Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays action on 700 S. High master plan; seeks joint engineering review and public comments
Summary
The commission agreed there would be no vote at the working session and directed staff to collect public comments, obtain a joint engineering review with neighboring township, and confirm whether the applicant has or needs another extension to the conditional-use hearing schedule.
The Planning Commission discussed the master-plan submission for 700 South High Street on Sept. 23 and agreed not to take formal action at the working session. Commissioners said they will collate comments and forward them to borough council with a letter so the council and the university (where applicable) are aware of the commission’s positions.
Commission member Jim Cherry said staff will collect and collate comments received to date and circulate them before the next voting session; he asked commissioners to send any additional comments by email so staff can include them in the commission’s formal correspondence to borough council. “Regardless of how the motion or the vote goes, they will forward that with a letter to borough council,” Cherry said, describing the intended process for documenting the commission’s review.
Commissioners also noted a pending joint engineering review: the master plan is being coordinated with West Goshen Township, and both municipalities contemplated hiring an independent engineer to review traffic and engineering implications jointly and to share the cost. Staff reported the joint engineer selection had been discussed and that the commission will confirm which engineering firm had been retained and circulate the engagement details. Commissioners agreed the planning commission should wait to see the joint-engineer review before making a formal recommendation; the review letter will be part of the record that a future recommendation would reference.
Timing was a recurring concern. The commission discussed whether the applicant had granted an extension to commence the conditional-use hearing, and whether another extension would be necessary if the joint engineer had not completed its review before currently scheduled hearing dates. No extension decision was made at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to verify the remaining timeline for the conditional-use hearing and whether the applicant had agreed to any extension.
No formal motions or votes were recorded; commissioners set a path forward that includes collecting written comments, confirming the joint-engineer status and timeline, and returning the consolidated materials and any engineering review to the commission prior to a formal vote or recommendation to council.
