Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, January 4, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
GLENN RIEKER, Board Member
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE,
Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Good evening.
2 I'd just like to call to order the meeting. We are
3 going to start tonight with the reorganization
4 meeting for 2007. And the way we are going to do
5 that is the planning commission will appoint a
6 temporary chairman to go through the reorganization
7 of appointing the new chair and vice chair for the
8 2007 year. And for those of you who do not know
9 me, my name is Patrick Armstrong. I'm with Grim,
10 Biehn & Thatcher. We were just recently appointed
11 the planning commission solicitor in 2007.
12 So with that I call the meeting
13 to order for the reorganization.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll make a
15 motion that we appoint Joe Miller as temporary
16 chairman.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
18 MR. MILLER: Okay. We have the
19 -- looking for nominations for chairman,
20 vice-chairman, secretary. Who else is there?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's it.
22 MR. MILLER: Do I hear some
23 motions?
24 MR. RIEKER: I'd like to make a
25 motion that we nominate Mark Sincavage for
3
1 chairperson. Do we do this individually or --
2 do we have to do each office individually or can we
3 do all three at once?
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: You would do it
5 each individually so it's clear.
6 MR. BAXTER: I'll second the
7 motion.
8 MR. MILLER: Discussion? All in
9 favor?
10 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. RIEKER: I also make a
15 motion for Joe Miller to be the vice chairperson
16 for all of our vices.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
18 MR. MILLER: We have a motion
19 and a second. All in favor?
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
21 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
22 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
23 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll make a
25 motion that we appoint Glenn Rieker as secretary of
4
1 the board.
2 MR. MILLER: I'll second that.
3 Any Discussion? All in favor?
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
5 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
7 MR. MILLER: Aye. Motion is
8 carried. I'll turn the meeting over to Mark
9 Sincavage.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll make a
11 motion we adjourn the reorganization meeting.
12 MR. BAXTER: Second.
13 MR. MILLER: All in favor?
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you to the
20 board for the appointment. I appreciate that.
21 I'll call the regularly
22 scheduled meeting of Tobyhanna Township Planning
23 Commission for Tuesday, January 4th to order. Any
24 public comments on anything in general?
25 Next order of business is
5
1 approval of the minutes for November 16, 2006,
2 which we received by e-mail.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
5 Do I have a second to the motion?
6 MR. MILLER: Second.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
8 discussion? All those in favor please say aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
14 We need approval for the minutes
15 of December 7, 2006, which we received by e-mail.
16 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
17 to approve.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have a
19 motion. Do I have a second to the motion?
20 MR. BAXTER: Second.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
22 favor please say aye.
23 MR. MILLER: Aye.
24 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
6
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Old business, Shikhman medical
4 office building. Sarah?
5 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Which
6 one?
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Shikhman.
8 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: This is
9 what we have come in with last year. But because
10 the Hoffmans can't get approval of their sewer
11 system, we are looking at new sketches. So it
12 looks like Sketch No. 1 will not work because the
13 property is not perking except for right along the
14 front.
15 So it now looks like we are
16 going to have to go to Sketch No. 2 and reconfigure
17 it slightly. The building is going to be about a
18 third smaller. It was originally a little bit
19 wider than 50 feet and 150 feet long. It's now
20 only going to be 100 foot long.
21 MR. RIEKER: Aren't the
22 measurements reversed? Shouldn't it be that way?
23 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Right.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes, I see what
25 you're saying.
7
1 MR. RIEKER: It should be 100
2 feet this way and 50 feet that way.
3 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes, it
4 is. It's just shown -- the 100 feet is that way.
5 This is just showing doors.
6 MR. RIEKER: I don't think it's
7 -- oh, I see. Okay. Got it.
8 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
9 See, that little triangle there is a doorway.
10 MR. RIEKER: I was looking at
11 the dimension lines drawing.
12 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
13 It does meet the requirements for the 50 by 100
14 foot long building for the parking with one extra
15 space. The problem we are going to have is that we
16 would like to make the building 15,000 square feet
17 not including the interior hallway. So what we'd
18 like to do is bump the building out 2 feet on the
19 second and third floor and 2 feet, you know, front
20 and back, which means I am a little shy on parking
21 spaces.
22 But what I was thinking about
23 doing is when the sewer comes along, we could
24 replace this reserve section with parking spaces
25 for the future, which would give us more than
8
1 enough parking spaces. As a matter of fact, in the
2 future we could also eliminate the primary system
3 once we connect it to the sewer system when it's
4 extended. And we all know that essentially it will
5 be.
6 And I can get a whole bunch more
7 parking spaces, but I don't really want to go to
8 the zoning hearing board for that. I was kind of
9 hoping that you guys would give me a break.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, is that in
11 the zoning or the reserve there?
12 MR. McHALE: We'll have to check
13 with our sewage enforcement officer to see if they
14 can do anything like that over the reserved area.
15 We'll check with John Brogan.
16 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Okay.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: And where is it
18 in the ordinance that --
19 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: It is in
20 the zoning. The parking is in the zoning.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: The parking is
22 in the zoning.
23 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Right.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: But what about
25 the reserved area for the --
9
1 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Oh, that?
2 I have no idea.
3 MR. McHALE: A separate chapter.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: A separate
5 chapter in the zoning, though?
6 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: No.
7 MR. McHALE: No, in the code, in
8 the SALDO.
9 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: All right. And
11 we need to check or have you check with the sewage
12 enforcement officer to see on that. And I would
13 ask that the solicitor check and see if there is
14 anything in the code that prevents us from using
15 that area for parking.
16 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: As long
17 as we show it as future parking, then, you know,
18 I was kind of hoping you could give it to me.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: But you're
20 saying that if you bump out the building, you're
21 not going to have enough parking.
22 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Right
23 away, but we would eventually meet the
24 requirements. And the only thing I'm asking for is
25 a 4-foot-wide corridor inside the building. I
10
1 mean, it's not like it's going to be usable space,
2 because we can only bump out the building 2 feet in
3 any direction without providing additional support
4 for the floors above.
5 MR. BAXTER: How many spaces
6 short would this be?
7 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: It would
8 be two or three spaces short, that's all, because
9 we are only talking about like 600 feet, which
10 would be two spaces.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, we need to
12 check on those items and have you check on some
13 items.
14 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Okay.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
16 comments? Do you have anything else to present?
17 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Ms.
18 Connelly does.
19 MS. CONNELLY: I guess the last
20 meeting I wasn't here. And it was requested by the
21 board that we tuck the system on the side. And I
22 knew just from our original engineers that it was
23 going to perk along the front. We tried to
24 accommodate and it didn't work. So now we just
25 found out that where our perk -- where we were
11
1 perking, our original engineering firm out of
2 Stroudsburg, perked in the right-of-way. So, we
3 have a suitable site in the right-of-way.
4 So Sarah is going to be spending
5 a lot of time now trying to basically clean up that
6 mess and we'd like to be able to get on for the
7 next meeting. And I don't know if Sarah is going
8 to be able to redesign this as complete as you'd
9 like to see it in a timely fashion. And so we are
10 right here.
11 What I'm trying to do is save
12 this project. These developers have done nothing
13 but put money into this for the last two years. It
14 took one year to get two buildings done. It's sort
15 of gone on and on and on. And they see this as
16 money going out, out, out, and they are ready to
17 pull the project.
18 And this is a good thing for the
19 area. We are talking probably over $30,000 a year
20 into the tax base or more. We are going to keep
21 all of the construction local so you can tap into
22 that extra one percent. Not a child in your school
23 system. It's going to be a Class A space with
24 marble. It's going to be probably one of the
25 nicest buildings on Route 940. My suggestion is to
12
1 you use it as a prototype. Just take it and run
2 with it.
3 This is a good thing. It's not
4 going to be medical. It's no longer medical.
5 Saint Luke's is who was looking at us. And they
6 got bigger. They were waiting to finish their West
7 End project. They got bigger, and we got smaller.
8 And we couldn't guarantee them that we could have
9 anything finished for them within a year. And we
10 lost it, not that -- I think we were close, but we
11 lost it to Tannersville.
12 We'll be able to maybe put one
13 or two doctors in here. It's no longer a medical
14 facility. Parking spots just will not allow that
15 to happen. The way that -- the building will be
16 all three floors. My understanding of the
17 marketing in the area is that people are looking
18 for larger spaces. So I'm looking to divide it
19 into six 2500-square-foot usable spaces. And I'm
20 just asking for anything that's discretionary.
21 I need to get this passed. I'm
22 going to lose this project. And I think we are all
23 going to lose the project if I can't put something
24 together in the next 60 days. So, I'm just asking
25 you to do whatever is discretionary. Help me out.
13
1 I'll be back at the next meeting.
2 We have to get another -- we
3 have to now redig where we thought we had it. We
4 don't have it. Where we tried to accommodate the
5 planning board, we can't do it. We will decorate
6 the sand mound the best. And I know, Glen, you can
7 landscape it anyway you want. We'll do whatever it
8 takes to do it. I just need to get it done or I'm
9 going to lose the project. We are all going to
10 lose the project.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're before us
12 tonight as a sketch plan.
13 MS. CONNELLY: This is a
14 preliminary sketch plan?
15 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
16 MS. CONNELLY: I just like to
17 ask that if Sarah can have sometime. I met with
18 John Brogan today and showed him the sites. I
19 can't tell you what his comments were, but it was
20 his -- it's going to take some time. We have some
21 time before the ground freezes. We can probably
22 get some backhoes out there next week.
23 And then Sarah can't even go to
24 work until she knows exactly what she's looking at,
25 where the driveway is going to have to go. I paced
14
1 it off today. I know there is room for it. I just
2 don't know where the driveway is going to come in
3 and what Sarah is going to have to do. And she is
4 not going to be able to put this together in a week
5 if it's going to take us a week to ten days just to
6 find a suitable site and to get back out there and
7 redig.
8 And that's all I'm asking for,
9 is to be able to come back and let Sarah have some
10 time to turn in -- this is preliminary and it
11 should work.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so you
13 understand, you keep saying preliminary. This
14 isn't a preliminary plan. This is a sketch plan.
15 You brought this in. I believe it's the
16 commission's ability to look at your plan, make
17 suggestions and determine what their thoughts are.
18 They are not going to make any recommendations
19 tonight. They're just reviewing it.
20 MS. CONNELLY: Well, I
21 understand that. I'm just asking for --
22 MR. McHALE: One other point I
23 just wanted to add, is that the original land
24 development plan for the Shikhman medical office
25 was submitted several months ago. And we began to
15
1 look at it in that light. And then when they ran
2 into the issue where they couldn't get the sewage
3 capacity, they are coming back now with the
4 modifications to what was originally submitted by
5 downsizing the development. And then I guess we
6 were going to plan to kind of keep it on track as
7 the original land development submittal, just a
8 continuation of that, this modified version of it.
9 So I guess that I'm not sure
10 exactly what you're asking, you know, the
11 discretionary thing, but it comes down to just
12 redesigning based upon a new sketch plan that they
13 presented tonight and then resubmitting that.
14 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
15 If we could, what we'd like to do is submit late.
16 Because the three weeks before the meeting is
17 obviously not going to work given the fact that the
18 meeting is tonight, the septic testing has to be
19 redone next week, and then I'd have like two days
20 to submit the plans. That's not going to happen.
21 I mean, I'm not going without sleep for two days.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Sarah, you've
23 been here long enough to know that we hear this
24 from a lot of applicants.
25 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Right.
16
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: And this board
2 has always stood by the timeframes.
3 Does anyone else have any
4 comments.
5 MS. CONNELLY: That's what I
6 meant about discretionary.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I know.
8 Comments?
9 MR. BAXTER: How much time do
10 you think it's going to be?
11 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Well, I
12 think I can get preliminary plans back in here in a
13 week, because basically all I'm doing is downsizing
14 the plans. In other words, if you look at this, I
15 can save this part of the profile. I can save
16 probably this whole detention basin swale here.
17 So, basically what I'm looking
18 at doing is minimizing how much work -- even if I
19 can't get a full set of plans in, if you would just
20 let Bob accept basically preliminary plans, and,
21 you know, do a gross review and say, okay, you
22 know, let's do this and let's do that. I have a
23 whole rooftop garden to design. I mean, obviously,
24 that's not coming in in the next submittal.
25 MR. McHALE: Sarah, is this over
17
1 an acre total?
2 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: No.
3 MR. McHALE: What's the size?
4 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: It is
5 over an acre. But because we are not doing any
6 discharge during construction, there is no NPDES
7 involved.
8 MR. McHALE: PennDOT, you still
9 need to work with PennDOT, correct, for an HOP?
10 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: That's
11 true, yes.
12 MR. McHALE: So hurrying it
13 through the planning commission doesn't necessarily
14 mean you'll have your permits and ready to
15 construct?
16 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: That's
17 true.
18 MS. CONNELLY: That's okay.
19 We are just trying to get past something.
20 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: We are
21 just trying to show the client something. We need
22 to show the client movement is the problem.
23 MS. CONNELLY: Then again,
24 wasn't there a question about what if we lowered
25 the square footage, would we still be required to
18
1 have a PennDOT permit?
2 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
3 That was the other thing is, since we are now
4 two-thirds of the size we originally were, do we
5 still need to do the traffic study?
6 MR. McHALE: Yes.
7 MS. CONNELLY: Has the school
8 done theirs yet for their light, do you know?
9 MR. McHALE: For the?
10 MS. CONNELLY: The school has to
11 do a traffic study, the back way anyway.
12 MR. McHALE: They have plans in
13 to install the light.
14 MS. CONNELLY: So they had to
15 have done the traffic survey, that would have
16 preceded that? Okay.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments
18 from the board or questions?
19 MR. MILLER: The only thing I'd
20 say is it would be nice to help out. I don't know
21 exactly how to do that.
22 MR. RIEKER: The challenge that
23 you always run into in that is that we've had this
24 discussion before, is managing or planning by
25 exception, which always becomes difficult because
19
1 the next person wants exception. And then we back
2 Bob into a corner timeframewise. And I feel for
3 you and the challenges that you've had, but I know
4 when we work with our clients, if they want
5 something done by X time, we know that we have to
6 start it at this time or it can't be done, period,
7 you know. If a farmer wants to harvest corn in
8 August, they can't plant it in July. So you run
9 into that challenge. You just have to plan ahead.
10 I know clients' needs change.
11 MS. CONNELLY: This has been a
12 comedy of errors.
13 MR. RIEKER: Pardon me?
14 MS. CONNELLY: This has been a
15 comedy of errors in as far as engineering. And I
16 can't even tell you how much money we spent on the
17 first engineering firm that dug in the right-of-way
18 where we now should be sitting here saying we can
19 now apply for a sanitary permit.
20 MR. RIEKER: We understand that.
21 MS. CONNELLY: We don't have
22 control. We hire people. And you think they are
23 going to do a good job.
24 MR. RIEKER: We had that
25 conversation with Pocono Manor when they were
20
1 before us. And people wondered why they got
2 approved so fast. One of the reasons is hands down
3 their drawings are done, things were in place. You
4 couldn't find a thing wrong with their drawings.
5 And the fact that sometimes it amazed me some of
6 the things we see come before us from engineers
7 that you pay dearly for, that I just chuckle. I'm
8 going, I can't believe this guy or woman is getting
9 paid for the lack of services they provided, but
10 that's not on us. That's on your relationship with
11 the engineering firm. And, like I said, I just
12 have a difficult time --
13 MS. CONNELLY: But it's dug.
14 MR. BAXTER: Is there anyway to
15 hurry up the perk?
16 MS. CONNELLY: You know, we just
17 came through the holidays. I mean, the timing all
18 the way around is bad. We thought we had it. We
19 thought it was there. And you also requested last
20 month that we tuck it away in the side. And we
21 tried -- we had them out there and we wasted,
22 basically -- we had our opportunity. And we tried
23 to tuck it to accommodate, you know -- we'll
24 accommodate anybody. I'd like to see it on the
25 side myself.
21
1 I wish I had been there because
2 I knew how far back I'm allowed to go, and it's
3 just -- you get to a certain point on that lot and,
4 you know -- we are also dealing with a circular
5 driveway that has been compacted over the years,
6 that, you know, you go 20 inches down, you're going
7 to hit nothing but whatever anybody has compacted
8 over the last 50 years. So we really had -- I
9 mean, I thought we had it. And then we tried to
10 accommodate the planning board by tucking it to the
11 side.
12 MR. McHALE: If I can interrupt.
13 Please don't refer back to the planning board that
14 you tried to accommodate them and you lost 30 days.
15 You've had this on the agenda for a year.
16 MS. CONNELLY: Well, with the
17 sewer system, yes.
18 MR. McHALE: Right. So --
19 MS. CONNELLY: And I don't mean
20 to. I'm just saying we tried --
21 MR. McHALE: Well, you're making
22 it seem like because they asked for something to go
23 on the side of the project, that they lost -- you
24 lost out on 30 days. And now the burden is on them
25 to help you out to make it right. And it's not --
22
1 that's not right.
2 MS. CONNELLY: Well, I think the
3 burden is on everyone to do something that is a
4 good thing for everybody concerned, you know. And
5 that's my --
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: The board is
7 available to review your plans when they are
8 resubmitted in a timely fashion.
9 MS. CONNELLY: Okay.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. You know,
11 we can't make exceptions to everyone.
12 MS. CONNELLY: So, Sarah, your
13 house or my house?
14 MS. HAASE: Excuse me. With
15 that being said, I want to go on record. Sarah,
16 I'm going to give you the schedule with the cutoff
17 dates so you have them for all your projects.
18 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Thank
19 you.
20 MS. HAASE: Okay?
21 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything
23 further?
24 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: No.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item is
23
1 Dunkin Donuts land development plan. It looks like
2 we have received a copy of a letter requesting that
3 this be continued. How are we on timeframes with
4 this project? We accepted it on 12/7/2006. So,
5 are we still okay on timeframe?
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: We should be.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's Dunkin
8 Donuts. It's the third project down.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: Land
10 development?
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, we are
13 still okay. It looks like March 7th of '07 would
14 be the time that we need an extension, 90 days out
15 from 12/7.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: This really
17 isn't a request to table, though. I'm reading this
18 again. And this is actually for the zoning hearing
19 board. Have you heard any -- this is zoning
20 hearing board.
21 MR. MILLER: It was tabled.
22 They weren't actually here at this meeting.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. They
24 weren't.
25 MR. MILLER: And that's our
24
1 rundown of open projects.
2 MR. McHALE: If I remember
3 correctly, they had a setback issue that they were
4 dealing with, that they needed to submit to the
5 zoning hearing board. So yes, that looks correct.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is no one
7 here, so we just table it. This letter asks for a
8 continuance until January 2007 for the zoning
9 hearing board.
10 I'll entertain a motion to table
11 Dunkin Donuts.
12 MR. MILLER: So moved.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
14 second to the motion?
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a second
17 to the motion. Any further discussion? All those
18 in favor say aye.
19 MR. MILLER: Aye.
20 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
21 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
24 Pinecrest Lake. Anybody here
25 for Pinecrest?
25
1 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I'm sorry.
2 I talked to the office today. Our engineer became
3 ill and could not get me the plans based on last
4 month's meeting, the revisions. We've got
5 easements and everything. I just need him to put
6 it on the plans. I was unable to do that. I'll
7 have it in by next meeting.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: This hasn't been
9 accepted yet.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is not
11 Pinecrest Phase 7, right? This is Pinecrest Lake?
12 MR. MILLER: No. This is
13 Pinecrest Lake Company.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: So, we've
16 accepted it?
17 MR. MILLER: Do you have
18 anything you can tell us, Brandon?
19 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I tried to
20 communicate with our engineer just after the last
21 meeting just so we have everything that you
22 requested, lot lines being changed. I found an
23 easement for the -- the solicitor had an issue with
24 the easement on the one property. There is a
25 documented easement on the plan. I'm going to
26
1 incorporate that onto the plan and change the lot
2 lines. And I think we are waiting for the letter
3 from the owners that Mr. McHale requested, that
4 they get into the properties.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, it hasn't
6 been accepted yet according to the schedule.
7 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: We just
8 submitted a sketch. We are just working on the
9 board's recommendations for the final plan.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: All right. So,
11 we don't need any action on that?
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Correct.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, you haven't
14 reviewed anything on that, because I don't see a
15 review letter?
16 MR. McHALE: Nothing formal.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Pyramid
18 Network Services. We have a letter here requesting
19 that it be tabled until our next meeting. We did
20 accept this last month, but we are still okay on
21 timeframe. So, I'll entertain a motion to table.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
24 second to the motion?
25 MR. BAXTER: Second.
27
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
2 favor please say aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
5 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
8 Glorious Church. Have we heard
9 anything from them, Bob?
10 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
11 MR. RIEKER: Could I just ask a
12 question on that? You show that we accepted that
13 almost a year ago. How long do we keep this on
14 under old business?
15 MR. MILLER: Well, it's sort of
16 a question that came up with all of these things as
17 they go on. I don't know.
18 MR. RIEKER: They're ongoing.
19 MR. MILLER: I mean, you have to
20 table it every meeting as it gets here. But, do we
21 lose track of it if it's not there?
22 MR. RIEKER: So someone could
23 just, if they know -- let me play the devil's
24 advocate here. If somebody knows there is a zoning
25 change coming up, they could submit something so
28
1 they don't have to deal with the zoning change
2 later on. And then they just let it ride for a
3 year until they get all the facts and figures and
4 drawings together.
5 MR. MILLER: Any comments?
6 MR. RIEKER: How do you address
7 that? You can't have them on here for two or three
8 years.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, you can't.
10 MR. McHALE: Well, one is the
11 extension of time is something that they offer to
12 the township, that's accepted by the township or
13 rejected. And I guess at some point it could be
14 that, or deny it based upon the most recent review
15 and have them reapply when they are ready. That's
16 one option.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: It's always
18 within the township's authority to -- you know,
19 with the plan they have in front of them, to either
20 deny it or extend it. If the developer continually
21 requests extensions, if the township is appeasable
22 to do that, then they can do that. But if the
23 township wants it to move forward, you start
24 looking to --
25 MR. RIEKER: Mark, as a
29
1 developer, what do you think is a reasonable time?
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: A year.
3 MR. RIEKER: To submit stuff, or
4 at least before you say, okay, it's not a feasible
5 project or it's time to get them off the agenda.
6 MR. McHALE: At least show
7 progress or come in with a status report that we
8 are working on, you know, sewage capacity or we are
9 working on something. But there was a letter that
10 was submitted, I believe, a few months ago
11 requesting --
12 MR. RIEKER: A few months ago?
13 We haven't heard anything from them since. And
14 then people wonder, once again, why some projects
15 get through one, two, three, when everything is in
16 order, and other people understanding -- like this
17 Shikhman project. They ran into challenges, but
18 they needed to get something done in the interim
19 and not have it fall back on the planning
20 commission, where we say, okay, it's our fault.
21 No it's not.
22 It's either you have the money
23 to do the project, or you don't have the money or
24 you don't have the permits. If you don't have it,
25 then it's a dead project until you come back to us
30
1 and have everything in order.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, the
3 Glorious Church, they need a public hearing with
4 the board of supervisors with the conditional use.
5 Has that even been scheduled yet?
6 MR. McHALE: I don't believe so.
7 They haven't come back to resubmit any plans that
8 I'm aware of.
9 MR. BAXTER: If we deny it, do
10 they have to pay a new application fee for that?
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so I'm
13 aware, D and E, both Glorious Church, one is a land
14 development and the other is a conditional use, and
15 they filed them concurrently?
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. And they
17 have asked to have an unlimited extension, which we
18 have been going along with. But, you know, every
19 month it comes up and we've been tabling it.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: And the
21 conditional use has not been scheduled?
22 MR. McHALE: Not that I'm aware
23 of.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Maybe you can
25 report back to us next month on how to get some of
31
1 this stuff --
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: We can start
3 moving this forward.
4 MR. MILLER: Good.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: And the same
6 thing -- okay.
7 MR. MILLER: Well, you've got to
8 handle these.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes, let's get
10 these taken care of first.
11 MR. RIEKER: We need to make a
12 motion to table Glorious Church land development
13 plan?
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
15 MR. RIEKER: So moved.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Do I have
17 a second to the motion?
18 MR. MILLER: Second.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
20 favor please say aye.
21 MR. MILLER: Aye.
22 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
32
1 MR. RIEKER: I make a motion to
2 table the Glorious Church conditional use.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
4 Do I have a second to the motion?
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
7 favor please say.
8 MR. MILLER: Aye.
9 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
10 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
13 Austin James. We are in the
14 same situation I believe. They are still waiting
15 for a PennDOT permit. And this has been on our
16 agenda for quite some time. So, we'll check on
17 that one.
18 MR. MILLER: We still have to
19 table it.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
21 MR. RIEKER: Have you heard
22 anything from them?
23 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes, I
24 have. I was just authorized like three weeks ago
25 to submit the HOP by the client. It's almost ready
33
1 to go in. I have to measure the segment. And then
2 it will be ready go in next Tuesday or Monday. So,
3 we should be coming back to next month's meeting on
4 -- not with the HOP. It's going to take three
5 months to get the HOP permit once we submit it.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: But all your
7 other items have been addressed?
8 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: We will
9 be addressing those now that the project is moving
10 ahead. Most of the township's items have been
11 addressed. It's the erosion control I still have
12 comments on, since the client wasn't authorizing us
13 to go ahead. But now that's been taken care of.
14 MR. RIEKER: I'll make a motion
15 to table the Austin James Associates
16 preliminary/final site plan.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have a
18 motion. Do I have a second to the motion?
19 MR. BAXTER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
21 favor please say aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
24 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
34
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
2 Locust Ridge Quarry. This has
3 been on our agenda forever, too. Has anybody heard
4 anything?
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: This one we
6 actually do need an extension, if someone is here,
7 otherwise -- is anyone here? I'm sorry. That's my
8 mistake.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think they
10 gave us an extension, too. Okay. We need to check
11 on that one, too. And Austin James you don't have
12 to check on, because they're going to be back next
13 month. But Locust Ridge, we need to check on and
14 Glorious Church.
15 I need a motion to table Locust
16 Ridge Quarry contractors shop preliminary land
17 development plan.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move to table
19 Locust Ridge.
20 MR. BAXTER: Second.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
22 favor please say aye.
23 MR. MILLER: Aye.
24 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
35
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Scott and Cynthia Coombe.
4 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: We did
5 submit plans. We did get them in late because the
6 cutoff date was a week earlier than I had thought
7 it was because of the fall of the month. But,
8 anyway, we do have new plans in. And I've talked
9 to Bob about it today, and I expect minor comments.
10 I think we've addressed almost everything on the
11 revised plan. We have to stop in for the E and S
12 permit as well.
13 We've moved this swale over
14 considerably. The new plans, you can see the new
15 plan right here. We still have two level spreaders
16 plus a level spreader in the basin. We did remove
17 everything from the future. The basin did not get
18 smaller. Because per meeting with the conservation
19 district, I had to be less than 10 CFS coming out
20 of my basin. So we are reducing the amount of
21 water off-site rather than allowing it to even be
22 equal. It's going from like 20 CFS to 10 off-site.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. I guess
24 you will be back next month for a formal review?
25 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
36
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: And you now have
2 the new timeframes?
3 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: And I will
5 request you to sign this time extension.
6 MR. RIEKER: I make a motion to
7 table Scott and Cynthia Coombe, commercial building
8 land development plan.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
10 Do I have a second to the motion?
11 MR. BAXTER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor please say aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye. Let the
19 record show that the applicants did sign a time
20 waiver.
21 Creek View Estates and Creek
22 View Estates PRD. They are withdrawing their
23 applications?
24 MR. McHALE: They haven't
25 submitted anything in writing, but they did
37
1 indicate verbally to that effect.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: But we've never
3 accepted this, have we?
4 MR. McHALE: Correct.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: No. Okay. So,
6 we don't need any action on that.
7 MR. MILLER: They can be taken
8 off the list also.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. Okay.
10 That brings us to new business, Keswick Pointe.
11 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Good
12 evening. I'm Jim Gaidula from Reilly Associates.
13 This is Keswick Pointe, a planned residential
14 development. We had received tentative approval
15 from the board of supervisors back in August of
16 last year. And this is now Phase 1 for final
17 approval. The project includes -- Phase 1 includes
18 63 single-family residential lots and 29
19 townhouses.
20 Bob, you had made a comment
21 about the number of units, single-family units.
22 You were correct. We had incorrectly listed it as
23 64. It's correct at 63. And that is changed from
24 the PRD phasing that we had approval for. And the
25 reason that's changed is that we removed two lots
38
1 from Phase 1 in order to satisfy some E and S
2 requirements. And I can show you the new phasing
3 plan versus the old phasing plan.
4 MR. McHALE: Jim, that is
5 something that we do need to kind of go over, just
6 to make sure we are going down the correct path on
7 this. Why don't you kind of show the commission
8 what the original Phasing 1 that was approved under
9 the tentative plan and then show what you're
10 proposing?
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Jim, there is a
12 tripod right there.
13 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Under the
14 original phasing plan -- this is the original
15 phasing plan -- we were calling for 65 lots in
16 Phase 1, 9 lots in Phase 2. This is Keswick Drive.
17 This is Lexington Lane, the extension up at the
18 cul-de-sac. And Phase 3 was the completion of
19 Lexington Lane, and that included 37 lots. The
20 townhouses were split where Phase 1 would be the
21 lower section and Phase 2 would be the upper
22 section.
23 What we've done is essentially
24 taken these two red color lots out of Phase 1 and
25 placed them into Phase 2. And the reason for that
39
1 is because we are constructing this first and this
2 roadway second, we determined that the best way to
3 address E and S control is to place two sediment
4 traps on these two lots. And, of course, we
5 wouldn't be able to do that if they were sold off
6 in Phase 1. So essentially Phase 1 becomes 63
7 lots. Phase 2 becomes 11 lots.
8 And with regard to the townhouse
9 swap, originally Phase 1 townhouses were going to
10 be the lower section. And, again, that was with
11 due consideration to E and S control. However,
12 with the addition of the community water system and
13 the tank being located -- the water storage tank
14 being located in the upper portion of the lot, and,
15 of course, having to provide the distribution line
16 or supply line to the tank, it just made sense to
17 develop this portion of the townhouses first versus
18 this, because we would have had to have -- we would
19 have had a large disturbance up in this area
20 anyways.
21 So that's the reasoning behind
22 us flopping the townhouses and taking these two
23 lots out of Phase 1. And essentially what results
24 is, the new phasing plan includes Phase 1, 63 lots.
25 Sixty-four was an error, a typographic error. And
40
1 Phase 1 now being 29 townhouses and Phase 2 being
2 30 townhouses. I realize that the -- you know,
3 with regard to the PRD approval, that, you know,
4 the supervisors may elect to go back and re-review
5 that if there is concern with the public interest.
6 MR. McHALE: That's why I wanted
7 our solicitor to hear all this and be able to sort
8 through that.
9 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: I would
10 think that -- and I understand that this is -- you
11 know, what was previously submitted was what was
12 approved. But in the interest of the public, I
13 don't think there is a big issue to dive into.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. Anytime
15 a tentative plan is changed for the final plan, the
16 township has to make a decision whether or not they
17 want to keep going forward and allow it or deny it,
18 depending on whatever the reasons are. The MPC
19 kind of goes into detail about what is permitted to
20 be deniable and what is not.
21 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Is this a
22 subject that the applicant brings before the
23 supervisors or is this something that, you know, is
24 worked out informally to determine whether it's an
25 issue or -- I'm not sure what the procedure is.
41
1 MR. McHALE: We would take it
2 under advisement.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, we are
4 going to take this under advisement, because I
5 think there is a significant amount of issues set
6 out in the engineer's letter as well. So there is
7 not going to be any recommendations tonight from
8 the commission.
9 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: I understand
10 that completely. Obviously, we are working to get
11 outside third-party permits, state permits, county
12 E and S review.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. And I
14 think it's important just for us to be honest with
15 you about with the changes that you've made. We
16 have to look into that and see if it's, you know,
17 something that the township would be willing to
18 move forward with you with it or not.
19 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Right. And
20 the only question I have is procedurewise. Is this
21 something that the applicant has to bring before
22 the township supervisors or is it something that
23 the board -- we go through all our motions to
24 address comments and then it goes before the board?
25 MR. McHALE: I think the board
42
1 should make some determination on the phasing
2 before we move too far down that path, I would
3 think.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right, or at
5 least we're not going to be able to make that
6 decision tonight because the planning commission
7 isn't really in that position tonight. The
8 ultimate decision on whether or not to deny your
9 plan would be on the board of supervisors based
10 upon those changes. And I guess what your question
11 is, is there a procedure for you to go in front of
12 the board?
13 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Right. I
14 believe, per the zoning code, you know, the board
15 could require us to go back to a 30-day public
16 hearing comment period, or they may elect to deem
17 the change as minor and has no impact on public
18 interest.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. And
20 there is another alternative. If they do deny it,
21 you can resubmit your final plan with the identical
22 plan as a tentative plan. That's another
23 alternative to this.
24 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Correct.
25 So, I'm still not seeing the procedure.
43
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think we are
2 going to have to look at that. Do we have your
3 contact information? Okay. But I think tonight,
4 if you want to go through the letter --
5 MR. McHALE: Have discussion and
6 then maybe get some feedback from the planning
7 commission as to their thoughts on it, maybe that
8 and we can get this accomplished.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. So, we
10 are looking for -- Joe, you should handle this.
11 I'm going to turn it over to Joe, because, as you
12 know, I have a financial interest in the project,
13 or I did have a financial interest in the project.
14 MR. MILLER: Comments from the
15 board? Does anybody see a problem with the
16 proposal? How can we make a comment to the board
17 of supervisors here? What do we do, in the form of
18 a motion?
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think with --
20 with respect to the changing of phases or the
21 entire plan?
22 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Just the
23 changing of phases, I would think. There is still
24 comments to address.
25 MR. McHALE: I'm thinking maybe
44
1 just the comments. It's all being recorded.
2 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Could I
3 submit the comments through the minutes to the --
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: It will suffice.
5 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: -- to the
6 board of supervisors.
7 MR. DONALD HANNIG: If I could
8 just comment real quick?
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
10 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Hi, Don
11 Hannig from Hanning Development L.L.C. Nothing is
12 changing with the PRD itself, and the overall final
13 plan is going to remain the same. I think what Jim
14 was getting at, and I think the swap and the net
15 result in Phase 1 is really a net difference of
16 about three or four units overall net, the 63 lots.
17 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Right. It's
18 those two residential lots that I mentioned. And I
19 think it was actually five less townhouses.
20 MR. DONALD HANNIG: So when this
21 whole thing is phased out, nothing is going to be
22 changed with the PRD.
23 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: It's just a
24 number of units.
25 MR. DONALD HANNIG: It remains
45
1 the same. What was being swapped out was really a
2 result of better priorities for construction
3 scheduling and disturbances, so that we were not
4 disturbing as much in going through and building
5 this water system, which has to be piped all the
6 way up to the top of the hill here. So, it made
7 more sense, since we are disturbing all this up
8 here anyway, why disturb all this and disturb all
9 this down here, when we can leave this remaining
10 the way it is here. The purpose wasn't really for
11 gaining more lots in Phase 1, or financial
12 interest. It was really to accommodate the
13 construction of the roads in a better manner.
14 MR. BAXTER: Do we need to make
15 a motion if we felt we were supporting of this?
16 MR. MILLER: According to the
17 attorney, just a comment would be suffice because
18 it's being recorded in the minutes. The
19 supervisors can look at it.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: The minutes can
21 reflect what we are discussing. A formal motion
22 isn't necessary.
23 MR. MILLER: Everybody who is in
24 favor of the phasing?
25 MR. BAXTER: I would be
46
1 certainly in favor of it.
2 MR. MILLER: Glen?
3 MR. RIEKER: Yes.
4 MR. MILLER: Ted?
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: So be it.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: They have a
8 considerable number of things that have to be
9 resolved according to Bob.
10 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Oh, yes. We
11 know we have other remaining issues. We just want
12 to make sure that we are phasing it correctly so we
13 can address the issues as it relates to Phase 1, if
14 that's going to impact that.
15 MR. RIEKER: Just a comment on
16 the homeowners bylaws and stuff, they laid that out
17 very nicely so that they do control what happens in
18 that development. Once it does get finished, it
19 will be a nice development and not allowed to get
20 trashy.
21 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Just to
22 continue on with respect to the township engineer's
23 comments. You know, for the most part, most of the
24 comments are related to obtaining additional
25 permits, E and S approval, NPDES completion of the
47
1 water distribution permitting. And, of course, we
2 are going to be working towards that.
3 To give you an update with
4 regards to the water supply, we drilled one well
5 located down in this vicinity. Here is Tobyhanna
6 Creek, down that area. And I think we reached a
7 depth of about 350 feet. And at this point we are
8 artesian by about 20 gallons a minute.
9 So we just completed our pumping
10 test two weeks ago, and our safe field is in excess
11 of 100 gallons a minute. So, we really lucked out.
12 Total drawdown after 48 hours in the well was only
13 22 feet. So the static water level was only 22
14 feet below ground level pumping in excess of 100
15 gallons a minute.
16 Right now we took water quality
17 samples. Those samples were sent out to the
18 respective labs. And my understanding from Brian
19 Oram, the hydrogeologist, that it's a one to two
20 month lead time on the completion of the water
21 quality testing. So, we won't have those results
22 back probably until the middle of February.
23 In the meantime we'll be
24 proceeding with the completion of the modeling
25 details for the tank. We'll have a water booster
48
1 pump station because we are going with a low
2 silhouette standpipe rather than an elevated tank
3 that, you know, everyone would see from miles
4 around. The tank will be 32 feet high, at least 32
5 feet of water storage. It may exceed that a little
6 bit.
7 To complement that, we'll have a
8 booster pump station that will have two normal duty
9 pumps and one fire pump. If the pressure were to
10 drop in the system, it would trigger the fire pump
11 to kick on supply or whatever needs were within the
12 system. Fire hydrants are spaced out throughout
13 the system in accordance with the fire codes.
14 And the only water treatment we
15 have proposed at this point -- and, again, the
16 water quality testing will document this -- is
17 chlorination; provide chlorination in the supply
18 line up to the tank, and between the supply line
19 and the tank. That will provide us with our
20 minimum detention times for chlorine contact.
21 Okay.
22 Moving on, with regard to the
23 conservation district, we have a meeting scheduled
24 with them on Monday. We'll be going over some of
25 their comments.
49
1 With regard to PennDOT and the
2 traffic impact study, we've submitted the study
3 back in November. And, you know, their typical
4 review times are two to three months. So,
5 hopefully we'll be getting some information back
6 from them with regards to the traffic impact study
7 later this month.
8 There were just a few comments,
9 Bob, that I'd like a little bit of clarification on
10 or additional information. Item No. 5 in the
11 review letter is in regards to the sewage
12 conveyance system. And you make a comment that the
13 connection details be reviewed by the township
14 sewage enforcement officer?
15 MR. McHALE: Correct.
16 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Is that a
17 plan you want us to forward to them or is he able
18 to review what we've already submitted to the
19 township?
20 MR. McHALE: I think you have
21 extra sets in here. We can certainly forward it.
22 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Okay. The
23 sewage enforcement officer is reviewing community
24 collection systems? I'm just curious.
25 MR. McHALE: He's the one that
50
1 approves the connections that are made to each
2 residence. He'll be looking at those details.
3 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: The actual
4 lateral details?
5 MR. McHALE: Yes.
6 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Okay.
7 MR. McHALE: That way if there
8 is any details he wants you to add to the plan or
9 something, you can do that.
10 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Great. No
11 problem. Number 8 is in regard to the joint permit
12 application. We do have two discharges to
13 Tobyhanna Creek. One is in this general location.
14 The other one is over in this general location.
15 We had met with Carl Meyer from
16 the conservation district and with Elaine Moyer
17 from the Army Corps. And based on their
18 recommendations, we were able to pull back our
19 discharge location. This area being a stabilized
20 embankment. And the area located in this general
21 vicinity was actually wetland area that we could
22 discharge into, which actually removed us out of
23 the regulated water area.
24 The comment references
25 confirmation, that the final plans submitted is the
51
1 same as the Army Corps of Engineers. Are you
2 asking us to confirm that or do you want us --
3 MR. McHALE: Yes, to get
4 something that shows -- well, they usually just
5 write a two-page letter and they refer back to a
6 drawing. And if you just confirm that the drawing
7 that you submitted to them is this drawing.
8 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Okay.
9 MR. McHALE: And I think you
10 should have an original JD for the tentative plan,
11 did you not?
12 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: We had
13 submitted a -- are you talking about the wetland
14 report or are you talking about the actual letter
15 from the Army Corps?
16 MR. McHALE: A letter from the
17 Army Corps stating that you're not impacting
18 wetlands at all.
19 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Correct. We
20 had submitted for tentative approval all of that
21 information.
22 MR. McHALE: If you'll resubmit
23 just that letter, if you would, please.
24 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Okay.
25 Moving on, No. 10, with regards to review by
52
1 Guardian Inspection and the fire chief for
2 Tobyhanna Township, again, are those plans that you
3 want us to forward to them?
4 MR. McHALE: Yes, please.
5 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Okay. I can
6 tell you that I had spoken to the fire chief and
7 had discussion with him with regards to fire
8 hydrants. And he requested that we include a
9 special connection to each fire hydrant so that
10 when they hook up, it could be a quick disconnect.
11 We included that on the detail, on the plans. So
12 now we'll forward those plans off to them for
13 additional comments.
14 The next one I wanted to just
15 get some additional information on is Item No. 23.
16 It's with reference to evidence as to agreement or
17 commitment of any and all public utilities and
18 fire -- to extend such utilities. We had gotten
19 and had submitted during the tentative approval
20 phase, letters of intent to serve for the gas,
21 electric, cable, for the entire PRD, the complete
22 build-out.
23 Bob, are you requesting that we
24 get a separate letter just to serve or do you want
25 us to resubmit?
53
1 MR. McHALE: No. I think just
2 resubmit that, or if there is any other changes or
3 details that they want to see, just some more
4 backup, because we don't have anything right now
5 for this application.
6 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: That's easy.
7 We can address that.
8 MR. McHALE: Because I think,
9 Jim, the way it's stated, is that it's evidence to
10 the agreement or commitment to extend such
11 utilities to each phase. And so as long as they
12 are up to speed, that you're going ahead, I'm sure
13 you probably resubmitted a drawing to them showing
14 what you're going to do with the first phase.
15 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: We actually
16 met with them, you know. We have a letter that
17 says they'll serve the entire project. I haven't
18 gotten a letter that says we'll serve Phase 1
19 versus Phase 2 or 3.
20 MR. McHALE: Just resubmit the
21 letter for the entire --
22 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Correct.
23 The next item I just wanted to touch briefly was
24 Item No. 39, which deals with the lighting plans.
25 What we had approved at the PRD, the tentative PRD,
54
1 we would be providing lighting at the intersection,
2 cul-de-sacs. We'll have another cul-de-sac up
3 here. And what we are showing on the plans is
4 providing lighting at each of these intersections
5 and up here in the area of the water tank.
6 I think, Bob, what you're asking
7 for is that additional lighting be provided. If
8 you could give us a little more.
9 MR. McHALE: Yes. I think, Jim,
10 that when you look at the townhouses, you're
11 probably going to get more foot traffic and
12 pedestrian traffic in and about and amongst the
13 folks living there as opposed to people walking
14 from one home to the next. And I think when we
15 went through that discussion regarding the site
16 lighting, we wanted to strategically locate it at
17 the cul-de-sacs and intersections to minimize
18 lighting, but yet to provide enough light for
19 emergency equipment, fire trucks and ambulance and
20 such to be able to see even in the fog.
21 Around the townhomes, it just
22 seems appropriate that a lot of townhomes tend to
23 be lit a little more for parking areas. And it was
24 something that I think would be appropriate to have
25 a little bit more lighting out there rather than
55
1 just the two intersections.
2 MR. DONALD HANNIG: One thing
3 I'd just add on the townhomes, the way they are
4 designed is with really driveways to the frontages
5 so we don't have large parking areas in front of
6 the townhomes, correct?
7 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: No. It
8 would be, of course, two parking spaces per
9 townhome. One would be the entrance ramp to the
10 garage and, of course, the second parking spot
11 located next to it, separated by a small grass area
12 before you hit the next parking area.
13 MR. DONALD HANNIG: So we don't
14 have a parking lot of like 20 spaces where people
15 are going out to a parking lot and finding their
16 way to a space if they had park ten spots away.
17 This is, you know, the cars are parked right in
18 front of --
19 MR. McHALE: In proximity.
20 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes, right.
21 MR. McHALE: But you do have
22 sidewalks, do you not, that are going across in
23 front of the townhomes?
24 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Obviously
25 entranceway into the townhomes themselves.
56
1 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Just from
2 the driveway to the front door within -- for each
3 townhouse. So you have two spots in front of the
4 townhouse. And maybe it shows on that detail.
5 Again, the design of it is getting away from, you
6 know, just the large parking lot, where you go to
7 your townhome, to having almost, you know, your own
8 private parking, which the elevations of the
9 townhouses themselves all have carriage lights that
10 will shine in the driveways and front door lights
11 that will shine on the sidewalks, so --
12 MR. RIEKER: We are trying to
13 avoid an urban environment. You don't want it to
14 be so well lit.
15 MR. DONALD HANNIG: We are
16 trying to make it look more of a residential
17 community.
18 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Just to give
19 you an idea, there will be lighting -- there will
20 be street lighting in the intersection. And then I
21 think what Bob is referencing is that we have these
22 parking areas that are located adjacent to the
23 townhomes. And, of course, from the parking areas
24 there is sidewalks that extend into the units
25 themselves.
57
1 MR. McHALE: Jim, you have a
2 lighting plan. Why don't you flip to that if you
3 can? That might graphically show it a little bit
4 better, because there is some spillover from the
5 intersection. And we are not looking to light up
6 all the pavements that you're putting in there.
7 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Yes, I
8 understand.
9 MR. McHALE: Maybe even just in
10 the front of the buildings some, or it could be
11 sidewalk lighting.
12 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Well, the
13 only sidewalks are going from the driveway -- if
14 you pull up to your townhome, the sidewalk goes
15 from your driveway to the front door.
16 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Yes. I
17 think more appropriate lighting would be lighting
18 placed on like the front entrance to the garage,
19 like that area.
20 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Which is
21 what we are intending on the elevation drawings, is
22 that on the garage phase there will be carriage
23 lighting. At the front entrance of the townhome
24 there will be a light over the front door that will
25 shine on the sidewalk. We are trying to get away
58
1 from --
2 MR. RIEKER: Glare.
3 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes, as much
4 as possible without sacrificing safety.
5 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Just to give
6 you an idea of what we proposed, this is Keswick
7 Drive coming into the development. This is the
8 continuation of the townhouses. So, we've located
9 street lighting in the vicinity of the
10 intersections. Of course that has, you know, a
11 throw down to the roadway. But, of course, it
12 doesn't extend over into the walkways and drive
13 areas. But, you know, maybe an elevation view
14 or --
15 MR. McHALE: If you can have
16 building lighting that's going to be on the
17 townhomes, just maybe show that reflecting onto
18 that.
19 MR. DONALD HANNIG: And these
20 projections here are garages coming out to
21 essentially your driveway. And you're going to
22 have, you know, two carriage lights essentially on
23 every single garage phase.
24 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Not to
25 mention front -- you know, this is a porch area.
59
1 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Every other
2 parking spot is essentially going to have carriage
3 lighting on it or some sort of lighting.
4 MR. McHALE: You can reflect
5 that on there.
6 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Okay.
7 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Yes.
8 MR. McHALE: Like I said, the
9 intent was not to light this all up completely.
10 It was just to add a little bit more around the
11 parking areas because you're going to have some
12 kind of curb, I would imagine. And you get into a
13 trip/fall thing if you have no lighting at all
14 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Actually, we
15 don't have curbing proposed.
16 MR. McHALE: From where the
17 asphalt is to the sidewalk, is it flush?
18 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: It would be
19 flush.
20 MR. RIEKER: Do you have like
21 street trees planned at all or like the area -- the
22 small turf areas between the parking?
23 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: I don't
24 think our landscape plan shows that. Obviously,
25 that's probably something that we should augment.
60
1 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes, we're
2 going to dress it up with the landscaping.
3 MR. RIEKER: Just the basic
4 thing is a simple street tree between each parking
5 area, it looks like.
6 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes. This
7 essentially separates the area of the townhouse
8 that runs through there. I understand what you're
9 saying, to give some visual separation.
10 MR. RIEKER: Like a Williamsburg
11 type thing if you're doing the coach lighting.
12 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Your green
13 area between each --
14 MR. RIEKER: It's actually
15 yellow.
16 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Right, or
17 green-yellow. This area would be a potential
18 planting area for each unit.
19 MR. RIEKER: As I said, you
20 know, if there is one tree per unit, some type of
21 shade tree, something compacting, like a hedge
22 maple that stays compacted, it doesn't cause
23 challenges down the road with shadows and stuff.
24 It softens the building. And at the same time it
25 gives you a more softer look.
61
1 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Sure. Okay.
2 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: Great.
3 That's all the questions I have. I believe
4 Mr. Hannig may have several.
5 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes, just a
6 couple as it relates to some of the other
7 contractual obligations and such.
8 Number 20, it asks for a draft
9 maintenance agreement for the sewage collection and
10 conveyance systems. Is that something that the
11 township has a sample agreement that could be
12 utilized.
13 MR. McHALE: Not that I'm aware
14 of.
15 MR. DONALD HANNIG: On what the
16 township would be requesting or requiring, what
17 that contract includes?
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that
19 something we need to refer to the supervisors'
20 solicitor?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Did you say No.
22 20?
23 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes, No. 20.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, that's
25 going to be something with the township solicitor.
62
1 What we'll do is --
2 MR. DONALD HANNIG: If you can
3 ask him if he has a model draft of the agreement,
4 of what needs to be included or what the township
5 wants as terms. I'm kind of lost as to what terms
6 they need included in that.
7 The other item I had was
8 relative to just soliciting comments, Bob or the
9 commission, from the Pocono Regional Police, the
10 police department. Do they have a set of criteria
11 that they need submitted to them? I don't know if
12 they need a full -- I think your comment, Bob,
13 basically said that they need security measures.
14 They need to review what our security measures are
15 for the project.
16 MR. McHALE: Which item were you
17 speaking of?
18 MS. HAASE: 31, I believe.
19 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Number 31.
20 I guess I didn't know -- we weren't sure what the
21 process was or what information they would need as
22 it relates to security.
23 MR. McHALE: You may want to
24 call the police chief and begin some dialogue with
25 him. I also noticed that the location, Jim, on the
63
1 well, the primary well that's going to feed the
2 tank, I didn't notice any fencing, or if you have a
3 building, some kind of security measures in today's
4 time.
5 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: We'll be
6 adding security fencing around the well location
7 and also around the tank location.
8 MR. DONALD HANNIG: I guess my
9 question was I don't want to drop a set of 60
10 prints off to the police chief and ask him to
11 comment on the whole thing. I didn't know if there
12 were certain components that they look for in
13 reviewing.
14 MR. McHALE: I think you should
15 call them.
16 MR. DONALD HANNIG: And see what
17 he'd be comfortable and maybe just wants us to
18 explain --
19 MR. McHALE: Maybe just sit down
20 with him on the overall plan and explain.
21 MR. DONALD HANNIG: -- see if he
22 has any comments. Okay. Fair enough.
23 MR. RIEKER: When did the police
24 get involved in reviewing these, on projects like
25 this, on a PRD?
64
1 MR. DONALD HANNIG: I thought it
2 would have been something maybe of comment during
3 the PRD approval process or during the public
4 hearings, but we'll certainly go over it with them.
5 We can talk to them about the intent of the end
6 product and what security systems we are planning
7 and specifications of the housing and some of those
8 components as well.
9 Number 37, just to update you,
10 we did send to the township solicitor a deed that
11 was signed by Mrs. Brown as it relates to her set
12 of circumstances in the middle of the PRD, which we
13 did come to agreement with her. Pine Lane will not
14 be cut through as a road or a continued road. She
15 agreed to allow us to discontinue her use of that
16 driveway except for, I believe, foot traffic, so
17 she can walk out. Her biggest concern, as everyone
18 remembers, was being able to walk out and get her
19 mail.
20 So we'll be able to limit it to
21 just foot traffic until such time she may feel
22 comfortable and eventually picking up a box down
23 here at the central cluster. But she doesn't drive
24 a car. So her biggest concern was walking to the
25 mailbox, and we satisfied all that. We did send a
65
1 copy of the deed. And maybe we'll forward you a
2 copy of that, too, Bob. And we can certainly
3 forward a copy of that to this body, but that issue
4 by agreement has been resolved.
5 The only other thing, overall, I
6 guess, in the way of these line items is, certainly
7 some of these are engineering changes that have to
8 take place. And we'll tidy up all the things that
9 relate to our covenants and conflicts in our
10 protective covenants as it relates to the deed,
11 which were some of these other notes in here.
12 At what point can -- I guess at
13 what point can this body make approval -- can this
14 body make approval subject to permits from outside
15 agencies?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, first of
17 all, this body won't make an approval. This body
18 will make recommendations.
19 MR. DONALD HANNIG: I mean
20 recommendation. I'm sorry. Excuse my terminology,
21 but recommendation based on securing -- and can you
22 make contingent recommendation based on receiving
23 permits from outside agencies?
24 MR. McHALE: We are going to
25 need to see at least one or two rounds of comments
66
1 from some of these outside agencies because they
2 could impact the plan.
3 MR. DONALD HANNIG: The plan,
4 okay. See, I didn't know if -- you know, when we
5 get down to just waiting for the PennDOT permit and
6 the NPDES final permit, if those things were able
7 to be conditions to the recommendation. I don't
8 know whether it has been --
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think it's
10 something this board can consider in the future.
11 But I think today there is so many issues with
12 respect to the project, they are not in a position
13 to give any recommendations tonight.
14 MR. DONALD HANNIG: All right.
15 I'll just ask if anybody else has any questions of
16 myself or Jim?
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: I have one.
18 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes.
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: I see a nice
20 plan for drainage, storm drainage. I don't see
21 anything really specific that protects the
22 homeowner further of not getting flooded out from
23 the other stream side.
24 MR. RIEKER: It's actually in
25 the bylaws, that any and all grading --
67
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: I don't see a
2 copy of the bylaws.
3 MR. RIEKER: It was in our
4 packet.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: No.
6 MR. DONALD HANNIG: They were
7 submitted with -- the bylaws were submitted with
8 the PRD.
9 MR. RIEKER: They outline that
10 very specifically because we had had that
11 conversation before.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: I know we had.
13 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: We had also
14 added some typical details to show how that grading
15 is --
16 MR. RIEKER: It's in there
17 somewhere.
18 MR. DONALD HANNIG: They may be
19 in the bylaws. They may be in the covenants.
20 MR. RIEKER: Try like in design
21 guidelines.
22 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Design
23 guidelines. Yes, we put this together. We tried
24 to put together a pretty comprehensive package for
25 the association and the covenants and the designs.
68
1 Any other questions from anybody? Otherwise, we'll
2 see you next month.
3 MR. McHALE: Well, do you want
4 to go over the traffic study, Jim, where you're at
5 with PennDOT and the discussion about improvements
6 to Route 115 and 940, that type of thing?
7 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: We had met
8 with Bob previously, probably back in late October.
9 Just -- we are at a point where we are finalizing
10 our traffic impact study. And the results of the
11 traffic impact studies show that we need to make an
12 improvement to 115, specifically a left turning
13 lane into Keswick Drive. We are also providing a
14 right turn-out lane from Keswick Drive onto 115, as
15 well as an exclusive left turn lane onto 115.
16 With regards to other outside
17 impacts, we looked at the 940/115 intersection.
18 And the result of our additional traffic indicated
19 that a left turn lane on 115 onto 940 going
20 eastbound and as well as 940 going westbound was
21 warranted. The results of that is that we have a
22 -- we would meet the minimum requirements for
23 putting in a left turn lane, which would be 75
24 feet. And when we met with Bob, we discussed the
25 total impacts from additional projects that are
69
1 going on in the township.
2 And specifically we are aware
3 that there is a project across the street which is
4 actually larger in scope than this project, and
5 that potentially we could have some type of
6 combination effect. Certainly their traffic is
7 going to impact an intersection more than our
8 traffic. And if we were to go ahead and make an
9 improvement to that intersection, it would only
10 accommodate our traffic. Whereas, you know, when
11 the next guy comes in, he's going to have the same
12 problem and have to go back and either redo what we
13 had already done.
14 So we are trying to come up with
15 a solution where we can have some type of escrow
16 fund or mitigation fund, where, you know, we could
17 possibly pay into a portion for a community
18 project, essentially allow a larger scope project
19 to occur there than what our minimal impact would
20 be. So I think we are really waiting at this point
21 to hear back from PennDOT. And at that point, I
22 think it probably would be more sitting down again
23 and discussing what developments have occurred
24 across the street or anywhere else, for that
25 matter, in the vicinity of the intersection.
70
1 MR. McHALE: At that time, as
2 you all may recall, Creek View Estates had
3 submitted a minor subdivision application. And
4 then they had submitted a package incomplete, but
5 it was for their tentative PRD, a tentative plan
6 approval for the PRD. At this point they are
7 indicating that they are going to, you know, pull
8 out of that deal. So that's just another factor we
9 need to look at as we move forward. Dunkin Donuts
10 is still on the table as far as land development.
11 MR. RIEKER: It does make sense
12 to -- I see this on government projects we are
13 involved with, where they do one thing and rip it
14 up three months later to do it again because their
15 was no coordination between projects. From a legal
16 standpoint, I don't know if we can set up a fund
17 where they say, okay, we know something else is
18 going to happen, instead of redoing the
19 intersection three times, can we just do it right
20 one time? I have no idea. That's why we have
21 attorneys.
22 MR. DONALD HANNIG: I know that
23 PennDOT, some of what is going to happen here, too,
24 is, you know, we are going to have the benefit of
25 time because some of those triggers for that
71
1 turning lane don't happen until we are pretty much
2 built out in this development. In probably Phase 2
3 and Phase 3, those triggers for traffic don't
4 occur. And that may be five, seven -- we hope
5 three, but just to play devil's advocate, it may
6 happen at some future time.
7 So, the impact on that
8 intersection won't occur. And time is going to be
9 a benefit. And all we are saying is if there are
10 some economies by pulling together multiple
11 projects and not having to redo the same turning
12 lane three times, then let's figure out a solution
13 to tap into those economies and do it right once,
14 once and done, you know.
15 MR. MILLER: What are we up to?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: When was this
17 filed? This was filed on December 8th. I'm just
18 thinking of the time. It's going to be 45 days
19 from tonight. This wasn't before the commission.
20 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: This is the
21 first time that this application is before the
22 board.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: It hasn't been
24 accepted yet. So we need to accept it because it's
25 been reviewed. So now we need to accept it. So,
72
1 the time starts today.
2 MR. MILLER: Is there a motion
3 to accept it?
4 MR. RIEKER: I make a motion to
5 accept the Keswick Pointe Phase 1 PRD.
6 MR. MILLER: Do I hear a second?
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
8 MR. MILLER: Any discussion?
9 All in favor?
10 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll abstain.
15 MR. DONALD HANNIG: How long is
16 the time period?
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: It's 45 days
18 from this evening. Chances are, with all the
19 comments on your letter, I don't know if you're
20 going to be in a position 45 days from today.
21 MR. DONALD HANNIG: No.
22 MR. JAMES GAIDULA: We'll make
23 ample extension.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: So probably the
25 next time you come in, just be sure to sign a
73
1 waiver and extend the time.
2 MR. DONALD HANNIG: Yes. We'll
3 take a look at some of the timelines and make an
4 extension that has some merit with it, so it
5 doesn't continue on your sheet forever on here.
6 MR. MILLER: Okay. Do I have a
7 motion to table? We've accepted it. Now, I need a
8 motion to table.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
10 MR. MILLER: Ted moved. Do I
11 hear a second?
12 MR. RIEKER: Second.
13 MR. MILLER: Second.
14 Discussion? All in favor?
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 MR. MILLER: Aye.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We'll
21 move onto Pinecrest Phase 7. Good evening, sir.
22 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: How are
23 you?
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Long time no
25 see. It's all yours.
74
1 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I don't
2 know where we are. Tuesday my engineer said that
3 we weren't going to be on the agenda. I don't
4 know, holidays or whatever, he didn't have a chance
5 to review it. And this afternoon at 4:00 I found
6 out we are, so here I am.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: And you are
8 from?
9 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Pinecrest
10 Development Corporation.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, have you
12 reviewed this then?
13 MR. McHALE: No, I haven't.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Here's -- and
15 your name is, I'm sorry?
16 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Ed Carroll.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Ed Carroll.
18 Here's the situation, Ed. My office just reviewed
19 a letter from the township solicitor today that was
20 issued back in June with respect to the latest
21 extension of time for your tentative approval.
22 Okay? There was an extension for your tentative
23 approval dated back in June.
24 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Yes.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: There was a time
75
1 frame between the end of that time that the final
2 plan needed to be filed, which was June 1st of '06,
3 and the time when the resolution extending the time
4 frame was approved by the board. Now, according to
5 a letter opinion from the township solicitor in the
6 case law that he cited to, the fact that it was not
7 extended at or before June 1st, that revoked the
8 tentative approval. And my office was not able to
9 get in contact with the township solicitor today.
10 So what we are recommending you
11 do or suggesting that you do is withdraw the final
12 Phase 7 plan that you've submitted and resubmit the
13 tentative approval or the tentative plan for the
14 township to review and go through that process
15 again. Because as a matter of law, the tentative
16 approval was revoked when it wasn't extended in a
17 timely fashion.
18 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Well, I
19 don't have the advantage of having my solicitor
20 here, but we've been through this before. We've
21 been developing this property since 1983. And the
22 first tentative approval was in 1992, I think. And
23 the last time we did the tentative approval over
24 again, I think it was two or three years ago.
25 I forget. But not withstanding that, I have a
76
1 resolution from the board of supervisors extending
2 my submission date to December 1st of this year,
3 and I complied.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, I understand
5 that. But subsequent to that resolution, there was
6 a letter and an opinion done by the township
7 solicitor that indicated --
8 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I don't
9 know anything about that.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: See, I'm under
11 the impression that the township solicitor talked
12 to either someone from your company or your
13 attorney.
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: That's
15 incorrect.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Well,
17 that could be --
18 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Or I would
19 know it.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. Well,
21 where we are at tonight is -- and like I said, I
22 didn't have the privilege of speaking with the
23 township solicitor on this matter. But what we
24 have tonight is the position of the township
25 solicitor in a letter. And it's our opinion that
77
1 we are going to maintain that position with the
2 planning commission here tonight. And in doing
3 that, you're either going to have to -- here are
4 the options -- I believe are your options tonight.
5 One, you can withdraw your final Phase 7 plan and
6 resubmit for tentative approval. Okay? That's one
7 option.
8 The other option is that you can
9 grant the -- you can grant -- I have a form here
10 for you to fill out -- the extension of time for
11 your submitted final Phase 7 plan, with the
12 understanding that the township -- we need to talk
13 to the township solicitor and determine whether or
14 not what the position is actually going to be with
15 respect to the township. In doing that, we are
16 going to need you to extend the time frame for the
17 township's review of your final plan with the
18 understanding that it may be denied based upon what
19 I just explained to you this evening, that the
20 extension wasn't done in a timely manner, and that
21 the actual tentative approval plan was revoked.
22 Now, the third option you could
23 do is not that you could not grant us the extension
24 of time, you could refuse to file your tentative
25 approval. And I think this planning commission
78
1 would be under -- with accepting the position of
2 the township's solicitor, then the township would
3 have to make a recommendation to the township to
4 act upon this and deny your final submission based
5 upon the position that the township has taken.
6 So, those are the three options
7 we have here tonight. I'm suggesting probably the
8 first one would be most appeasable to you. I don't
9 know if Bob has any additions to that.
10 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: So, I
11 submit -- first of all, I paid my engineer $50,000
12 to do this. I submitted it on time December 1st of
13 this year -- of last year. I'm not trying to be
14 argumentative. I'm trying to give you the facts.
15 And it was accepted by the township. They cashed
16 my check. And it's now 34 days past the
17 submission, and you're telling me my tentative
18 approval is invalid?
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, what we
20 have here is more like a legal technicality,
21 because you didn't --
22 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: How about
23 vested rights? Is that a legal technicality?
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're not -- do
25 you understand --
79
1 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I
2 understand.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: The law is the
4 law. And if we are accepting the position of the
5 township, your tentative approval is null and void
6 as of June 1st of '06.
7 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Because of
8 what?
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: Because there is
10 a lapse in time between June 1st and June 5th,
11 whatever the date was that the extension was
12 granted from that June 1st date.
13 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: So the
14 township made a mistake, but issued a resolution
15 signed by five supervisors that the extensi