic city center and no area to be revitalized or repurposed.  The goal is to recommend how the land abutting Route 724, with emphasis given to the 724 – Bridge Street intersection and its immediate surroundings, should be developed consistent with the character of the Township, meeting fair share responsibilities, creating rateables and ensuring that traffic does not create more problems than any benefits provide.

While this author has not seen Chairman Herron’s report, gauging from the conversation of the Commissioners, I sense it is comprehensive and sets out a vision that would examine the Township’s potential growth over the next 20 to 30 years.

The second significant agenda item was the submission of the revised zoning change petition submitted by Pennhurst Acquisitions.

The Commissioners took notice of the comments made in the petition by Pennhurst’s counsel Michael Murray, Esq. Of note was Mr. Murray’s contention that a master plan could not be developed as the owner has no current specific plan for his property.  The Commissioners collectively offered that the lack of any plan puts the Township in a weak position as to controlling the impact of any development whether that is the entirety of the tract or on a lot-by-lot basis.  Township Engineer April Barkasi added that in a lot-by-lot build-out there would be a point where the current road capacities would be reached and an unlucky developer would be saddled with the need to perform a traffic study and possible road improvements.

As a comparative point, the Commission noted that the owners of the Jones Motor property provided the Commission with an example of a build-out in a commercial mixed-use conditional use, which included arterial access points, traffic impact projections and a rateables forecast for the Township.  The observation is that the Commission will strongly urge the property owner to provide a similar illustrative master plan.

There was no representative from Pennhurst Acquisitions attending the meeting, and therefore no ability for the Commissioners to ask questions they feel vital to their understanding of the Pennhurst property owner’s intent.  That was not the first time the Commissioners noted that absence and their frustration was evident.

The Commissioners are aware that the Township Manager is arranging a workshop meeting with the Supervisors and Pennhurst Acquisitions to examine the details of the petition so as to move it forward in a logical fashion.  It’s uncertain if the PC will be included in that meeting.  As of now, the Commission seems to find it difficult to accept the petition as submitted, and seeks to find solutions to the many issues with a consensus of the property owner, residents, Supervisors and the Commission members.