Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Reorganizational Meeting and
Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, January 10, 2008, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
ANNE LAMBERTON, 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. SINCAVAGE: I'll call the
2 reorganizational meeting of the Tobyhanna Township
3 Planning Commission to order. I'm going to need to
4 appointment a temporary chair.
5 MR. MILLER: I'll take that job.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you.
7 MR. MILLER: The nominating
8 committee will nominate Mark Sincavage for
9 chairman, Joe Miller for vice chairman, Robert
10 Baxter for secretary.
11 Any further nominations from the
12 floor?
13 I move the nominations be
14 closed. All in favor of the board as proposed say
15 aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
18 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
19 MR. MILLER: Aye.
20 We'll adjourn the nominating
21 part of the meeting and turn it over to our new
22 chairman, Mark Sincavage.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you
24 members.
25 First order of business, is
3
1 there any public comments in general on anything
2 specific on the agenda? Hearing none, we'll move
3 to approval of the December minutes which we
4 received electronically. Do I have a motion?
5 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
6 to approve the minutes as presented.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
8 Second to the motion?
9 MR. BAXTER: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
11 seconded. All those in favor please I say aye.
12 MR. MILLER: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: I will announce
16 that we'll have a joint work session with the board
17 of supervisors to review the Act 167 and any other
18 zoning issues that may come before the joint board
19 on Monday, January 28th at 3 p.m., here at the
20 township building.
21 Under old business, Kevin
22 Callahan site specific revised land development
23 plan.
24 MS. DEANNA SCHMOYER: Good
25 evening. Deanna Schmoyer with HRG. We actually
4
1 were in front of the board last month in regards to
2 the site plan. It was one that was revised
3 according to a discrepancy in the boundary survey.
4 We've actually addressed all of the township
5 engineer's comments. The last comment was with
6 regard to the buffer in the rear of the property
7 which we added additional screening. I had talked
8 to Bob actually up to today about it. And we have
9 three waivers that we are requesting with that too,
10 which is SALDO Section 135.15.A.15 and SALDO
11 Section 135.17.L and M. And we are just looking
12 for approval. I think the stormwater management
13 agreement we have to finalize too?
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right.
15 I guess you have a current
16 stormwater maintenance agreement, just revised.
17 You can probably pick up a copy at the township.
18 MS. DEANNA SCHMOYER: Actually,
19 we got the copy.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just needs to be
21 executed.
22 MS. DEANNA SCHMOYER: Okay.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, do you have
24 any further comments?
25 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
5
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Pat?
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, just any
3 recommendations this evening, if it's favorable,
4 would be conditional upon them executing a revised
5 stormwater management agreement in a manner
6 acceptable to the township. You'd also need to
7 consider the two requested waivers.
8 MS. DEANNA SCHMOYER: I think
9 it's three.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: It is three, L
11 and M.
12 MS. DEANNA SCHMOYER: Yes.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Anything else?
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments
15 from the board? Any comments from the public?
16 Do I have a motion?
17 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
18 that we approve the new amended land development
19 plan for Kevin Callahan.
20 MR. BAXTER: Second.
21 MR. MILLER: And subject to the
22 waivers requested and the stormwater management.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else?
24 I have a motion. Do I have a second to the motion?
25 MR. BAXTER: Second.
6
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
2 second. Al those in favor please say aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
5 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: When the
8 applicant -- when you do execute that agreement, if
9 you have questions on it, please contact my office.
10 MS. DEANNA SCHMOYER: Yes.
11 Okay. We'll look at it. I know he's got it right
12 now, so.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: It has to be
14 executed before you go before the board of
15 supervisors.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second item,
17 open projects. Arcadia Lot 100, New Ventures Park.
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
19 Chris McDermott, Reilly Associates. I'd like to
20 talk about both Lot 100 and Lot 110, which is the
21 next item on the agenda, at the same time. You
22 should be familiar with the project which we
23 presented to you in your October meeting. Since
24 that time, Bob has had a chance to provide comments
25 to us, as well as we've also had discussions with
7
1 our client regarding the layout.
2 Now, we've recently provided
3 revised plans. Bob has not had the chance to look
4 at those, so I'll be asking that these plans be
5 tabled tonight. But I'd like to just take a short
6 amount of time and sort of highlight the revisions
7 that were made, just so you're aware and update you
8 as to the status of the project.
9 If you recall, we were proposing
10 improvement on both Lot 100 and Lot 110 within New
11 Ventures Park. It was a 1.26 million square foot
12 warehouse building on Lot 100 with a 40 thousand
13 square foot office building; and Lot 110 with
14 600,000 square foot. Now, after reviewing comments
15 and internal discussions with our client, some
16 decisions were made, and in particular it was
17 determined that the area that was proposed as
18 future trailer spots, and this is 286 trailer
19 parking spots and a proposed 119 space trailer
20 spot, which was really a satellite facility for lot
21 110, really would not be necessary, so that in the
22 plan which is now before the township, you can see
23 that they have been removed. We are continuing to
24 provide an access.
25 Now, doing this, we could
8
1 eliminate a great deal of impervious area and
2 commensurately decrease the size of the stormwater
3 facility. And while as we were evaluating the
4 project with the hope to minimize the amount of
5 disturbance, we also looked to decrease the width
6 of the paved area to the south of Lot 100. As you
7 can see, we did and still provide a significant
8 number of trailer spaces. We just tightened this
9 up, still providing enough room for the trucks to
10 maneuver, but removed really excess area that
11 wasn't necessary.
12 We also shifted some of the
13 office space that was proposed on the western side
14 to provide additional office space on the eastern
15 side, and this way we could also shift some
16 employee parking to this side of the building and
17 thereby shrinking this area.
18 On the proposed building on Lot
19 110, in order to address one of the engineer's
20 comments, we had proposed this a little too far to
21 the south and was encroaching upon a 15 foot wide
22 buffer. So we shifted the building slightly up and
23 also we provided parking along the southern side.
24 We moved some employee parking that was proposed
25 here to this location.
9
1 With all these changes, we were
2 able to reduce the amount of impervious surface by
3 approximately 12 acres, which, when we look at this
4 plan, things may not seem significant, but they
5 really are. And when you say the number 12 acres,
6 you say, wow, that was significant. And by doing
7 that, we were able to change and reduce some of the
8 things we were doing in the stormwater facilities.
9 You can see the size of the basin, those previously
10 proposed, and we are able to reduce that basin
11 while we are still proposing berms in this area,
12 which will retain water and allow infiltration.
13 And this is to address the latest of the NPDS
14 guidelines and post construction stormwater
15 guidelines.
16 We also added proposed
17 landscaping, the planting of pine trees to the
18 northern side of the building on Lot 100. Now,
19 this was in response to one of Bob's comments and
20 Bob can help me explain this because it's a little
21 vague in the ordinance, just how to address it.
22 There is a provision in the zoning ordinance that
23 says you have to provide a 20 foot wide planting
24 strip to act as a visual barrier. And that 20 foot
25 wide strip has to be part of your 100 foot buffer
10
1 that adjoins any residential district.
2 Now, the 100 foot buffer, it may
3 be a little bit difficult for you to see there, but
4 it's roughly the width of my finger. It stretches
5 right along this northern boundary. This plan is
6 overlaid over an aerial photograph and you can see
7 the dark green area is here and dotted in here are
8 in fact pine trees. The lighter shaded area are
9 deciduous trees. And this isn't a young forest,
10 it's older. They are significant trees, some 40
11 feet or so. But still the question of, does that
12 provide sufficient enough visual barrier and I'm
13 sure that in the summer it would and to a great
14 extent in the winter I believe it would also,
15 however, we want to make sure that we address this
16 part of the ordinance. So we've shown our planting
17 outside of that 100 foot buffer, but up the hill, a
18 little bit closer to the building, which I think
19 would be more effective.
20 Now, I'm pointing this out
21 because I want to make sure that we are addressing
22 the intent of the ordinance and really looking for
23 some input from Bob and from you, just to get your
24 feedback, because, I can certainly move it down
25 into this buffer, but I really don't want to cut
11
1 trees to put it in, and I'm sure we can go down
2 there and find individual spots and put it in that
3 area. I just felt that it would be more effective
4 to get it closer to the improvements itself.
5 Just to do a quick cross section
6 to help give us also some perspective. This is
7 just a blowup of that area of the building, and I
8 cut a cross section here and depicted it here. And
9 a lot of times on cross sections that you look at
10 on plans, they have a vertical exaggeration. I
11 didn't do that vertical exaggeration here because I
12 wanted to give you a true perspective of what the
13 building would look like.
14 So this is the building and this
15 is the paved parking and truck maneuvering area.
16 This would be the edge and then we'd be coming down
17 hill, depicting a property line here, and this is a
18 100 foot buffer strip. You can see that it's lower
19 than the building, and to give you some
20 perspective, this area is about 35 feet lower than
21 the building here.
22 I put in these deciduous trees
23 to represent what's there. There is probably more
24 there, I just put them there to give you some sort
25 of graphical feel. This is what a proposed pine
12
1 tree would look like in the buffer and this is one
2 that's right up adjacent to the parking area. And
3 my feeling was that it may be in a more effective
4 visual barrier to put it immediately adjacent to
5 the barrier, because then -- or closer to it,
6 because then trucks or what not that were coming
7 in, their headlights would likely be more shielded.
8 Either one would be very effective. I have
9 depicted right down here in this corner, that's my
10 little old man, the AUTOCAD little old man in
11 there. I can draw lines that depict his line of
12 site. And in fact, I looked at that because I was
13 thinking this one would probably block more than
14 the one down closer. They are both equally
15 effective. As a matter of fact, if you put a small
16 tree in front of him, that would be the most
17 effective thing. I just thought I'd bring this to
18 your attention. If you have any feedback, I can do
19 either.
20 MR. MILLER: I think the trees
21 up top are better for blocking traffic up above for
22 the residential. Personal opinion.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: All
24 right. Bob, I know you have to have time to
25 evaluate this and give us feedback.
13
1 MR. McHALE: I agree with what
2 you presented, Chris, and with what Joe said also,
3 but it's in the zoning ordinance, 155.17.L, and
4 that buffer strip really is stated as being a
5 minimum of 100 feet. So you can actually show that
6 buffer strip all the way up to the back of the curb
7 and to include the buffer that's being intended to
8 be planted there as a double row or whatever you
9 have for evergreens. So the buffer strip really is
10 going to be wider in those areas and to include
11 those trees.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
13 can talk to my client about that. The only thing
14 that may be an issue for him is, the buffer strip,
15 as defined there, it would have to remain in its
16 natural state and cannot be disturbed at all. That
17 could be an additional constraint on his property
18 that he may not desire to do.
19 MR. McHALE: In the zoning it
20 doesn't really speak to it in that manner, but it
21 does in the SALDO. So maybe we can work something
22 out to where in the future -- see, what we don't
23 want to see happen is that those trees not be
24 protected, but be counted as part of a buffer. And
25 then in the future, if they wanted to expand the
14
1 pavement, we'd lose those trees.
2 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: That
3 was my goal. If for some reason they wanted to
4 disturb this area, we want to provide an assurance
5 that whatever trees we had in would be replaced.
6 So to that, you know, I'll talk to my client to see
7 whether he's amenable to classifying the entire
8 area as the buffer, but I'm sure it would be with
9 the proviso that that buffer may be altered in the
10 future.
11 MR. McHALE: We should look at
12 both sections of the ordinance to bring that
13 together as well.
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
15 may have to work on that. All right. Just to
16 summarize that, what I'm hearing is that you agree
17 that the plantings would be most effective as close
18 to the development as possible and that we have to
19 explore the language regarding the buffer.
20 I don't think I'll need to take
21 any more of your time tonight. I just ask that you
22 table the plan. And just a couple other items,
23 just so you know, in regard to completeness, the
24 traffic impact study has been provided to the
25 township and the E and S Plan will be submitted
15
1 within the next two weeks.
2 If there are any questions, I'd
3 be happy to answer any that I can.
4 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
5 we table the plans.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
7 Do I have a second to the motion?
8 MR. BAXTER: Second.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
10 second to table. Any discussion? Any comment from
11 the public?
12 MR. FRED McILVENY: Fred
13 McIlveny. Where is this project located?
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: This
15 is located in New Ventures Park. If you're
16 familiar with the Route 80 Interchange with 115,
17 the Best Western stop, that's Commerce Drive. You
18 come up Commerce Drive, make the first left. It
19 would sit on a lot to the north and also extends
20 out a proposed roadway to the south, closer to the
21 Route 80 right of way.
22 MR. McILVENY: Thank you.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
24 questions? I'll call the motion. All in favor
25 please say aye.
16
1 MR. MILLER: Aye.
2 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
3 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll abstain.
5 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
6 Thank for your time.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Wee Wons Day
8 Care expansion. Anyone here representing Wee Wons?
9 Bob, do you have anything to report on that?
10 MR. McHALE: We did meet with
11 PennDOT officials at the site. And the developer's
12 looking to prepare a modified version of a traffic
13 impact study to be able to present -- to show and
14 demonstrate proper access and any queuing that may
15 need to occur. We might have to revise -- they
16 might have to revise the interior of the land
17 development that was presented to us. So we are
18 waiting to hear back from them before we move too
19 much further with review of that.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Who attended the
21 meeting?
22 MR. McHALE: The land owner,
23 Cathy Guydish, Brick Linder, her engineer; PennDOT
24 had two officials, Brian Boyer, permit manager and
25 Don Bouch from PennDOT; as well as our zoning
17
1 officer and we had a supervisor and myself.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Any other
3 questions? Question from the public? Pat, do you
4 have anything on that?
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, we are okay
6 on time.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Do we
8 need to table?
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: We need to
10 table.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need a motion
12 to table Wee Wons Day Care expansion preliminary
13 final land development plan.
14 MR. MILLER: So moved.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
16 to the motion?
17 MR. BAXTER: Second.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
19 favor please say aye. Aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
22 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Locust Ridge
24 Quarry contractors shop, anyone here representing
25 Locust Ridge? Have you heard anything?
18
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: I haven't heard
2 anything from them. The last time I heard, they
3 were still kicking around the idea whether or not
4 they were moving forward. I have not heard
5 anything definitively from them since that time.
6 We are okay on time. I believe we are okay until
7 February. We are okay until February 28th.
8 MR. MILLER: Do we have to warn
9 them that our next meeting will be some decision
10 one way or another?
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: What I will do
12 is there has been some movement on one of their
13 other projects. I can give the applicant a call or
14 his representative and let him know. If there is
15 no movement, they don't submit any revised plans,
16 the planning commission may be inclined to act on
17 it at their next meeting.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
19 motion to table Locust Ridge Quarry contractors
20 shop preliminary land development plan.
21 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
23 to the motion?
24 MR. MILLER: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
19
1 second. All those in favor please say aye.
2 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
6 Glorious Church land development
7 plan.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: The land
9 development plan and conditional use application,
10 which is the next one on the agenda, still no
11 movement from there. There is -- it's my
12 understanding that the applicant has submitted a
13 proposed zoning for the change with respect to
14 these two plans, which is most likely why they have
15 been on hold to see if the township is going to be
16 able to do a proposed zoning change that they
17 propose. That being said, nothing has changed, to
18 my knowledge, with respect to the land development
19 and conditional use application. I believe we have
20 an ongoing indefinite extension from them pursuant
21 to a letter from their counsel to Mr. Kapelsohn, so
22 there is no need to act this evening.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: No need to act
24 on this? Not table it?
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: You can table it
20
1 if you want.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Need a motion to
3 table Glorious Church land development plan.
4 MR. MILLER: So moved.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
6 to the motion?
7 MR. BAXTER: Second.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
9 favor please say aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
14 Glorious Church Conditional use
15 application, motion to table.
16 MR. MILLER: So moved.
17 MR. BAXTER: Second.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
19 second. Those in favor please say aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
22 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
24 Lands of Elaine Brockett.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: We have not
21
1 received any revised plans since their first
2 submittal. I believe, Bob, we are okay on time.
3 That being said, similar to Locust Ridge, I may
4 contact the applicant's representative and see what
5 their intentions are with respect to the project,
6 see if they are intending to move forward or just
7 kind of stalled in the tracks.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I need a motion
9 to table the lands of Elaine Brockett final land
10 development plan.
11 MR. MILLER: So moved.
12 MR. BAXTER: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
14 second. All those in favor please say aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Blakeslee Pharmacy, Windy
20 Corners Realty.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: I believe the
22 last time the applicant was before you there was a
23 review letter and there were a number of issues
24 that needed to be addressed. And I don't think
25 they've addressed them yet. And I've been in
22
1 contact with the applicant's attorney concerning
2 the right of way agreement going back and forth
3 with him concerning that. Other than that, we are
4 okay on time. So I don't believe there is any need
5 to take action other than if you're inclined to
6 table this evening.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: The extension
8 expires on February 12th, 2008. Just let them know
9 that.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion to table
12 Blakeslee Pharmacy Windy Corners Realty revised
13 land development plan.
14 MR. MILLER: So moved.
15 MR. BAXTER: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Moved and
17 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
20 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so you're
23 aware, the actual time extension does not -- it
24 looks like they submitted the plan in November, so
25 the time, 90 days, would have started from
23
1 December. So it would be March. But I'll confirm
2 that.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Confirm it.
4 Brick City land development plan
5 review of stormwater and access.
6 MR. McHALE: Mark, I'm currently
7 looking at the stormwater and any of those items
8 that relate directly to the township, because, as
9 you may recall, the majority of the development is
10 in Coolbaugh Township. We did receive today a copy
11 of the Coolbaugh Township's engineer's review of
12 the majority of the land development. The
13 stormwater management is set up to where most of
14 the site will drain to an underground system that
15 will discharge into Tobyhanna Township. They are
16 discharging into the right of way of PennDOT.
17 We've got to coordinate with PennDOT now. So it's
18 going to be a little while and some coordination
19 between both municipalities. We are trying not to
20 duplicate efforts and move that along some. So
21 that's where we are at.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need to table
23 this.
24 MR. McHALE: This really wasn't
25 a formal land development application with the time
24
1 ticking as would normally occur. The board of
2 supervisors I believe granted a waiver with a
3 number of conditions attached. In fact, I think I
4 have a copy of that.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Brick City, they
6 were here for a subdivision and also requesting a
7 waiver of land development. I believe the planning
8 commission recommended the waiver to the board of
9 supervisors. And it sounds like the board of
10 supervisors granted the waiver for land
11 development, but I haven't confirmed that. So I'm
12 not stating that tonight as true. So it looks like
13 this is in respect to Number 5 of that letter,
14 review of stormwater management.
15 MR. McHALE: Yes. This is a
16 copy of the Coolbaugh Township Municipal Engineer's
17 review letter. And in the last page he does
18 indicate that approval is needed from Tobyhanna
19 Township. So collectively we are making sure we
20 cover the bases on that.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: So they haven't
22 filed a land development application. They are
23 just in the beginning stages of complying with the
24 land development waiver from the board of
25 supervisors.
25
1 MR. McHALE: Yes.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Pursuant to the
3 October 15, 2007 letter from the township.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we don't need
5 any action.
6 MR. McHALE: Correct.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: No.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Very good. Any
9 questions? Next item is Verizon Wireless land
10 development plan.
11 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: Good
12 evening, my name is Rich Williams. I'm the
13 attorney for Verizon Wireless. This is an
14 application for a collocation upon an existing
15 communications facility which is located in Locust
16 Lake Village. Essentially, Verizon Wireless is
17 proposing to collocate its antennas at 167 feet
18 center line on the existing 180 foot stealth tower
19 that is basically a monopole that's been designed
20 to look like a tree, essentially.
21 With the compound, Verizon
22 Wireless will be proposing an 11 and a half by 20
23 foot prefabricated equipment shelter. In addition,
24 there will be an exterior generator as well. And
25 there will be some minor relocation of some fencing
26
1 to allow for the shelter to be placed within the
2 facilities.
3 We just received Mr. McHale's
4 comments a few days ago. We are in the process of
5 responding to them now. In fact, we just made the
6 submission on December 20th to the planning
7 commission, so I understand we have not received
8 the county's comments as well. So tonight
9 basically we are requesting that the application be
10 tabled.
11 We do have Mr. Gary Stouffer
12 here, who is the engineer from Rettew Associates,
13 which can address any more specifics that the
14 planning commission may have in terms of
15 questioning. But we understand from Mr. McHale's
16 comments, there are about 12, 13 things we have to
17 address, all of which are very, very feasible at
18 this point, so.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think maybe
20 the planning commission, probably, if you have the
21 plans to show, probably they are more concerned
22 with respect to the building on the ground.
23 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: Sure.
24 And I'll ask Mr. Stouffer, you want to explain
25 this? I will put a copy of the plans up.
27
1 MR. GARY STOUFFER: I'm sorry, I
2 didn't hear your question.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: If you can show
4 the plan. Go over the land development.
5 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Sure.
6 The subject property is one and
7 a half acre parcel on the west side of Fawn Avenue.
8 SBA has constructed a 180 foot stealth or a tree
9 monopole on the facilities in a 70 foot by 50 foot
10 fenced compound. Cingular Wireless has constructed
11 a 12 foot by 20 foot shelter within that compound
12 and they also have antennas located at the top.
13 What Verizon is proposing is to install, like
14 Mr. Williams stated, an 11 and a half by 20 foot
15 prefabricated equipment shelter, a 4 foot by 10
16 foot concrete pad to house the external generator.
17 In order to accommodate the equipment shelter, the
18 fence had to be expanded approximately five and a
19 half feet by 35 feet. Typical for most wireless
20 facilities, it is unmanned, so no sewer, water is
21 required at the facility.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why do you have
23 to build another gravel road to access this site?
24 MR. GARY STOUFFER: The drive
25 shown on the plan is what Cingular proposed.
28
1 Apparently they resolved that they would have to
2 expand the compound to accommodate additional
3 users, so there is a gravel road. I don't think
4 it's on this set of plans. It may be on the
5 revised set.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: I see a gravel
7 road.
8 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Right.
9 Right. That is also shown on the land development
10 plans that were approved by Cingular. So they
11 anticipated at some time that the compound would
12 need to be expanded.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why do you need
14 another gravel road around here?
15 MR. GARY STOUFFER: We were also
16 proposing a new gate and that gate would permit
17 them, the service technician, to come into this
18 shell directly. There is not enough room between
19 this block building and shelter to get the
20 equipment in and provide maintenance to their
21 shelter.
22 MR. McHALE: This would also
23 provide if there was any need for emergency
24 vehicles to be able to loop around.
25 MR. GARY STOUFFER: To get to
29
1 that side, because there is not a lot of room to
2 maneuver between these two structures.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: So this is going
4 to be your structure?
5 MR. GARY STOUFFER: This is an
6 existing block building.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Are you going to
8 be infringing on anyone else's access to their
9 building?
10 MR. GARY STOUFFER: No. The
11 only one that's in there now is Cingular Wireless.
12 There is a gate there at the compound. They have
13 direct access to get to their facilities, and this
14 new gate will also provide Verizon Wireless direct
15 access to their facilities.
16 MR. MILLER: The 're going to
17 have two points of access there.
18 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Correct.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: You pointed out
20 that they had anticipated future users that may
21 come in. Is this limited --
22 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Apparently,
23 I can only guess why they put that on there. That
24 was to accommodate and expand the compound so other
25 users could come in and they would have access,
30
1 because these two buildings have basically cut the
2 compound off.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: So currently
4 it's just this.
5 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Correct.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're proposing
7 this all the way around to connect with that?
8 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Yes. That
9 was part of Cingular's land development plan.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: My question is,
11 if there is any other users that may want to
12 collocate on this pole, where would they expand to?
13 Is this limited?
14 MR. GARY STOUFFER: They could
15 go in here. They need access to this pole.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
17 MR. McHALE: They would have to
18 adjust the fencing again in the future, based upon
19 whatever they do propose.
20 MR. GARY STOUFFER: They could
21 even expand it to the rear and kick that fence out.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, the property
23 line is here.
24 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Building
25 set-back line, so they have to build within the
31
1 building envelope.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: So they could go
3 this way or this way?
4 MR. GARY STOUFFER: If you go
5 this way, then this is a direct loop.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're proposing
8 those plantings?
9 MR. GARY STOUFFER: They are
10 existing.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're not
12 proposing any new plants.
13 MR. GARY STOUFFER: No.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: The only change
15 that you're proposing is the building, a generator
16 pad and --
17 MR. GARY STOUFFER: And moving
18 the fence up and new antennas on the tower, twelve
19 antennas.
20 MR. BAXTER: If this was
21 expanded again in the future, would they also need,
22 assuming it's another carrier, would they also need
23 access to the pole?
24 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Yes and they
25 would have to come before this board with similar
32
1 land development plans.
2 MR. BAXTER: Doesn't this gravel
3 loop essentially off that access?
4 MR. GARY STOUFFER: Well, if
5 this loop road comes around, say another carrier
6 would come in, they would have to remove the
7 shrubbery, kick the fence out and relocate that
8 road because this pole has portals, what they call
9 portals. They are about 12 and a half inches wide
10 by 24 inches, that they run their cables from their
11 equipment shelter. It runs up the tower and comes
12 out on top and connects to their antennas. So they
13 need direct access to that pole.
14 MR. McHALE: The original
15 project, 180 foot monopole, included four antennae
16 array locations.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: I can see where
18 they can get one more here, Bob.
19 MR. McHALE: But each, because
20 the communication companies don't all work
21 together --
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Communicate.
23 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: They
24 operate on different frequencies, so you need the
25 separation.
33
1 MR. McHALE: When they come in,
2 each plan is separate and distinct. They don't
3 coordinate and say who's coming in, how are we
4 going to locate and arrange all the buildings, so
5 we are left to kind of piece meal the bottom
6 portion of the compound.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: So that the
8 tower has the capability of holding four carriers,
9 no more than four?
10 MR. McHALE: But with each
11 antenna that comes on to locate on to the pole, we
12 ask that they confirm that the design loads
13 originally intended, that they are at or less than
14 those.
15 MR. GARY STOUFFER: SBA, the
16 owner of the tower, requires a structure analysis
17 before any carrier goes on the tower.
18 MR. McHALE: Because each array
19 might be slightly different size, wind loads.
20 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: It's the
21 same thing we did before, Verizon Wireless Mount
22 Pocono site, we were here about three, four years
23 ago. Same type of thing. We come in and we
24 certify that it will structurally accommodate the
25 loading that will be provided by the antenna array.
34
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: So they can
2 easily get one more carrier in there?
3 MR. BAXTER: And would you need
4 to move the road and fence? That's my point. The
5 road is being put in place that doesn't accommodate
6 any future expansion.
7 MR. MILLER: It's an existing
8 gravel road.
9 MR. McHALE: There is one
10 building I think in the compound that I don't know
11 what the use is. I think that was from the old
12 antenna is what I think it was from, the original
13 project, before it was -- when it was a 105 foot
14 pole.
15 MR. GARY STOUFFER: They
16 replaced that with the 180.
17 MR. McHALE: 180.
18 MR. GARY STOUFFER: And it could
19 be that that building could be demolished, I don't
20 know. I don't know the disposition of the
21 building.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: The site is
23 owned by SBA.
24 MR. GARY STOUFFER: SBA
25 property.
35
1 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: They
2 actually own the land. A lot of times the
3 companies lease the land. They actually own the
4 land.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you're
6 working on Bob's comments?
7 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: We just
8 got Bob's comments about three, four days ago. In
9 fact, we have not received the county comments at
10 this point as well. We have about 12 or 13 things
11 we need to address, which we should have at the
12 next meeting.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're in
14 contact with SBA?
15 MR. GARY STOUFFER: I'm not
16 directly, but they are on the legal --
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think we'd
18 like to know what the purpose of that building is.
19 If it can be taken off.
20 MR. GARY STOUFFER: I have a
21 copy of Cingular's land development plan. Let me
22 see if there is any notes on that.
23 They do not indicate that
24 building needs to be removed.
25 MR. McHALE: I believe it's
36
1 showing as existing.
2 MR. GARY STOUFFER: There was an
3 existing 100 foot lattice tower in that block
4 building which housed the equipment. They raised
5 the tower and left the building in place.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Can you find out
7 what the use is?
8 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: Yes, we
9 can find out what the use of that is. I anticipate
10 it's someone else's equipment, but we'll find out
11 what that's for. That shouldn't be a problem.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're in the
13 process of submitting revised plans?
14 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: Exactly.
15 Like I said, there were about 12 or 13 things we
16 need to address. We are in the process of
17 completing those. We'll get it back to the
18 commission.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Very good.
20 Timewise?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: They just
22 submitted --
23 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: December
24 20th.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: The time clock
37
1 starts tonight.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: I need a motion
3 to table the Verizon Wireless land development
4 plan.
5 MR. MILLER: So moved.
6 MR. BAXTER: Second.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
8 second. All those in favor please say aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
11 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
13 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: Thanks
14 for your time.
15 A VOICE: Are you taking public
16 comment?
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry, yes.
18 MR. RONALD GATTI: Good evening
19 ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ron Gatti. I'm
20 the community manager at Locust Lake Village. I'm
21 here tonight to learn about the project because as
22 of this time, no information, materials,
23 applications, have been submitted to Locust Lake,
24 and I anticipate that you will submit copies of
25 plans, comments and so on. We do have a permitting
38
1 process. They do need to get approvals from Locust
2 Lake Village too. We have no reason to withhold
3 that or make it difficult to obtain, but I think
4 that it is certainly proper to be sure that you're
5 aware that that is a process that I think we
6 anticipate.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry. This
8 lot is part of Locust Lake Village?
9 MR. RONALD GATTI: Yes, it is.
10 Access to the site is through Fawn Road, which is a
11 private road of Locust Lake Village. It is, as we
12 speak, there is a weight restriction in effect on
13 all of the roads in Locust Lake Village due to the
14 laws that we have. The plans do not indicate what
15 the weight or construction material of the modular
16 building will be. That's something we'd be
17 certainly interested in. That GPW and the access
18 and what your construction plans -- what your
19 construction schedule would be.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: You represent
21 Locust Lake Village?
22 MR. RONALD GATTI: Yes, I do.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're a member
24 of the home owners association?
25 MR. RONALD GATTI: I'm the
39
1 administrator. I am the community manager.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so you're
3 aware, you probably want to be discussing it with
4 the applicants. They are here before the planning
5 commission. They didn't get any recommendation
6 tonight. It's been tabled. They submitted the
7 plan in December. They are going to have to get a
8 recommendation from this commission as well as the
9 board of supervisors. It sounds, I mean, we are
10 definitely going to be interested to make sure they
11 have proper access to the site, but you probably
12 want to discuss this with the applicant and the
13 applicant's representatives.
14 MR. RONALD GATTI: Absolutely.
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm assuming you
16 probably have some kind of an agreement with maybe
17 SBA, the actual owner of the site.
18 MR RONALD GATTI: Well, as I
19 said, we have not had any communications about this
20 project from anyone, that's why we are here.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: You didn't have
22 any communication on the original land development
23 plan by -- who is this?
24 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: SBA
25 Towers.
40
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: SBA Towers.
2 MR. RONALD GATTI: The original
3 land development plan, I'm not sure how many years
4 ago that was, but if someone comes in to put an
5 addition on their home, it requires a permit for
6 that addition. To that extent, this is an addition
7 of a structure, an addition of antennas and so on.
8 They need approvals and those should not be
9 unreasonably withheld, I'm not here to --
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, no. I'm
11 questioning the access. I mean, if that access --
12 you're right and that's between you and the
13 applicant because that's your procedure, that's
14 fine, but what the board is questioning was, Pat's
15 alluding to is, what about access to the site? Do
16 you have any access --
17 MR. RONALD GATTI: That's one of
18 our great concerns because the condition of that
19 road is such that it may not be safely negotiated
20 at this point.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: And this is Fawn
22 Road?
23 MR. RONALD GATTI: Yes.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: And you're aware
25 of no access agreement to access this site with
41
1 SBA?
2 MR. RONALD GATTI: No.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Since the lot is
4 there, they have access to it.
5 MR. RONALD GATTI: Yes, but the
6 physical condition of the road is such that there
7 are limitations as to --
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: And understand
9 that totally.
10 MR. RONALD GATTI: Right.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: I understand.
12 Okay. I got it.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I think
14 what would probably be prudent is for you to
15 discuss this with the applicant when they come back
16 in, to have your eggs in a row, so this commission
17 knows exactly, with respect to Fawn Road, that you
18 have permission to use the road.
19 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: To the
20 extent that it is -- that these are restrictive
21 covenants, technically, this commission really
22 wouldn't have jurisdiction over those matters. I
23 can tell you that I had done a title search of the
24 property that did not turn up any restrictive
25 covenants impacting this particular lot. We'll
42
1 recheck that to see whether or not there is
2 anything that impacts the lot.
3 MR. RONALD GATTI: Afterwards
4 I'll be very happy to give you my card.
5 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: Sure.
6 MR. RONALD GATTI: Just so that
7 you're aware and for the record, some valid
8 concerns would be repairs to the existing stealth
9 tower. Many of the tree limbs or so on have long
10 since blown down and so on. And we would want to
11 be sure that the tower is being maintained in the
12 safest and in accordance with prior approvals and
13 agreements. I was delighted that a structural
14 analysis is required. We would certainly like to
15 see that.
16 Basically, that's it. I thank
17 you.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you have a
19 set of plans?
20 MR. RONALD GATTI: No, we do
21 not.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Would you like a
23 set? It's public record.
24 MR. RONALD GATTI: Well, you
25 said there are revised plans?
43
1 MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS: There
2 will be revised sets, yes.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: The records are
4 always here within the township for you to --
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Come to the
6 township building between, I'm assuming 9 to 5 is
7 when it's their office hours.
8 MS. HAASE: 8 to 4:30.
9 MR. RONALD GATTI: Yes.
10 Ms. Haase has been very helpful at any time that
11 I've come in.
12 MS. HAASE: Thank you.
13 MR. RONALD GATTI: I appreciate
14 that. Thank you, gentlemen.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you for
16 your comments. I'm sorry I overlooked you.
17 Moving on to Creek View zoning
18 map change. Anyone here representing Creek View?
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Anyone here from
20 Creek View? Just so that the planning commission
21 is aware, Creek View came before you now a couple
22 months ago with respect to a subdivision plan.
23 They subdivided a lot into three separate lots. I
24 believe they received approval from the board of
25 supervisors, subject to a declaration of covenants
44
1 that I believe was executed as well. Whether or
2 not plans or the covenant has been recorded, that
3 I'm not aware of.
4 MR. McHALE: It has been.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: It has been. As
6 you also know, there was some informal discussion
7 with respect to rezoning that property, because
8 currently it's split residential and commercial.
9 And I believe the applicant wants to create it
10 entirely commercial.
11 MR. McHALE: This plan is
12 labeled as Lot 1 and 2. Actually, there is a
13 middle lot as a result of the subdivision, but
14 since the subdivision plan has been approved, but
15 not yet recorded, technically that lot doesn't
16 exist. But the center portion is what they want to
17 rezone to commercial. And it's labeled as 49 --
18 well, 49 acres would be the total of both Lot 1 and
19 the residual behind it. They have a little break
20 out in the lower right hand side of the drawing.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Would that
22 change the zoning of that small out parcel. The
23 existing line cuts through this out parcel right
24 here, so that would also change the zoning of this
25 parcel. It's owned by someone else, I assume.
45
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yep.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Wouldn't they
3 have to be a party to the rezoning?
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, right now
5 there is no proposed ordinance that I'm aware of.
6 I have not seen a proposed ordinance amending this
7 zoning map. When and if the township decides to do
8 that, it will have to be duly advertised pursuant
9 to the public notice, meaning two successive weeks
10 in a newspaper, as well as, because it's an actual
11 map zoning change, all the properties affected by
12 the change will have to be posted. That has not
13 been done because there is no proposed ordinance to
14 date.
15 What has been done is, the board
16 of supervisors has a hearing on Monday to discuss
17 the possibility of this rezoning, but I'm not aware
18 of any actual proposed ordinance.
19 MS. HAASE: Not proposed per se,
20 but land owners have been notified of the hearing.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: But even
22 irregardless of that hearing, there is going to --
23 I mean, if the township does decide to, you know,
24 move the zoning map line and amend the zoning map,
25 that will have to be done by ordinance. And, you
46
1 know, it will have to be advertised and the
2 properties all have to be posted again, put on
3 notice that there's going to be a public hearing
4 with respect to the zoning map ordinance change.
5 So that right now, it's my understanding, this is
6 just a petition from the applicant to have the
7 township review it and see if they are agreeable to
8 it and if so to move forward with preparing a draft
9 ordinance and advertising it and acting on it.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: So the board of
11 supervisors are looking for our feedback on this
12 for their meeting on Monday?
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Like I said,
14 there is no ordinance that I'm aware of. So you
15 don't need to make a recommendation with respect to
16 the ordinance. If you wan to make a recommendation
17 or just let the minutes reflect your comments on
18 whether or not you would be favorable to this
19 change or not. There is a Monroe County Planning
20 Commission letter that I think we just got in the
21 mail. It looks like Monroe County is in favor of
22 it. If I read this correctly, they do have some
23 comments in their letter dated January 10th of
24 2008, but it looks like they are generally in favor
25 of it.
47
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I would agree
2 that's the way I read this letter also from Monroe
3 County. Okay.
4 We also have a letter from, just
5 for the record, Spread Eagle Associates, dated
6 December 20th, 2007, who is the neighbor across the
7 street. And they are stating support of the
8 rezoning request.
9 Any member of the board have any
10 comments or wish to make any comments for the
11 record?
12 MR. BAXTER: No.
13 MR. MILLER: I think the
14 rezoning makes sense. I think in lieu of what the
15 school district has taken away from our commercial
16 property here in the township, this would help that
17 situation as far as regaining some more commercial
18 land.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I will agree
20 with Joe's comments. Also I think it was stated in
21 both Spread Eagle Associates' letter and the Monroe
22 County Planning Commission's letter, we do need
23 additional commercial property in the township. As
24 Joe points out, and I concur with him, that I would
25 personally encourage the supervisors to look
48
1 favorably upon this.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Phyllis, is
3 there an ordinance out there?
4 MS. HAASE: I'm unaware.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Because now I'm
6 looking at this Monroe County Planning Commission
7 and I'm wondering what they really reviewed.
8 MS. HAASE: We received an
9 application for a request.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: It was just the
11 application that they reviewed?
12 MS. HAASE: That's correct.
13 MR. McHALE: For the zoning map
14 amendment?
15 MS. HAASE: Exactly.
16 MR. BAXTER: So it's not
17 actually a change of ordinance, it's simply a
18 change in the map.
19 MS. HAASE: With the map being
20 part of the ordinance.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: But that will
22 have to be done by ordinance.
23 MR. MILLER: Yes.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: The only other
25 comment, as I pointed out to Pat and Bob is just
49
1 that small out parcel should be looked at and the
2 owner possibly contacted. Have you heard anything
3 from that owner?
4 MS. HAASE: No, sir.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: But the property
6 was posted with respect to the meeting on Monday?
7 MS. HAASE: The property was
8 posted and the land owners were notified,
9 surrounding land owners.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: By certified
11 mail?
12 MS. HAASE: No.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Posted.
14 MS. HAASE: By first class mail.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: No other
16 comments? All right, move on.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Did you make a
18 motion or anything for them? Just your comments
19 and that they should act favorably on the request.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. Do we need
21 a motion or do we need something formal.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, you can, if
23 you'd like. If they are going to move forward, it
24 will be back before you for an ordinance as well.
25 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
50
1 that the township supervisors look at this
2 favorably. That's all I can say. I'll make that
3 motion.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
5 Do I have a second to that motion?
6 MR. BAXTER: Second.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
8 seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor
9 please say aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
14 Land development plan for L&B
15 Partnership. It's a sketch plan. I understand
16 that they decided not to come tonight. They are
17 welcome to come at any time.
18 We've received revised time
19 waivers for lands of Elaine Brockett and for
20 Blakeslee Minor Subdivision.
21 We'll move on to the two
22 proposed ordinance changes. We'll take the first
23 one being the church first. I believe you have a
24 copy of the letter from Monroe County.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is the flea
51
1 market?
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: No. I'm talking
3 about the church. We don't have it? Okay. We
4 have the ordinance draft before us. You all have
5 that? I think we got it by email too.
6 This is concerning defining the
7 churches and similar places of worship to be used
8 only as such and not for residential type use.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: What had
10 happened was, after some discussion, it was
11 discovered that there were some inconsistencies
12 throughout the zoning ordinance with respect to how
13 it referred to church uses and places of worship.
14 So what this ordinance is attempting to do is to
15 clarify exactly what churches and places of worship
16 are defined as, what's permitted in them and keep
17 it consistent throughout the zoning ordinance,
18 because in different parts of the zoning ordinance
19 there were some inconsistencies.
20 In this ordinance, it keeps it
21 consistent, indicating that churches and similar
22 places of worship shall include any structure or
23 structures used for worship or religious
24 instruction, and including social and
25 administrative rooms that are accessory there to.
52
1 Churches and similar places of worship shall not be
2 used as a form of residence, dwelling, boarding
3 house or other form of overnight stay for
4 individuals except when the state, county or
5 township declares a state of emergency within the
6 township and except during a church related retreat
7 for it's members that shall not exceed two nights
8 during any given month. Just further states that
9 churches shall be subject to the requirement for
10 offstreet parking set forth within the zoning
11 ordinance.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: I just thought
13 of something, though, what if you have a parsonage
14 next to the church, the place where the priest
15 lives --
16 MR. McHALE: Backtrack. On a
17 previous application, Glorious Church, a parsonage
18 is one of those items that's part of the
19 conditional use process.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Can that be used
21 for administration, the priest or minister or
22 rabbi, you know, if they have an office in the
23 parsonage, is that allowed?
24 MR. McHALE: Actually, 155.15.E,
25 under conditional uses, Subparagraph 1D, it has
53
1 parsonage subject to 155.L, pertaining to single
2 family dwellings. So unless it would encompass
3 something that you could also have within a single
4 family dwelling, I don't know that that would be--
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: But if you'd
6 like to, when we drafted this proposed ordinance,
7 we wanted to clean some of this up to get rid of
8 some inconsistencies. Parsonages seem to be a
9 little bit inconsistent. If there is existing
10 parsonages, they'll just become existing
11 nonconforming. If you want to continue to allow
12 them, we can definitely insert that.
13 MR. McHALE: That should be
14 inserted because you would want to allow parsonages
15 to be added.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry. I
17 should have brought it up before, it was just while
18 you were reading it. I think because we didn't
19 have this definition of what you were saying the
20 church is and when I saw the administration, I'm
21 thinking that the priest, minister, rabbi could
22 have an office in the parsonage, therefore, it
23 would be administrative.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
25 MS. HAASE: Mr. Armstrong, we
54
1 are going to revise 155.106.1 also when we adopt
2 that?
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: 155.106.1?
4 MS. HAASE: Correct. Does that
5 need to be revised?
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. They will
7 both be revised to include parsonages.
8 MS. HAASE: Well, 155.106.1 does
9 include parsonages presently.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Presently,
11 right. The proposed one will include them both.
12 The proposed one -- I have both of those in, I
13 believe, in the proposed ordinance. So they will
14 both be revised accordingly.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: What about a
16 convent or monastery, would that be allowed?
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Currently, this
18 is how -- under conditional uses, under -- looks
19 like the open space, resource conservation district
20 reads, "Churches or similar places of worship,
21 including the following: Houses of worship,
22 church, schools, dining, indoor recreational
23 facilities, parsonages, boarding homes strictly
24 limited to active or retired church employees or
25 officials." Now that's the definition permitted
55
1 within open space.
2 There are other references to
3 church uses in other places of the zoning ordinance
4 that do not include those uses. So if you want to
5 include parsonages pursuant to the existing
6 language, as well as include them to be able to
7 maintain any other facilities --
8 MRS. LAMBERTON: It states that
9 it houses clergy. I mean, there is your convent
10 and monastery, I think.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Are they clergy?
12 MRS. LAMBERTON: Yes. I mean,
13 having to do with the church.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's what I'm
15 thinking. It's like a religious person. You have
16 to allow them to be on the church property. I
17 mean, in the situation of Glorious Church, they
18 have, what, ten acres out there?
19 MR. BAXTER: Nineteen acres.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: What if they
21 wanted to build a monastery or convent.
22 MR. BAXTER: I would think a
23 monastery is not necessarily a church, it's not a
24 public place for worship.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
56
1 MR. BAXTER: Nor would a convent
2 be.
3 MRS. LAMBERTON: But they list
4 parsonage.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: But they could
6 have a chapel in there and it could be open to the
7 public on occasion for a retreat or whatever.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: Monastery and
9 convents -- it does say church schools. Under this
10 definition, if we would keep what is currently
11 proposed, convent or monastery would not be
12 permitted. They would have to go more towards your
13 education -- I'm sure there is a section in the
14 zoning ordinance with respect to educational
15 facilities or schooling or what have you.
16 MR. McHALE: But it does say
17 churches or similar places of worship, and convents
18 and monasteries, those are places of worship as
19 well.
20 MRS. LAMBERTON: And chapels.
21 MR. McHALE: So they may be
22 educational facilities, but they are also places of
23 worship. So this is something that --
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: It sounds like
25 the commission would like some additional -- it
57
1 sounds like you still want parsonages to be
2 included. You still want convents and monasteries
3 to be included. Is there anything else that we'd
4 specifically -- like Bob said, I mean, the
5 definition says, churches and similar places of
6 worship. We don't have to specifically state each
7 and every use that's permitted.
8 MR. McHALE: Under boarding
9 home, strictly limited to active or retired church
10 employees and officials, convent, I guess you could
11 almost picture that as a boarding home for the
12 nuns. So each religion might have a little bit
13 different terminology, but as long as we could fit
14 appropriately into certain categories within the
15 ordinance, that should be okay.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, it does
17 say boarding home strictly limited to active or
18 retired church employees and officials.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think I
20 understand the position of the commission. What
21 I'll do is I can rework it. If you're so inclined,
22 we can look at it next month or you can make
23 recommendations that I just revise pursuant to our
24 discussion tonight. Move it on to the board of
25 supervisors, because when it does come time to get
58
1 advertised for adoption, it's going to come back to
2 you again.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: You know what,
4 before you get involved in that, why don't we see
5 if we have time to discuss this at our work session
6 on the 28th with the board of supervisors. I think
7 they were looking to go over this also at that
8 time. Is that okay?
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: That's fine.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Flea markets.
11 This is what the Monroe County
12 Planning Commission commented on. They asked that
13 we change the definition of a flea market, is that
14 correct, Pat?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. This is
16 the flea market ordinance. And we did receive a
17 review from Monroe County Planning Commission.
18 They've made a couple comments. Probably the most
19 important one from my point of view would be the
20 actual definition of flea market. I kind of
21 tussled with this for a while. The definition I
22 came up with was specifically -- I mean, you can
23 read the definition, but towards the end I
24 distinguished it specifically from what's currently
25 on the books defined as a garage sale. Now, that's
59
1 the reason for the language I have in there, more
2 than three consecutive days and or more than six
3 days in one calender year. That's how I
4 distinguished it from garage sales, because
5 sometimes, I can see somebody making the argument
6 this isn't a flea market, this is a garage sale.
7 It's a garage sale that goes Monday through Friday
8 52 weeks out of the year. I can just see that down
9 the line and that's why I have that language in
10 here.
11 I have no problem with the
12 county's recommendation. They have in there
13 rummage sales and garage sales are not considered
14 to be flea markets. We can use that definition, if
15 you'd like. And I may also just include one last
16 sentence clarifying what a garage sale is. And,
17 you know, just so we don't have --
18 MR. MILLER: A garage sale would
19 be like a home owner getting rid of items that he
20 no longer wishes to have. As compared to a flea
21 market could have many different things.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right.
23 MR. BAXTER: You need a
24 limitation on garage sales.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: You do. And
60
1 that's the language that I have --
2 MR. McHALE: But you could also
3 have several home owners that combine into one
4 garage sale, so you have to be careful of the
5 language.
6 MR. BAXTER: A flea market.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: The other
8 comment from the letter, we can add some parking
9 requirement. They actually provided us a provision
10 in there. I don't know if Bob's looked at it or
11 Phyllis looked at it. That's basically setting
12 forth the parking requirements, you know, setting
13 limits with respect to how many spaces per so many
14 square feet. We can put that in.
15 They also mentioned to refer
16 back to the zoning ordinance when it discussed the
17 sign advertising for the flea market. We
18 limited -- well, this ordinance limits the sign to
19 12 square feet in size. We also put, "And shall
20 comply with any and all additional restrictions set
21 forth within the townships zoning ordinance." We
22 can specifically state the zoning ordinance that
23 it's referring back to, which is what the planning
24 commission recommended, which is fine.
25 They also indicated that if we
61
1 do get rid of the definition that's currently
2 proposed and use their definition, to put in the
3 time limitations under the proposed Section
4 155.96.1, which we can, if you want to limit, you
5 know, the amount of days or consecutive days a flea
6 market can be open.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think it's
8 good that we get the parking in there specifically.
9 I think the recommendation of the Monroe County
10 Planning Commission was fair.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
12 I'll add the parking as provided
13 by the Monroe County Planning Commission.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: If Bob's okay
15 with that. Have you looked at it?
16 MR. McHALE: I can look up
17 something to, you know -- the parking table and
18 check that.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: It looks like
20 they did that, given parking standards by the
21 American Planning Association. That's what they
22 quote here.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Edited by
24 Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: And, again,
62
1 we'll discuss that with the board of supervisors.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: On the 28th?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: On the 28th.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: What I will do
5 for both of these is maybe I'll make the revisions
6 pursuant to this one, pursuant to the
7 recommendation of the County Planning Commission,
8 just so we have that revised version for the joint
9 work session and I will make all the
10 recommendations then. It sounds like the planning
11 commissions have given all recommendations to the
12 county?
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
14 Any other comments on any of
15 those?
16 Okay. Brodhead and McMichaels
17 Creek Stormwater Management Ordinance, Act 167.
18 We'll discuss that with the
19 board of supervisors at the joint meeting. Please
20 preview the email that Pat sent us. Make sure we
21 are all familiar with that. I know it's rather
22 lengthy. If you need a print out of that, you can
23 get it from the township secretary.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think I sent
25 it back in December.
63
1 MR. McHALE: December 5th, I
2 believe.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: So it will be a
4 while back.
5 Should I resend it?
6 MRS. LAMBERTON: That would be
7 great.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'll resend it.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's long,
10 because it's the whole ordinance.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: It's an
12 attachment.
13 MR. McHALE: We should get it in
14 Word up here also, because as we go through the
15 technical items related to it, you can edit those
16 and then we can have one copy of that.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else
18 from the commission? Anything from the public?
19 I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
20 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
22 to the motion?
23 MRS. LAMBERTON: I'll second it.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
25 favor, please say aye.
64
1 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
2 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye. Thank you.
5 (Meeting concluded at 8:13 p.m.)
6 ---
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 I hereby certify that the
8 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
9 accurately in the notes taken by me at the meeting
10 in the above matter, to the best of my ability; and
11 that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript
12 of the same.
13
14
15
16 JOSEPHINE HOLLMAN, C.R.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25