HARRIS TOWNSHIP

Planning Commission

Minutes ‑ December 16, 2002

REGULAR MEETING

7:OOPM

MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Duffy ‑ Chairman, Bob Potter ‑ Vice Chairman, Ron Buckalew, Ed Benner, Lisa Berkey.

OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Miller ‑ Township Manager, Todd Shea ‑ Township Zoning Officer, Lori Cahill ‑ Secretary; D.J. Liggett ‑ CRPA; Amy Gerber, Dave Gerber - Loop Road; Roy Love, Ken Hull - Main Street, Drew Garban, Elaine Kunze, Don Kunze, Cathy Flood, Lysa Holland, Diane Farr, Rob Weaver - Academy Street; Van Winter, Chris Dry - Boalsburg Fire Company; Mark Torretti - Penn-Terra Engineering; Greg Snipes, Thomas Songer II, Kelliann Foster- Torron Group.

A. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Duffy called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

Chairman Duffy gave an overview of the Agenda and how the meeting would be conducted. He also stated that January would be the beginning of a rotating leadership and encouraged the Planning Commission members to consider the positions of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2003.

B. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Upon a motion made by Ron Buckalew, seconded by Vice Chairman Potter, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting as amended; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

C. CITIZEN COMMENT

Mr. Don Kunze of Academy Street and the Boalsburg Alliance commented about the "Issues of Concern for the Boalsburg Alliance" handout that was presented to the Planning Commission.

Chairman Duffy recognized Mr. Kunze and suggested the Planning Commission begin discussion of Springfield Commons with Mr. Kunze's presentation first then they would hear from Mr. Songer and Ms. Foster.

D. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS

1. SPRINGFIELD COMMONS

Chairman Duffy outlined the issues of discussion for Springfield Commons as: (1) traffic and highways, (2) building separation and setbacks, (3) buffer zone around the whole property and joint property, (4) stormwater management.

Chairman Duffy stated there are a proposed set of requirements and regulations for stormwater management that will be presented for adoption as an ordinance at the January 2003 Board of Supervisor's meeting.

Chairman Duffy stated the new set of stormwater management requirements and regulations would apply to the preliminary stages of Springfield Commons and that Mr. Songer has expressed an interest in applying them to the development, whether or not he is required to.

Mr. Weaver, referencing his letter of October 8, 2002 to the Township, expressed concern regarding the issue of "governments of the community". He questioned whether Homeowners Association papers would be filed as part of the Master Plan, which could include covenants.

Mr. Weaver also expressed concern that in Townships "near by" there had been "substantial conflict and degradation of property", along with other problems created due to "mal-performance" of condos.

Chairman Duffy thanked Mr. Weaver for his comments and stated there are a series of planning stages in the PRD process; that the Planning Commission is in the first stage, the Master Plan stage, and the Preliminary stage would follow.

Chairman Duffy stated the Master Plan stage only deals with issues at a "conceptual" level.

Chairman Duffy stated that specifics such as the language of the covenants and the angles of what the intersections would be, are all part of the Preliminary Plan approval process and that there would be other opportunities to revisit those topics at a later time.

Mr. Shea stated that a brief outline of the covenants of the association was included in the Master Plan Narrative but was not specific and would need to be "pretty" specific by the time the project is completed.

Mr. Shea stated that the Master Plan requires a description of what the covenants would be and what the construction of the Homeowner's Association would be like.

Chairman Duffy clarified with Mr. Shea that there would be other opportunities in the future to review the specifics of the covenants of the Homeowner's Association.

Mr. Shea stated there would be.

Chairman Duffy stated they would take one more question from residents concerned, but needed give the Boalsburg Alliance and GTW Associates opportunity to express their ideas and concerns.

Ms. Holland of Academy Street inquired at what stage lighting would be considered.

Mr. Shea stated the lighting ordinance would "come into play" during the preliminary and final stages of the plan.

Mr. Kunze of the Boalsburg Alliance stated the main concerns resulting from the development were: (1) traffic, (2) stormwater management, and (3) design effectiveness.

Mr. Kunze stated Dr. Paul Painter of the Boalsburg Alliance and a resident of Academy Street, used the same methods of measurement as the traffic consultant and came up with considerable different conclusions than those in the traffic impact study. He stated that the mathematical measurement of a sample size of one is insufficient and that a sample size o f 55 was a more representative measurement.

Mr. Kunze stated a member of the Boalsburg Alliance did calculations using "recognized procedures". He stated a crucial area is the "adjacent side of the mountain" and the water basin. After calculations, the type of conduit determined to carry water off a 25 year storm would need to be 60 inches and that the current pipe diameter used is 24 inches and could not be increased without changing the grade of the property.

Mr. Kunze stated another concern of the Boalsburg Alliance is that potential development of the "Dr." Weaver's tract. Members of the Alliance would be "keen" on having an entrance to Dr. Weaver's development through some other way then Academy Street.

Mr. Kunze stated the Alliance is interested in seeing the present proposal offer some alternatives in terms of egress to other properties if they were to become developed.

Mr. Kunze stated the final focus of the group is the general design of the proposal. Mr. Kunze also stated "it seems to be packed as tightly as possible with difficulty to achieve a certain amount of open space, resorting to use of traditional setbacks".

Mr. Kunze stated the Alliance feels the design should be looked at "afresh" particularly with respect to egress issues for adjacent properties, concerns of traffic entering Loop Road and the design of the roads from the development to take the access traffic.

Chairman Duffy clarified with Mr. Kunze that the issues were listed in the handout "Issues of Concern for the Boalsburg Alliance" and that the document would be "valuable" for the Board of Supervisors as well.

Chairman Duffy summarized the issues of concern with the Boalsburg Alliance. The first being the concern of access to the Weaver property, secondly the impact of traffic from the development onto Academy Street by way of the Weaver property should it ever be developed; the third, whether Torrey Lane is constructed to handle the Traffic coming out of the development; the fourth issue as stormwater run-off; and the last being access to Loop Road.

Vice Chairman Potter asked Mr. Kunze if he and Mr. Miller (Township Manager) met and talked about the issues.

Mr. Kunze stated he met with Mr. Miller and Mr. Songer and believes the developer is interested in working out problems that will make their project better as well as positive impact on the Village.

Vice-Chairman Potter asked Mr. Kunze if he felt "at least some" of the concepts from the Boalsburg Alliance letter were the consensus of the developer's group.

Mr. Kunze stated the "Alliance" would need to see a plan that would include resolutions to the issues brought forth at this meeting from the Boalsburg Alliance.

Vice-Chairman Potter recognized that the "stormwater" issue is a major theme in the "stack of letters" received from residents regarding the development and Academy Street, and that it is an issue that needs to be taken care of whether the development is approved in or not.

Vice-Chairman Potter asked how the issue of Academy Street could be addressed and if the Township Engineer could look at it.

Mr. Gerber, from the Boalsburg Alliance and a resident of Academy Street, stated the issue is that the proposed setbacks of the buildings would impact the problem.

Mr. Gerber stated the setbacks near his property would need to be reviewed.

Chairman Duffy stated that specific problems involving stormwater requirements would be dealt with in the future.

Mr. Gerber stated the current drainage problem also was inadequate.

Chairman Duffy stated any stormwater issues involving the area in general and not related to the development would need to be communicated to Mr. Shea and Mr. Miller separate from the meeting.

Chairman Duffy again reiterated any issues of stormwater management would be revisited and discussed later during a preliminary meeting for the development.

Mr. Buckalew stated he had attended some meetings regarding Act 167 and that there was the possibility that the Township will have to change some procedures for stormwater management sometime in the future and that what was considered "feasible" now may not be "feasible" in the future.

Vice-Chairman Potter asked if stormwater management could change the future of the development due to Act 167.

Mr. Songer stated it would not change much.

Ms. Foster stated the question was how much "this" site will be required to handle.

Ms. Berkey stated if the Township has a pre-existing situation that needs addressed, that is the Township's issue, not the developers.

Mr. Gerber stated that Ms. Berkey is correct that the stormwater management needs to be addressed. To correct it now would save the Township and the developer money in the future.

Chairman Duffy asked for a motion to advise the Board of Supervisors about issues raised regarding stormwater management separate from the development issue.

Mr. Buckalew stated that the Board of Supervisors is reviewing a model ordinance of Act 167 and that it needs to be approved and adopted by the end of March as required by the State.

Chairman Duffy proceeded to introduce Mr. Songer and Ms. Foster.

Mr. Songer commented on taking the opportunity to show changes on the plan as a result of a prior meeting with his associates and traffic consultant, the Township Staff, Representatives from PennDOT, Mr. Miller from Miller Electric, Mr. Dry from Colonial Press, Ms. Liggett, and Mr. Zilla of CRPA.

Mr. Songer introduced Ms. Foster.

Ms. Foster stated the Planning Commission had before them two separate maps: one shows the buffer area and open space, the other shows the building areas. She stated the separation distances are characteristic of a "village" with small setbacks. She used examples from Frick Park in Pittsburgh, PA; Eagleview in Exton, PA; and Boalsburg Village itself; where separation was 10 feet between buildings.

Ms. Foster stated that examples from Frick Park and Eagleview have vehicle access to an alley at the rear of the property, which would not be the case for Springfield Commons. She stated most units back up to open space accept for corner lots.

Ms. Foster stated the entry for Loop Road was a very distinct decision to include the "dramatic" view of the mountain entering the development. She stated five different ways that could be used to deter traffic from the development using Loop Road to go into the Village. (1) emergency access only, (2) one way in only, (3) right turn out only, (4) limited left turn out, (5) the original (regular intersection). She stated the developer respects and understands the concerns of people using Loop Road to go through the Village and is willing to work to address the issue.

Ms. Holland from the "Alliance" group commented about the aesthetic view of the Loop Road entrance questioned how the developer determined what could be seen with houses in the development.

Ms. Foster stated as going into the development, the view would be a "straight up the road" view and that people would be able to see the mountain in the background.

Mr. Kunze clarified with Ms. Foster that more than half the residents would be able to use the entrance.

Ms. Foster stated that some would use it depending on where they were coming from and where they were going.

Mr. Kunze stated that the aesthetic appearance appears to outweigh all other issues regarding the intersection of the development at Loop Road.

Chairman Duffy stated that one of the roles of the Planning Commission is to make those types of determinations and advise the Board of Supervisors; not on the aesthetics, but on the traffic impact of the development on the local community and neighborhood.

Ms. Farr, Academy Street resident, stated concern that at the beginning of the project it was stated that there would be "Duplexes", now it is of understanding, there will be "Triplexes". She asked Ms. Foster to give them an idea as to how many Duplexes and Triplexes there would be.

Ms. Foster stated there would be a total of four Duplexes and/or Triplexes.

Ms. Farr questioned the "aesthetic" appearance when the larger buildings (duplexes / triplexes) were going to be at the beginning of the development.

Ms. Farr asked Ms. Foster to define the "Common Garden".

Ms. Foster stated they have it as a common garden on the plan but it could be changed if the Township wants. She proceeded to say that the common garden would be an area that would include shrubbery, garden plots for residents to use, a little tot house for children to play, and place where the community could put lights and trees.

Vice-Chairman Potter asked Ms. Foster what the dimensions would be.

Ms. Foster stated about 100 feet by 80 feet.

Dr. Love asked about the options for the development road onto Loop Road and making Loop Road "one-way".

Ms. Foster clarified that it was not Loop Road that would be "one-way" but the access road from the development onto Loop Road.

Ms. Foster continued her presentation referring to stormwater management.

Mr. Songer stated Act 167 might have new ideas that can be incorporate into their stormwater management. It is not the developers intent to directly discharge any stormwater into the ditch referred to by Mr. Gerber. The actual design of the stormwater system and any questions would need to be reviewed by the Township Engineer.

Mr. Songer stated he met with Mr. Teal, the owner of the car wash, and Mr. Teal preferred the intersection be away from the entrance to the car wash.

Mr. Songer also stated he met with PennDOT officials who seemed to be willing to consider either intersection plan.

Mr. Songer stated the intersection project would need to be done whether development was pending or not.

Chairman Duffy clarified with Mr. Songer that he (Mr. Songer) would issue a written agreement between himself and the Board of Supervisors about development of this particular intersection.

Mr. Songer stated he would support and contribute funds to help the Township put in the intersection, but will not contribute if the development doesn't go in.

Ms. Berkey asked, whether one turning from 322 onto Torrey could make a turn onto Loop Road.

Ms. Foster and Mr. Songer both stated the individual would have to make a right hand turn off Torrey Lane onto Loop Road. Torrey Lane would be the through road and a stop sign would be on Loop Road.

Mr. Songer stated he felt that unless residents were going to the Post Office or shopping in the Village, most residents would not use Loop Road.

Chairman Duffy acknowledged Mr. Songer's statement and stated the meeting needed to move on that the Planning Commission needed to come to some decisions.

Chairman Duffy stated the Planning Commission should proceed by one of the following: (a) to recommend approval without any recommendations for change, (b) to reject it, (c) to recommend approval with change, or (d) carry over to January meeting.

Chairman Duffy stated he would like to hear from members regarding setbacks and other issues starting with traffic issues; the first being the connection of the development on the Weaver tract.

Mr. Buckalew stated he is in favor of connectivity of communities in the area and connectivity is essential to the community.

Ms. Berkey stated she agreed with Mr. Buckalew in that having the connection was a good strategy.

Mr. Benner concurred with Mr. Buckalew and Ms. Berkey, that the connection from Springfield Commons to the Weaver tract be used for emergency purposes.

Vice-Chairman Potter concurred and stated it is good to have a vision to allow for future development.

Chairman Duffy also concurred that connectivity between is a natural part of bringing the Township together adding he doesn't believe there would be an impact on Academy Street at that time. The implications would come with the development of the Weaver tract and the issue could be dealt with then.

Upon a motion made by Mr. Buckalew, seconded by Vice Chairman Potter, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve interconnection with the Weaver tract and recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

Chairman Duffy stated the next item of concern to vote on was the Open Space requirement. He stated there were buffer issues and whether usable open space was provided for in "this" Master Plan.

Chairman Duffy questioned Mr. Shea regarding questions he raised in his memo whether the areas provided for in the plan at the upper levels of development were flat enough.

Mr. Shea stated staff had been concerned about the area called the "Common Garden" due to the development not having a lot of yard area.

Mr. Shea stated staff would like to see some flat open space that would be accessible to handicapped individuals, and where children and others could have activities.

Mr. Shea also referred to Mr. Gerber's concern about the ditch behind his house and how if it carried stormwater, it could not be referred to as open space.

Mr. Shea stated the open space for the community garden was acceptable but that he would like to see some other activity in that area other than gardens.

Mr. Songer stated they would further consider the garden area, and perhaps put benches in the area.

Mr. Songer stated the lower end would include a meadow where stormwater would drain. He also stated he had discussed with Katie "Obleski" to put landscaping in the meadow using native plants.

Mr. Songer stated there was nothing they could do about the water runoff from Academy Street across their property and they don't want the houses too close to that area. When they get to the final design, they will evaluate the situation. One idea they would be willing to consider would be to move the cul-de-sac up the hill a little more to create more buffer and move units further away from the ditch.

Ms. Berkey stated she felt Mr. Songer's idea to move the cul-de-sac away from the swale would be in the best interest of the Township and the development.

Mr. Benner questioned whether the design of the detention basin would be adequate.

Mr. Songer stated they did not know, but referring back to Act 167, they do not have to collect the water for detention all in one space. Their plans are to have infiltration system units in different areas of the development and to have native plants to draw in birds, butterflies, and other animals and species indigenous to the area.

Mr. Benner asked about the different phases of development.

Mr. Buckalew asked Mr. Shea about the buffer at the higher end of the property.

Mr. Shea stated he felt the buffer needed to be at least 30 feet and that at one particular point on the plan it was only 20 feet. He also stated the ordinance says the Board of Supervisors have the right to require a buffer equal to the setback which could be 50 feet, but no less than 30 feet.

Chairman Duffy asked if adjusting would cause a problem for green space.

Ms. Foster stated there is enough open space that the adjustment could be made without a problem.

Mr. Buckalew stated one issue of concern in the past was that the setback along the perimeter could not be counted as open space, but Mr. Shea had been able to devise a way to be able to count it as buffer zone.

Mr. Shea stated condo developments "generally" do not have setbacks, instead there are separations.

Upon a motion made by Vice Chairman Potter, seconded by Mr. Buckalew, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to accept the Open Space Plan as proposed with change of garden area to Village Green; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

Chairman Duffy stated the next item of business was to be the buffer area around the development. He summarized that the "whole development" itself represented one fee-simple lot.

Mr. Shea stated an issue was the area where there was only 20 feet of buffer that needs to be 50 feet.

Upon a motion made by Vice-Chairman Potter, seconded by Mr. Buckalew, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to accept the suggestion of the buffer on the upper (southeast) side of the property to be 30 feet and on the northwest side of the property to be 50 feet, and to accept the setbacks on the remainder as proposed; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

Mr. Shea stated if the Planning Commission wanted the development of the property to be directly linked to the improvement of the intersection of Boal Avenue / Torrey Lane in some form, the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors could be this particular PRD must empty on a collector street, would require Torrey Lane to be upgraded to a collector street.

Chairman Duffy, the stated next item of business was the entrance of Loop Road to the development and what it should look like, and if there is no Loop Road entrance, where the additional entrance should be on Torrey Lane.

Vice-Chairman Potter stated he was in favor of making the intersection attractive and easy to draw traffic to business 322. He said he is not in favor of something that would prevent people from going into the Village or a "One-way Out"; but is in favor of using traffic calming items such as stop signs to slow traffic going into and through the Village.

Ms. Berkey stated she concurs with Vice-Chairman Potter regarding the discouragement of people going through the Village and requested to hear from Chief Winters from the Boalsburg Fire Company regarding entrance of emergency vehicles to the development on the proposed roads/intersections.

Mr. Benner stated, "people are creatures of habit and of least resistance" and would use Torrey Lane the most, but when they want to go into town, they should be able to use Loop Road. He stated his position as being able to use Loop Road to access the Village with the stipulation that sidewalks be provided for pedestrians.

Mr. Songer stated they feel sidewalks are important and would work with the Township to create a plan to put them in.

Mr. Buckalew stated he was in favor of two entrances and two exits to the development. He also stated possibly making the entrance on Loop Road a bike path as long as another access was made for vehicles going in and out of the development.

Chairman Duffy requested input from Chief Winter regarding emergency vehicles and access to the development.

Chief Winter stated the current plan leaves appropriate access for emergency vehicles into the development.

Chairman Duffy stated his view that "people will follow the line of least resistance" and recommended a "limited" left hand turn between the hours of 7:00 - 9:00 AM. He asked whether the angle of the entrance to the development onto Loop Road could be turned more to force traffic from the development to make a right turn.

Ms. Foster said that would make it difficult for vehicles needing to make a left turn.

Vice-Chairman Potter suggested the review of all traffic calming, traffic delaying, and traffic slowing solutions, to discourage a lot of traffic from going through the Village.

Dr. Love of West Main Street stated he disagreed with allowing traffic to go into the Village. If traffic is not limited, the Planning Commission needs to be proactive and look into the impact on the Village that future developments could cause.

Chairman Duffy asked if the Township had the "option" to limit activity on the road.

Mr. Shea stated it was an option the Township could take.

Ms. Liggett stated one way to look at traffic patterns is to do an origin-destination study.

Chairman Duffy clarified that the origin-destination study is something the Township could do in the future after the development is in place to see if there was an impact that would restrict the flow of traffic in the Village.

Vice-Chairman Potter stated the origin-destination study was suggested in the Village District Study as something the Township should do.

Ms. Liggett stated it could be done in consultation with the Transportation Committee.

Upon a motion made by Ms. Berkey, seconded by Mr. Buckalew, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to accept the Loop Road connection as described in the Plan with the option of considering traffic restrictions for left hand turns in the future; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

Chairman Duffy stated the next item of discussion was setbacks and separations and asked Mr. Shea and/or Ms. Liggett to review some of the issues.

Mr. Shea stated typically R-2 and R-3 development setbacks are "fee-simple" lots and the PRD Ordinance that went before the Board of Supervisors had to define flexibility and change.

Mr. Shea stated that in "this" case it was agreed that 10 foot front setbacks, if from the street right-of-way, would be proposed and accepted by the Board of Supervisors. He stated what remained to be "dealt" with are the setbacks for rear and side to side for all different types of units.

Mr. Shea stated there were three different types of units in the development. He stated it was important for the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding each.

Mr. Shea advised the Planning Commission to make proposals for what the separation distance should be for side and rear for each type of unit.

Mr. Shea stated the following to be recommended for minimum building separations is as follows: Single-family detached: front: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way, side: 15 feet, rear: 40 feet. Duplexes: front: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way, side: 20 feet, rear: 40 feet. Triplexes: front: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way, side: 25 feet, rear: 40 feet.

Mr. Shea advised that for what would normally be a 20 foot separation, the developer is proposing 12 feet. The separation the developer is proposing for a triplex is 16 feet, where it should be 40 foot side separation according to different sections of the Ordinance where it says, "when there are multiple single-family attached units on a single lot, a 20 foot separation would exist".

Mr. Shea suggested the Planning Commission to propose the following: (1) for single-family attached dwellings10 feet in the front, no less than 15 feet on the sides, and a 40 foot rear separation for all structures. (2) for duplexes, 10 feet in the front, at least 22 feet on the sides, and at least 40 feet in the rear. (3) for triplexes - at least10 feet in the front, at least 25 feet on the sides, and at least 40 feet in the rear. (4) for the "caveat" where there is separation between different types of units, the greater separation number would apply.

Chairman Duffy requested Chief Winter to speak about the issue of fire safety and the separation distances between the units.

Chief Winter stated the firefighters need as much separation distance as they can get to fight a fire; the greater the distance, the better the chance for survival. If the dwellings are too close, the fire could jump to the next dwelling causing a second fire and putting more lives, including the firefighters, at stake.

Chief Winter stated the multi-family units have firewalls between them as a requirement of code. He stated he did not believe there was a rating for exterior walls of a unit for firewalls.

Mr. Shea stated although the issues of fire are important, other important issues are privacy, lighting, and air.

Ms. Liggett stated that if there was minimal space between units, a requirement of no windows could be used.

Mr. Songer stated he felt 40 feet was too much separation to require.

Chairman Duffy stated if Mr. Songer had any other concerns to put them before the Board of Supervisors at the January meeting.

Upon a motion made by Mr. Buckalew, seconded by Ms. Berkey, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to accept staffs recommendations on the separations described in Mr. Shea's December 13, 2002 memo to the Planning Commission as: (1) Single-family detached-front: 10 feet from edge of right-of way; side: 15 feet; rear: 40 feet. (2) Duplexes - front: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way; side: 20 feet; rear: 40 feet. (3) Triplexes- front: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way; side: 25 feet; rear: 40 feet. (4) Additionally, where there is a separation between different types of units, the greater separation shall be required. Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

Chairman Duffy asked if there were any more comments or issues that need to be discussed.

Mr. Weaver asked that Homeowner's Covenants be reviewed.

Mr. Shea stated the narrative asked for very general information that would need to be "formalized" at further development stages.

Ms. Liggett concurred with Mr. Shea that "this" stage is for a general narrative and a general concept is appropriate.

Mr. Shea stated this is a concept plan and any formalized covenants would not be developed until it is certain the development would go in.

Upon a motion made by Mr. Buckalew, seconded by Ms. Berkey, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the Master Plan with the recommendations made; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

By consensus Planning Commission members agreed to re-arrange the agenda to discuss item number 3 on the Agenda - 2003 meeting dates.

3. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR 2003

Upon a motion made by Mr. Buckalew, seconded by Vice-Chairman Potter, the Harris Township Planning Commission moved to approve the suggested meeting dates for 2003 calendar year as: meeting the third Monday of the month @ 7:00PM on the following dates - January 13, February 17, March 17, April 21, May 19, June 16, July 21, August 18, September 15, October 20, November 17, December 15; Ayes ‑ 5, Nays ‑ 0.

E. REPORTS:

Zoning Permits: Permits for November were circulated.

It was consensus of Planning Commission to provide reports at the next meeting.

F. ADJOURNMENT

Upon motion made by Vice Chairman Potter and seconded by Ms. Berkey, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:03PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________________

Thomas C. Miller, Secretary/Treasurer