Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, February 1, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
GLENN RIEKER, Secretary
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. SINCAVAGE: Call the regular
2 meeting of the Tobyhanna Township Planning
3 Commission, Thursday, February 1st, to order. Any
4 general public comment? If not our next item is to
5 approve minutes from January 4th, received by
6 email.
7 MR. MILLER: May I make a
8 comment on that? It's about 103 pages that came up
9 in my computer that I needed to print out. So
10 whatever the vote is, I'll abstain. Hopefully the
11 township can boil it down to 20 or 25 pages,
12 whatever.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: When we get into
14 verbatim, it gets rather lengthy.
15 MR. MILLER: But it's triple and
16 quadruple the space, that's the trouble.
17 MR. BAXTER: I move to approve
18 the minutes.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
20 Do I have a second to the motion?
21 MR. RIEKER: I'll second it.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
23 second. Any further comment? Any comment from the
24 public? All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
25 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
3
1 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
3 MR. MILLER: I'll abstain.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item is
5 Keswick Pointe. I'll turn it over to Joe Miller to
6 handle this item.
7 MR. MILLER: Somebody here from
8 Keswick Pointe?
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is a
10 letter in the packet saying they were not going to
11 attend. They are just looking to table. It looks
12 like they are working through the issues, Bob?
13 MR. McHALE: Yes, that's
14 correct. Letter dated January 30th.
15 MR. MILLER: All right, any
16 comments from the public on Keswick Pointe at this
17 point? Nobody is here to represent them. Do I
18 hear a motion to table?
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: I'll move.
20 MR. MILLER: Do I hear a second?
21 MR. BAXTER: Second.
22 MR. MILLER: Any comments? All
23 in favor? Aye.
24 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
4
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: And I'll
3 abstain.
4 Locust Ridge quarry. Anyone
5 here representing Locust Ridge Quarry?
6 MR. McHALE: There is a letter
7 from the engineer requesting to table.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that the
9 letter we received tonight.
10 MR. McHALE: Yes.
11 MR. MILLER: How are we on time
12 frames and stuff?
13 MR. McHALE: Locust Ridge we
14 just received today, a time extension.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is the
16 issue there, Bob? I understand it's with the
17 fire --
18 MR. McHALE: Water supply.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I didn't see the
20 calculations of how much water they were looking
21 for.
22 MR. McHALE: The calculations
23 from Guardian Inspection Services was indicating
24 about $100,000, but they are going to be getting
25 with their architect to see if there is any
5
1 additional measures they can take within inside the
2 building to reduce that amount and then there is
3 alternatives available to them as far as providing
4 a source of water. So we are going to look into
5 that and come back.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments
7 from the public on Locust Ridge? Any comments from
8 the board members? Questions?
9 Entertain a motion to table.
10 MR. MILLER: So moved.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
13 second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Scott and
19 Cynthia Coombe commercial building land development
20 plan.
21 Bob, do you have anything on
22 that?
23 MR. McHALE: Yes. Review
24 letter. Recommendation for approval.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you know if
6
1 Sarah is coming?
2 MR. McHALE: I'm not aware if
3 she might be here or not.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: It looks like
5 they finally got everything in. They are asking
6 for several waivers.
7 MR. McHALE: Yes.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: And you're
9 recommending approval.
10 MR. McHALE: Yes.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comment from
12 the board?
13 MR. RIEKER: What are they
14 asking for waivers on?
15 MR. MILLER: They have something
16 mentioned here, Section 135-17 --
17 MR. RIEKER: 135-15.
18 MR. McHALE: There is also
19 124.86.B.17 regarding the stormwater vertical
20 profiles. That should be it.
21 MR. RIEKER: Anything else?
22 Those three, four?
23 I'll make a motion to recommend
24 approval of the Cynthia Coombe commercial building,
25 with the waivers for the aforementioned sections.
7
1 MR. McHALE: Set forth in the
2 January 30th letter.
3 You can reference his review
4 letter.
5 MR. RIEKER: As referenced in
6 his letter of January 30th, 2007.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
8 Do I have a second to the motion?
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
11 discussion? Any comments from the public? All
12 those in favor please say aye. Aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MS. BUE-MORRIS: Thank you.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: You slipped in
19 on us.
20 Next item is Pinecrest Phase 7
21 final land development.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Before you guys
23 get started, there was some confusion last month.
24 Mr. Carroll is well aware of what happened last
25 month. There was some confusion as to the
8
1 extension back in June in a letter that my office
2 received from the township solicitors' office.
3 Tonight what we are going to do is go through the
4 review letter. You guys can go through it step by
5 step. The planning commission has not received any
6 response with respect to the position of the
7 township on that matter.
8 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I did
9 respond to the township solicitor.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: You did? I
11 assume whatever the position of the township is
12 going to be, it will be decided with the board of
13 supervisors, but we are going to proceed tonight.
14 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: So you
15 guys are aware, I also sent a waiver letter in.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: We did receive
17 that. Thank you for that, by the way. So the way
18 we'll proceed tonight is you guys can go through
19 the review letter of Mr. McHale and with that --
20 and what is this?
21 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: A copy of
22 my letter.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you want to
24 go through this step by step?
25 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Yes. First
9
1 of all, under the category of zoning, Bob pointed
2 out that we have 57 units. It's supposed to be 56.
3 That's correct. What happened was, we moved the
4 phasing line of Phase 7 from approximately this
5 shape to the current shape that's on this map. And
6 we did that because of wetlands and a lot of other
7 things. We came up with more units than the 56 we
8 were supposed to have. So we reconfigured the
9 phase line of Phase 7 to show 57 units. You want
10 me to take one off? We are going to gain and lose
11 as we go through this.
12 MR. McHALE: Just wanted it to
13 be in the record.
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Absolutely.
15 MR. McHALE: There were some
16 other numerical --
17 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Yes. Bob
18 raises the point of the original total number of
19 units in the PRD was 663, and that's correct. It
20 basically had in Phase 1, 78 units of single family
21 homes; it had 15 units, 4 family compounds in the
22 old boys camp; it had 134 single family homes in
23 Phase 2, Phase 3 had 24, Phase 4 had 21, Phase 5
24 had 37 , Phase 6 had 40, Phase 7, 56, Phase 8, 84,
25 Phase 9, 108 and Phase 10, 66. That came to 653.
10
1 That was the original PRD approval.
2 You can see on the edge of this
3 updated phasing map, which is also a subject of
4 Bob's letter, this turn in the property is Long
5 Pond Road. Okay? Originally we had a separate
6 entrance here with 10 lots off this cul de sac, and
7 if you look at this original 1992 version, you will
8 see the Emerald Lake Road. So what happened --
9 MR. McHALE: At the bottom of
10 one of the maps there was what you indicated, all
11 the phases and the numbers, but they didn't add up
12 to the 653 and that's why there was some confusion.
13 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: That's
14 right. That was the original. We deleted that
15 road that was supposed to come off of Long Pond
16 Road, had 10 lots there, that's why the number of
17 653.
18 The 653 basically is 212 units
19 around the golf course end of the property and 441
20 units on the rest of the property. You all have I
21 think in your packet an August 2006 updated phasing
22 schedule and you will see the total number of
23 dwelling units on there is 653.
24 Further in the 2003 approval,
25 the bottom of page 7, the then planning commission
11
1 attorney, Attorney Dirvonas, asked me whether the
2 phases essentially remain the same as portrayed in
3 the 1991 application and I replied in the
4 affirmative. So, hopefully, that will clear up
5 that.
6 MR. McHALE: So 653 is the
7 correct number?
8 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: 653 is the
9 correct number.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: What was that
11 that you were --
12 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: This is the
13 resolution and testimony, conclusions, findings of
14 facts and order of the supervisors from August
15 11th, 2003.
16 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: It's not
17 testimony. Just resolution.
18 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: It's all in
19 there.
20 Okay. Down to item No. 1 --
21 there is basically 33 conditions. It sounds like
22 it's going to take a long time. It's not. No. 1
23 is --
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Mr. Carroll,
25 before you continue, could you show us what Phase 7
12
1 is on your map. We can't see the numbers.
2 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Phase 7 is
3 on the south west side of the property and
4 encompasses 54 or 57 units that back up to the
5 Bethlehem Water Authority property. It's adjacent
6 to other property that Pinecrest owns, goes down to
7 the Lake Road that goes around the lake, comes up,
8 comes back over, is adjacent to the Brookside PRD
9 which is a separate PRD to the northwest of Phase 7
10 and then goes along a ten acre parcel owned by a
11 guy named Carl Games and comes back to that point.
12 I can circle it here, but I can't --
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: So everything in
14 the light green?
15 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: That's
16 correct.
17 MR. McHALE: Mike, we have not
18 received an updated --
19 MR. MIKE GABLE: This is for
20 you.
21 MR. McHALE: Thank you very
22 much.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: So this is the
24 area that's under consideration?
25 MR. MIKE GABLE: Yes.
13
1 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Okay. I
2 said before, No. 1 is resolved. I'd like to ask
3 Mike Gable of RKR to comment on No. 2 which
4 basically is an application to the conservation
5 district for approval.
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: Right now we
7 have the application ready to submit to the
8 conservation district with the exception of two
9 items, one being the required infiltration testing
10 on site. In the wintertime it's very difficult to
11 dig in the ground this time of year, so that's
12 holding us up a little bit. The other issue that
13 we wanted to discuss with the planning commission,
14 the issue as a one-way road, the reduction to the
15 road widths has to go along the crossings because
16 that would drastically impact what the application
17 to the conservation district looks like. If we
18 make application now and go back and change it
19 again, they will charge us 50 percent of the review
20 fee which is a substantial amount for a project
21 this size. So we were just trying to get some
22 input from the commission prior to making that
23 submission, otherwise it would cost my client quite
24 a bit of money, upward of about $2000 for a
25 resubmission fee. And that will be done pending
14
1 tonight's outcome on what the feeling is on our
2 alternative design. We'll likely work on that. By
3 the time we come back, it should be fully
4 submitted.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
6 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Okay with
7 that?
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you're
9 working to comply with it?
10 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Yes. We
11 obviously have to do that.
12 Item No. 3, Mike, I guess talk
13 about the water distribution model.
14 MR. MIKE GABLE: Yes. Right now
15 this water system is no longer owned by Pinecrest
16 Development Corp., it's owned by Pennsylvania PUC
17 Company by the name of Aqua Pennsylvania. They
18 operate the water and sewer system within this
19 development. I am wearing a double hat. I'm their
20 engineer and Mr. Carroll's engineer for this
21 project. I do have the design done, but I do need
22 their formal okay for me to submit it to you. And
23 I'm meeting with them on February 13 to go over the
24 design and present them the model concept as to how
25 we are going to make the fire flows work for the
15
1 development. And I need the formal okay to submit
2 to you. Probably submit that to you on the 14th.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you're still
4 working on that issue?
5 MR. MIKE GABLE: Yes. We need
6 the utility company's permission as to the design.
7 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: This second
8 part of it is, he says we ought to provide a copy
9 of relative data to Guardian Inspection. Item No.
10 3, in the approval, doesn't say anything about
11 Guardian Inspection. It says, "Such other
12 information as will be required by the township
13 engineer and the Tobyhanna Township Volunteer Fire
14 Company to evaluate the proposed services."
15 What this is talking about is
16 the installation of two, 250,000 gallon water
17 tanks. But they are already there. No longer
18 proposed. So, yes, it's easy for us to give you a
19 modeling thing, but I don't know why -- what
20 Guardian has to do with this.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Guardian reviews
22 all land development plans to make comments on like
23 road widths, road access, that's what they do for
24 us.
25 MR. McHALE: Fire hydrants as
16
1 well.
2 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Well,
3 that's fine, you can have whoever you want, except
4 this specific condition refers to the proposed --
5 the time this was written, those tanks were not
6 there. Now they are there.
7 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Back when
8 it was proposed, there was an issue of whether or
9 not they were going to be completed and the
10 capacity of the tanks when they were completed.
11 They were completed in accordance with the
12 submission of what we said in the application.
13 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Right.
14 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: So they
15 are no longer proposed. They are there. They are
16 up. They are running. They are functional. That
17 was the supervisors' concern at the time, the fact
18 that they were not there.
19 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Plus we had
20 a letter form Aqua saying on both the water and the
21 sewer we have sufficient capacity to handle these
22 units. So --
23 MR. MIKE GABLE: I might add a
24 little bit more history to it. The tank in
25 question will be servicing the development located
17
1 at this point. That tank and design was approved
2 as part of Phases 5 and 6 of the development to
3 provide a thousand gallons a minute in this area
4 and 500 gallons per minute in the remainder. That
5 was the approval at the time in what the design
6 intent was. While we might be able to get more in
7 select areas, we don't know that we are going to
8 need a thousand gallon per minute fire flow
9 throughout the whole system.
10 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Which is
11 not an issue because unbeknownst to Guardian, the
12 township adopted the International Fire Code after
13 our approval. And as you know, in the MPC, it says
14 once you have tentative approval, you can't change
15 the rules.
16 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: The last
17 time we were before the supervisors that was part
18 of their determination, that it was not applicable.
19 So that is already, if you will, the law of the
20 case. They made the determination -- the 2003
21 International Fire Code is not applicable to this
22 project for the last -- when was the last time you
23 were here?
24 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: A couple
25 years ago.
18
1 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: The 2003
2 International Fire Code was adopted after our
3 tentative plan approval in 2003. We came in then
4 with a final plan approval. That issue was raised
5 at the time of final plan approval and it was
6 determined that it was not applicable. So I think
7 based on precedents or the law of the case,
8 whatever you want to call it, if it wasn't
9 applicable to the last section, it's not applicable
10 to this section.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Nothing in
12 Mr. McHale's comment references -- what was the
13 code?
14 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Right
15 there. 2003 International Fire Code, at the top of
16 page -- if you look at item No, 10, and you turn to
17 the second page, it says -- which indicates hydro
18 something meets the requirements of the 2003
19 International Fire Code. That's what we are
20 addressing. It's already been determined that that
21 fire code is not applicable to this project.
22 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: This is
23 relative to Guardian being in two items, in No. 3
24 and No. 10.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: I see that.
19
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm still
2 looking at item No. 3. I don't think we resolved
3 that yet, did we?
4 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I thought
5 so. We still have work to do.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right.
7 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: We have
8 work to do by way of -- as soon as we get the
9 approval of Aqua to submit the water distribution
10 model calcs, we will do it, but there was a second
11 point. The applicant should provide a copy of
12 relevant data to Guardian Services and to the fire
13 company for review and comment. We are happy to
14 give it to the fire company, but I'm pointing out
15 that in Item 3 in the approvals, it says to
16 evaluate such proposed services, but they are no
17 longer proposed, they are existing, and I'm
18 wondering --
19 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: We are
20 complying with the engineer's comment. We'll get
21 you the design, but the fact -- understanding that
22 when you read what was previously written by the
23 board of supervisors in their approval of the
24 tentative plan application, we are talking about
25 oranges and apples because we are talking about
20
1 oranges back then because it wasn't built. They
2 were proposed. There was a concern by the
3 supervisors at the time.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. But the
5 way I'm reading No. 3 on this decision of the
6 township supervisors, that last sentence seems to
7 be more of a concern as to the ability to -- I
8 mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Bob, it looks more
9 like whether or not the existing wells will be
10 adequate to serve the properties and that's the
11 purpose, I believe, of this provision.
12 MR. McHALE: And it says and
13 fire protection services.
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: We have a
15 letter from the utility supplier that he has
16 adequate capacity for water, fire protection, sewer
17 services for these units.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's fine, but
19 the tentative approval also requires -- am I
20 reading this right?
21 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: No. When
22 you're talking about, right now, so we are clear,
23 there were wells in existence at the time. There
24 were no tanks. The tanks did create -- jump in if
25 I'm doing this engineering stuff wrong. They
21
1 create storage capacity for the units or the lots.
2 They were not there. The utility company is now
3 saying we have sufficient capacity to supply these
4 lots with water. We are going to submit to you the
5 design criteria that they are going to use, but
6 when they say we have sufficient capacity, they
7 have sufficient capacity. You don't have any
8 jurisdiction over the water company. They are
9 under the jurisdiction of the PUC.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, but
11 according to tentative approval, it's still the
12 township's right to have Guardian look over it.
13 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: No it's
14 not, it doesn't say Guardian, it says township
15 engineer.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Shall be
17 required by the township engineer and Tobyhanna
18 Township Volunteer Fire.
19 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: That's
20 your township engineer and the fire company is the
21 fire company.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: And such other
23 information as shall be required by the township
24 engineer.
25 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Right.
22
1 Right there.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is what
3 he's requiring. This is what he's requiring.
4 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: He can't
5 require it to be reviewed by another agency.
6 MR. McHALE: They work for the
7 township.
8 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I
9 understand.
10 MR. McHALE: It sounds like we
11 are going around in a circle on this. I mean, we
12 are going to get the water modeling, the water
13 distribution model from RKR Hess, so when you look
14 at it --
15 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: To be
16 quite honest with you, I don't know what they do.
17 I don't know what expertise they have. I don't
18 know if they are super building inspectors that are
19 now going to come in and make comments, that are
20 beyond their scope of expertise. I know they may
21 be involved in certain litigation in the near
22 future because of their lack of expertise, but
23 that's my only concern. I have two engineers that
24 can sit down and talk. That's what they do. But
25 we'll --
23
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: At this point
2 let's have the modeling submitted to the township
3 engineer. Let's have the plan submitted to the
4 Tobyhanna Volunteer Fire Company for his
5 determination and further comment. I'm going to
6 ask the solicitor to look into Mr. Carroll's
7 comments in regard to the supervisors saying that
8 the 2003 International Fire Code does not apply to
9 their project.
10 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I'll give
11 you some back up on that. I brought it.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: You can submit
13 it to the solicitor.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Give it to
15 Mr. Anders. I'll talk to the township solicitor.
16 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Okay.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
18 comments?
19 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Item 4 is
20 resolved. Item 5, Bob's requested that we put a
21 note on the plan. We'll do that.
22 Item 6 is one that Bob wants to
23 have a decision on that I guess, Mike, you and Bob
24 ought to -- basically it says that the plan is not
25 in general conformity for roadway construction as
24
1 indicated in the community wide standards. When I
2 look at the community wide standards, I see that
3 it's according to AASHTO standards for rolling
4 terrain. I guess what you're talking about is the
5 one-way loop and AASHTO provides for specifications
6 for one-way roads, which, I think, and you raise
7 the issue of emergency services, won't affect it.
8 And Mike can talk to that. But also in the
9 community standards, I believe there is a provision
10 for -- through traffic is minimized by the loop
11 collector. So -- oh, you got it. Okay. I'm doing
12 it for her. But go ahead and open the discussion
13 on your feelings about it.
14 MR. McHALE: Maybe why don't you
15 discuss what is actually happening with the roadway
16 network.
17 MR. MIKE GABLE: When we
18 initially dove into this detail design of this plan
19 three years ago, when we basically started doing
20 very detailed design looking at the wetland
21 crossings throughout the development in detail,
22 there was a bunch of existing culverts that go
23 under the road. In order to meet the two-way road
24 widths for all those crossings, we needed to do
25 significant amount of wetland impact. It came to
25
1 almost a half acre wetland we needed to fill to
2 meet the standards of roads. One option that we
3 collectively came up with was to go with a one way
4 loop system which would take traffic through here
5 and loop it around this direction. By doing that
6 we were able to reduce the road width and fit the
7 roads in the existing paths, slightly larger, and
8 in some cases to a width of I believe 14 feet was
9 the minimum to allow for traffic to go one
10 direction safely and have no impact on the
11 wetlands, which is something that is highly desired
12 from all environmental groups and the DEP. If I
13 can show them that this one way road works and try
14 to submit a permit to the DEP with the two lane
15 road, they are going to reject my permit because my
16 alternative analysis is to fill in the wetland. So
17 I won't be able to necessarily get a permit for
18 two-way roads because I can fit one-way traffic
19 through there safely.
20 MR. McHALE: They may not reject
21 that because you get into traffic issues and
22 safety, emergency access and those other issues as
23 well.
24 MR. MIKE GABLE: Did you go to
25 the last seminar, the new Phase 2 NPDES stuff?
26
1 MR. McHALE: I'm going to a
2 seminar next week.
3 MR. MIKE GABLE: If it's the
4 same one I went to, they brought up a valid point
5 and maybe a good idea for some of your members to
6 attend the seminar. It's not really geared
7 towards, not only engineers like Bob and I, but
8 towards the general public that's involved with
9 reviewing plans and preparing regulations.
10 One thing that was a big
11 sticking point on them was working with communities
12 to take a close look at your development standards.
13 The width required for a fire truck to fit through
14 is 11 and a half feet. Trucks are only about nine
15 and a half feet in width. You can fit a truck
16 through a 12 foot space without a problem. What
17 you need to do is provide turnoffs at appropriate
18 places, which we do have and have the ability for
19 two-way traffic to go through in an emergency
20 condition. But they did bring up that point with
21 consideration of fire protection, with having fire
22 trucks come through. And they said in every single
23 case, you submit a drawing showing your road width,
24 showing the traffic pattern of the vehicle, showing
25 that that truck can fit through it, and you will
27
1 see it will fit. And you need to convince them
2 that it will fit through. That was their comments
3 to us at the last seminar I attended.
4 So what I'm here to do tonight
5 is exactly that, convince you and show you it is a
6 safe concept to reduce these road widths. One, to
7 not impact half an acre of wetland; two, reduce
8 your amount of impervious coverage significantly.
9 By having one way throughout this development, we
10 are probably cutting off at least an acre and a
11 half of impervious area. It's well over a mile of
12 road here, and cutting 12 feet of paving over a
13 mile length, is a significant surface area of
14 impervious surface that we eliminate in the
15 project. So this is something that we are not only
16 asking you to consider on this project, but
17 something that should really be thought of as
18 environmentally sound practices for development
19 throughout the community.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: I have a
21 question, just generally. This is just the first
22 question that came to my mind when I was reading
23 through this. So a resident that has a house on --
24 the very first house on that loop, it's a one way,
25 they have to travel the entire -- nearly two miles
28
1 to get back to the major roadway?
2 MR. MIKE GABLE: Not
3 necessarily.
4 MR. McHALE: Do you have another
5 drawing on there other than that scale?
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: Not one that
7 shows the overall.
8 MR. McHALE: We had several
9 drawings. Do you have the whole set?
10 MR. MIKE GABLE: I have the
11 whole set, but I don't believe any of them show
12 the --
13 MR. McHALE: There is one that
14 shows a good bit of the development anyway. It
15 doesn't show the entire loop. That one and the
16 next sheet, I think, where you're showing the other
17 roadway as well.
18 MR. MIKE GABLE: Land
19 development sheet.
20 MR. McHALE: Are they the ones
21 that indicate one way roadways on it?
22 MR. MIKE GABLE: Yes. You can
23 see on the key map and maybe I'll bring this up to
24 you.
25 You will have -- the people that
29
1 live along here will need to -- these people along
2 road A will need to come in this direction to get
3 out. Coming in will be easier for them. Your
4 comment, yes, it's much more difficult for them to
5 leave, but as opposed to this gentleman, it's
6 easier for him to leave but harder for him to come
7 back. So it goes back and forth. So when you look
8 at the averages, you got the same basic amount of
9 distance you need to travel whether you're coming
10 or going, if you follow my train of thought.
11 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: It doesn't
12 matter. I mean, if you're the first one and you
13 have to go a mile when you come back in, and if
14 you're the first one you have to go zero miles. So
15 if you average the thing out it's got to come out
16 the same. Second thing is, it's more important to
17 save the wetlands than it is a minute's drive for a
18 second homeowner that uses the house six times a
19 year.
20 MR. McHALE: It's a minute drive
21 for two miles at 23 miles an hour?
22 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Whatever
23 that comes to.
24 MR. McHALE: It's over 5
25 minutes.
30
1 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: No. Come
2 on. All right it's 5 minutes.
3 MR. McHALE: It's not just the
4 access. Like the homeowner that might be at the
5 beginning of a loop, if they want to go down to the
6 Penn Fern Mart to get a coffee and a newspaper,
7 they have to drive more than two miles because that
8 two miles only gets them to the Y of the
9 intersection where the loop begins. And then they
10 have to go drive out of the development. And the
11 other thing is, if those folks want to golf on the
12 Pinecrest Golf Course, they can't just go through
13 Pinecrest Development to get to the golf course,
14 they have to go out on the main highway to get back
15 into the development.
16 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Which is
17 what they do now.
18 MR. McHALE: For the few homes
19 that are there, but the intend of the development
20 was to have an interconnect or at least a collector
21 that would interconnect both sides of the
22 development. Is that correct?
23 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I don't
24 know if this is an issue.
25 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Originally
31
1 that was true, but when we came into the wetlands
2 situation it got to be a problem.
3 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I don't
4 know that this is an issue because if Mr. and Mrs.
5 Smith don't want to drive the two miles, they are
6 not going to buy. That's something that comes down
7 to customer preference.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's true.
9 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: It's more
10 than a few houses. It's like a couple hundred
11 houses over there.
12 MR. McHALE: There will be
13 several hundred more houses and those folks are
14 going to want to eventually or a good portion of
15 them, I would imagine, utilize the other facilities
16 that are on the other side of the development. And
17 we are forcing those people entirely on the west
18 side -- which is a total of how many houses, 600,
19 500?
20 MR. MIKE GABLE: About 400 and
21 change.
22 MR. McHALE: 400 plus. -- to
23 get out on the road network, to get over to the
24 golf course or any other amenities, because you
25 only have a one-way road going from east to west.
32
1 The other thing is, I'm looking
2 at the intent of what I believe --
3 MR. MIKE GABLE: The one thing
4 you have to keep in mind, Bob, golf course use, by
5 it's very nature, is not going to have 300 cars per
6 day. It's really not. It's not that intensive a
7 use.
8 MR. McHALE: I understand. It
9 also lists the three road types, and it says, again
10 based on national criteria, and it has two minors
11 and a collector. It has ADT's or average daily
12 traffic listed from zero to 250, 250 to 400 and 400
13 plus. Then it gives road widths, maximum dwelling
14 units and criteria by which the road network -- I'm
15 assuming based upon the community wide standards,
16 that's how the development was going to be put
17 together. What we are saying here is there is
18 nothing referenced in here that I have seen that
19 indicates one-way loops.
20 To me it's one issue to have a
21 one-way loop for 12 homes or 15 homes where it's a
22 small loop instead of a cul de sac. That makes
23 some sense because people are close. But to take
24 what is considered more of a collector road inside
25 the development -- and it even states it in here
33
1 that through traffic is minimized by the looped
2 collector. Mike, let me just reference something
3 that's my understanding of what a loop collector
4 would be. This loop collector would probably have
5 been something in here and the rest of them being
6 minor roads. And all the widths are spelled out as
7 to the criteria by which we are supposed to do it.
8 And now the issue comes up as to one way. Well, if
9 this is correct, Mike, the one way --
10 MR. MIKE GABLE: This road we
11 can flip.
12 MR. McHALE: This section
13 through here is one way from east to west, meaning
14 folks from this side, they can come over through
15 this portion of the development, but none of these
16 folks on this side can go straight over and into
17 this part where the golf course is. That to me is
18 a concern. I think that rather than just say let's
19 throw in a one-way road and save a half an acre of
20 wetlands -- when I'm sure there has been more than
21 a half acre mitigated on the entire project.
22 MR. MIKE GABLE: The total
23 impact to date is .37 acres.
24 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Out of
25 1450.
34
1 MR. MIKE GABLE: Of wetlands.
2 MR. McHALE: The question is,
3 does it make good common sense to utilize a
4 collector, is it going to service emergency
5 services the way it needs to when they want to get
6 from point A to point B or are you going to be
7 having people driving against traffic to shortcut
8 the system. Are there any other options out there?
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: There isn't
10 any connection between the two sections now, is
11 there?
12 MR. McHALE: Not today, other
13 than a dirt road, correct?
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Right.
15 MR. MIKE GABLE: Poorly
16 maintained.
17 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: One lane
18 road.
19 MR. McHALE: That's right, but
20 the overall scope of the project, when it was put
21 together and conceived, was to have the whole
22 development connected together.
23 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I agree
24 with that, but when you run into a wetlands
25 situation, the law has evolved from 1983, whenever
35
1 we started this, to now, and it's all an issue of
2 not impacting the wetlands. That's what we are
3 trying to do with the looped road. The golf course
4 side of it, statistically, last year it did 8000
5 rounds. The course is built to do 40,000 rounds.
6 The reason for that is, there are only half, maybe
7 40 percent of the people that now inhabit Pinecrest
8 who are members of the golf club. Half of them are
9 only social members. You see them once a year for
10 dinner or something like that. So the idea that
11 there is a great deal of -- at least for the past
12 25 years, there hasn't been a great deal of
13 interaction between one side and the other. We
14 have, in the townhouse section, 103 townhouses, I
15 think there is only two people that play golf.
16 And -- but they happen to like being near the lake
17 and they happen to like the swimming pool and that.
18 The golf people are golf people. So ideally if we
19 didn't have a wetlands problem, I would agree with
20 you. But with the wetlands problem, it seemed the
21 most sensible thing to do. The fact, as Marshall
22 said, there won't be any sales until this is
23 approved. They will see -- hello -- if they don't
24 want to live there they will go somewhere else. I
25 don't see that it impacts on the township at all.
36
1 They are private roads, they are private
2 everything.
3 MR. McHALE: Mike, the impact to
4 the wetlands are related you said to the culvert
5 crossings, correct?
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: There are some
7 other wetlands. The road cut through, back in
8 Lutherland (phonetic) days, cut through the
9 wetlands. The wetlands were filled some 50 years
10 ago.
11 MR. McHALE: But your .5 acres
12 is the accumulation of all the impacts for what
13 you're saying to convert. Is it at the culvert
14 crossings?
15 MR. MIKE GABLE: There is some
16 at the culvert crossings and some right along side
17 of --
18 MR. McHALE: How much would you
19 guess?
20 MR. MIKE GABLE: Half and half.
21 MR. McHALE: Some of it is on
22 what? Where is the rest of the impact.
23 MR. MIKE GABLE: Either side
24 throughout the development. You have to look at
25 the plans. I think there was 32 different
37
1 locations that had to have some measurable amount
2 of wetlands impact.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: The width of the
4 one way road is what?
5 MR. MIKE GABLE: It varies
6 throughout. Some are 18 feet. There is one
7 location, that next down, it's either 12 or 14
8 feet. I made it as physically wide as possible to
9 include the use of the retaining walls and curb and
10 gutter sections and what have you to maximize the
11 ability to get through. What is really controlling
12 is there are areas that you've got a road that's of
13 an existing width from wetland section to wetland
14 section of, you know, 15 feet. You can only get a
15 14 foot road through there and that's utilizing
16 sheet pilings to build off your retaining wall.
17 And that's very tight.
18 MR. RIEKER: Are you saying that
19 if you went with a one-way road you can meet
20 whatever requirements we have for emergency vehicle
21 pull offs or turn arounds?
22 MR. MIKE GABLE: We can provide
23 pull offs between the wetland sections, absolutely.
24 There are areas that are wide, some areas that
25 don't have wetlands that we can open up a little
38
1 bit and provide pull offs.
2 MR. RIEKER: I think we're
3 looking at two separate things here, whether they
4 can meet the requirements that we have for road
5 construction, versus legislating intelligence of
6 residents. Unfortunately we can't legislate
7 intelligence, so you're going to have Mr. Wilson
8 that lives in the first home that goes, Eddie is
9 not around. I'm going to head left and go back out
10 that way. That's, you know, he's going to do that
11 because he's Mr. Jones and he always does that no
12 matter where he's at.
13 The other thing we have to look
14 at is if we went to one lane versus two, yes, it
15 saves the wetlands, but you have more emissions, so
16 you're truly making it a neutral carbon site. So
17 you're offsetting your saving the wetlands with a
18 single lane road, but you're adding more carbon to
19 the atmosphere by driving more miles.
20 MR. MIKE GABLE: I made your
21 exact argument to the people from the state and
22 they said the amount of impact from the carbon
23 emissions for driving that additional mile is
24 dwarfed in comparison to the additional amount of
25 impervious. Whether it's true or not, I don't
39
1 know. Are we having global warming? The
2 environmentalists say we are and other people say
3 we aren't.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: You have to do
5 mitigation for the wetlands impact regardless. You
6 will be replacing the wetlands.
7 MR. MIKE GABLE: Ed, what was
8 it, about three quarters of wetland you created?
9 They are there now. We already built them. So why
10 do we want to go backwards. If we don't have to
11 disturb those wetlands, why should we. When I go
12 through and prepare the joint permit, one of the
13 most important things they review at the state and
14 federal level, the Army Corp, is your alternative
15 analysis. And if they go through and see the
16 alternative one-way road fits but the township
17 won't allow us to do it, they are not necessarily
18 going to accept that. They're going to really come
19 down. They will want to take a close look at it.
20 It will have a two, three year delay on the
21 project. I can guarantee it. The Army Corp is
22 notorious for giving you a hard time for these
23 things. If you go through for a wetlands permit
24 you have to have excellent justification.
25 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: This is why
40
1 we did it. They told us point blank you can forget
2 it. Don't fill the wetlands.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm going
4 through that process right now and it's partially
5 true. It's very arduous, I will agree.
6 MR. RIEKER: If you do wetland
7 mitigation where you build them somewhere else,
8 with my limited knowledge of geology, but enough of
9 environmental, if this is a wetlands here, you go
10 make up for it by building here, I don't think, you
11 know -- mother nature put it here. If you're going
12 over here, it doesn't mean you're going to recharge
13 the water the same way that this does over here.
14 It's a trade off for the
15 developer. They have to pay to play, but so they
16 mitigate it somewhere else. Well, that water is
17 not even going into the same recharge system. Put
18 my limited knowledge of geology out there.
19 MR. MIKE GABLE: And
20 traditionally, to create more wetlands on this
21 site, you have to go in and cut more forest. Does
22 that make sense?
23 MR. McHALE: That's part of that
24 overall scope and scheme of the original planning
25 of this project. To minimize the nature of the
41
1 whole wetland issue -- we are not trying to say
2 throw wetlands out the door, but you're making it
3 sound like we can never build another road again
4 because we are supposed to avoid all the wetlands.
5 Then PennDOT would be in --
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: The Army Corp
7 came out point blank --
8 MR. McHALE: You've mitigated
9 wetlands on a lot of other sites before.
10 MR. MIKE GABLE: They've come
11 out point blank on this project and you're right,
12 we have mitigated, but they've come out and said
13 point blank, you will not get another permit for
14 this project. And that's coming from the Army Corp
15 of Engineers. They are the ones that control the
16 joint permit, in reality.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Are they still
18 involved that much, Bob, the engineers? I know
19 their title. Being facetious. Are they still
20 heavily involved?
21 MR. MIKE GABLE: The attorney
22 would have to actually answer that one. I believe
23 you're referring to the Supreme Court case law.
24 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Yes, they
25 are. They have jurisdiction. If they want to be
42
1 involved, they are involved. You're not going to
2 tell them no.
3 MR. McHALE: I just think that
4 before we go to just a simple let's convert
5 everything to go one way, a loop that's two miles,
6 and that doesn't even encompass the entire loop
7 because if I'm not mistaken that can be expanded
8 even further and be greater than a two mile loop at
9 some point.
10 MR. MIKE GABLE: This would be
11 limited to one way. What we are proposing now is
12 one way. Everything else going in for all the
13 future expansion for --
14 MR. McHALE: What percentage of
15 the two miles would you say is impacted by
16 wetlands? Have you done that calculation, by the
17 way? Do you have an alternate plan with the two
18 way roadway?
19 MR. MIKE GABLE: Yes. I think I
20 gave you the copy. This is dating back a number of
21 years. I did do those calculations. I have a
22 detailed spread sheet showing all the impacts and
23 everything else. We actually did -- prepared those
24 wetland impacts, created a plan and submitted it to
25 the Army Corp of Engineers and said, no, guys, you
43
1 do something to get rid of the wetlands impact.
2 They have been actually submitted to the Army Corp
3 for them to take a tentative look at it. And Wayne
4 (inaudible) from the Army Corp said no.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is just
6 more for Mr. Anders. There is a recent Supreme
7 Court case out there with the Army Corp of
8 Engineers that significantly limited their
9 jurisdiction in this area with respect to wetlands.
10 I can send you the citation if
11 you like.
12 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: That's
13 fine.
14 MR. MIKE GABLE: So you know the
15 Army Corp's position on that is basically that I
16 don't care. What will happen is we'll submit it.
17 It will sit there for four or five years.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't know
19 that.
20 MR. MIKE GABLE: Until
21 Mr. Anders ends up in Washington at the Supreme
22 Court fighting to get the permit issued. That's
23 what would happen.
24 MR. McHALE: Mike, that's almost
25 putting in the position that nobody is allowed to
44
1 mitigate wetlands anymore, forever more.
2 MR. MIKE GABLE: Their position
3 is, Mr. Carroll, we gave you a joint permit for the
4 Wild Pines portion of this project and we are not
5 giving you any more. That's their position.
6 They're saying one individual person, doesn't
7 matter if it's 1500 acres or 15 acres, we are going
8 to give you one permit and you're allowed only a
9 small amount of wetlands impact in your one permit.
10 MR. McHALE: Let's go back to
11 this two mile loop again. What percentage do you
12 believe, approximately, of the two miles, is
13 impacted by wetlands, in length?
14 MR. MIKE GABLE: This whole
15 length has wetland patches throughout. This length
16 through here has wetland impacts throughout. This
17 length through here has wetland impacts and down
18 through here has significant wetland impact.
19 MR. McHALE: So the original
20 plan could never have worked?
21 MR. MIKE GABLE: Not without
22 getting a joint permit.
23 MR. McHALE: So that was
24 anticipated at the start of the project.
25 MR. MIKE GABLE: Back then yes,
45
1 because getting a permit to fill a wetland was no
2 big deal. It is a big deal now.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: All right.
4 Comments?
5 MR. MILLER: Well, my comment
6 is, obviously, the developer things he can sell
7 these lots with, the one, two-mile loop, that's
8 fine, otherwise he wouldn't propose it. They are
9 private roads.
10 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: As long as
11 we can show that we are not hurting EMS guys, what
12 is the problem?
13 MR. MIKE GABLE: One thing I
14 think we can do in further detail, we'll get into
15 this in a few minutes, it's one of the comments
16 actually, we are going to be updating the traffic
17 impact study. As part of the traffic impact study,
18 we can have Peter Terry, the traffic engineer, come
19 in and testify before you and show you how these
20 impact everything, and stand up before you saying
21 17 cars will come this way, three cars will go that
22 way, these impact at this intersection, and go into
23 great detail for you to really describe what we are
24 talking about.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: You were talking
46
1 about providing turn offs for emergency services
2 people.
3 MR. MIKE GABLE: Basically
4 where -- the road is rolling so it's up and down.
5 As it comes up, we can have pull offs where we'll
6 open the road up 20 feet and vehicles can pull off
7 and allow emergency vehicles to come by the other
8 direction, much the same way you would when you
9 have two cars coming in the opposite direction, you
10 have an emergency vehicle behind you, one car pulls
11 over and the other car coming in the opposite
12 direction, and the emergency vehicle goes through
13 the center of those two cars.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Going back, the
15 paved surface, the cartway is 14 feet?
16 MR. MIKE GABLE: I believe
17 that's a minimum. I can check. I believe it's 14
18 feet.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: What are the
20 shoulders?
21 MR. MIKE GABLE: In the 14 foot
22 section is curb and gutter. I have curbing to keep
23 it in, so I didn't get into wetlands impact. If
24 you have to have a shoulder section or no curbing,
25 you have to have the road up higher than the
47
1 surrounding grade, otherwise the road heaves. But
2 you either have a choice to bring the road up and
3 have a minimum of two foot shoulders or you put
4 curb and gutter to protect that road or it will
5 just heave all over the place.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is the
7 standard that is referenced in the decision letter?
8 Decipher this for me. You're considering this a
9 minor?
10 MR. McHALE: Well, it gives two
11 different minor roads with average daily traffic,
12 zero to 250, 250 to 400 and over 400. Now, what
13 would be assumed by this language here, where it
14 says through traffic is minimized by the loop
15 collector, is that that loop that is now a one way
16 was envisioned to be a collector. When you look at
17 the entire development, it seems like it would have
18 been appropriate, although I can't confirm it, that
19 this entire drive all the way through the
20 development would have been a collector. But if it
21 was a minor road, it's still got width to it. It
22 was based upon the average daily traffic, is the
23 way it was set up.
24 MR. MIKE GABLE: And one thing
25 we need to address on the road width as required
48
1 under the AASHTO as well, the standards, is the
2 fact they are referring to a 24 foot total cart
3 width, but that's assuming two lanes of traffic.
4 Being that we are one lane of traffic, you've got
5 to narrow that width down a little bit. Obviously
6 you only have one way of traffic going through.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is nothing
8 in the standards that says you can't have a loop
9 road of two miles?
10 MR. McHALE: Correct.
11 MR. BAXTER: I think that your
12 point about this being market driven, ultimately if
13 this creates a problem for him from a sales
14 standpoint, that will be his problem.
15 If the emergency vehicles can be
16 accommodated, I think that's the critical thing.
17 If that means even designating the pull offs as
18 pull offs so that people will know that's what they
19 are.
20 MR. MIKE GABLE: Which is
21 typical.
22 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: That's
23 commonly done Upstate New York. On the far side of
24 upper (inaudible) Lake, there is a six mile road in
25 and like 300 houses and every couple hundred feet
49
1 there is a pull off.
2 MR. MIKE GABLE: And there are
3 two lane roads that are only 10 foot in width.
4 MR. McHALE: I was going to say,
5 could most of that two mile loop and the connector
6 from the east side to the west side, could most of
7 that, meaning 70, 80 percent of that length, could
8 it all -- that portion of it be two lanes.
9 MR. MIKE GABLE: There is a good
10 portion right now as designed that are 24 foot.
11 The only place I knocked it down is where we had no
12 choice with wetlands.
13 MR. McHALE: So you could have
14 two lanes throughout. Again, I'm just thinking,
15 trying to bring ideas --
16 MR. MIKE GABLE: You can't go
17 from a one lane to a two lane from here to here
18 because of the wetland impact, because then you've
19 got people that are not going to pay attention and
20 they'll drive right through that do not enter sign.
21 So you either have all two ways or all one way.
22 MR. McHALE: You said it could
23 be 14 feet wide. I'm just wondering -- depending
24 on the length. There is places, even throughout
25 our township or the county rather, I think one now
50
1 down near by the bridge over on 423 going in the
2 back way to Tobyhanna, you have that two way on
3 both sides of the bridge. It's a one lane bridge,
4 and people, you know, have a yield on one side and
5 not the other. Could something like that work?
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: I don't feel
7 comfortable putting my seal on that, Bob, to be
8 honest with you. I don't think you would find
9 anybody today that would design a one-way bridge on
10 a two-way road.
11 MR. McHALE: We are not
12 designing one-way bridges. I'm just saying there
13 has got to be other alternatives in the wetland
14 mitigation portion of it. Wetlands are being
15 mitigated.
16 I just hate to see a
17 development of this magnitude go to something like
18 a one-way loop that's two miles and create issues
19 down the road and frustration with the people that
20 do buy in there. And I understand they are
21 supposed to know what they are buying into, but a
22 lot of people buy and they may not know that that's
23 a one-way loop in there.
24 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: They have
25 to get a copy of the plans.
51
1 MR. McHALE: You know that there
2 is a lot of people that will buy out right and they
3 don't necessarily review these drawings. We have
4 them come in and do that. Well, we didn't know.
5 Is that really a commercial piece of property?
6 Well, they told me it was residential. We have
7 that happen all the time.
8 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: But you
9 never had it here.
10 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I probably
11 do more developer construction litigation than
12 anybody in the county, and I can tell you that
13 people will say whatever they want to say after
14 they have been told what the deal is.
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so I
16 understood you correctly, 80 percent of this road
17 could be a two way. It's 20 percent that may
18 impact some wetland, according to you.
19 MR. MIKE GABLE: I would
20 probably say closer to 75/25. I haven't done the
21 math on it, so. The areas that are wide enough to
22 be 24 feet because there is no wetlands problem,
23 are 24 feet in width, even though they are one way.
24 That way you do have the ability for turn offs.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: It might be
52
1 beneficial for the planning commission, when you
2 submit your revised plans, to show maybe what kind
3 of impact on these wetlands that you're saying it's
4 going to have, rather than just kind of pointing up
5 there and saying the wetlands are here, here. You
6 see what I'm saying?
7 MR. MIKE GABLE: Right. If you
8 look at the individual plan sheet you will actually
9 see the wetlands going along.
10 MR. McHALE: Is there anyway
11 that they inner connect between the east side and
12 the west side, could be routed differently just to
13 get people back and forth?
14 MR. MIKE GABLE: I went through
15 every alternative I could think of, Bob, without
16 putting in a elevated road, you know. The answer
17 is no. Elevated road is a couple million dollars
18 itself.
19 MR. BAXTER: Where the loop
20 comes in and turns around, it looks like if they
21 kept going in the other direction, it would go over
22 towards the golf course?
23 MR. MIKE GABLE: Through here?
24 MR. BAXTER: Up farther. That's
25 where the loop turns left?
53
1 MR. McHALE: Correct.
2 MR. MIKE GABLE: No road in this
3 direction.
4 MR. BAXTER: Is that where
5 you're proposing the loop would go?
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: This would come
7 in one direction this way to here, and then traffic
8 would turn right and come down this way. Then we'd
9 come around through here, here. And also it would
10 be one lane across the dam. Can't make the dam any
11 bigger, obviously. So that then we come back out
12 this way, then cross the dam. Come down through
13 here and up and around. Brookside Drive will
14 remain as a two-way traffic. I believe that's 16
15 foot in width.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: So in sections
17 where they are not impacting the wetlands, you are
18 making the road width 24 feet.
19 MR. MIKE GABLE: Where it fits,
20 you got it.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: How about the
22 comment here -- I think, for me, the issue really
23 is the emergency access.
24 MR. MIKE GABLE: Which can be
25 addressed by turn offs.
54
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: So let's get
2 this submitted to the Tobyhanna Township Volunteer
3 Fire Company and get their comments and see what
4 their comment is on this design.
5 MR. McHALE: It should go to the
6 ambulance folks too, Mark, or any -- emergency
7 services center, I guess would be appropriate.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: So submit it to
9 the emergency services and let's see what their
10 comments are. Maybe they will be fine with it.
11 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: It's only
12 going one way. It isn't a question of them
13 leaving, it's a question of them getting there.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I feel more
15 comfortable --
16 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I don't
17 want to create a situation. Okay.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's move on.
19 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: We had
20 enough discussion with that?
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: We may have
22 more.
23 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Seven is
24 resolved, 8 is resolved, 9 we certainly will
25 provide construction estimate and an escrow
55
1 agreement when we get to the supervisors which is
2 the way we normally do it. Ten --
3 MR. McHALE: I think we went
4 over 10.
5 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: 10 is the
6 same thing as 3.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are looking
8 into that.
9 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Eleven,
10 basically you would testify, Mike, that the one way
11 loop has no impact on the egress of any of the --
12 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: No.
13 That's not --
14 MR. McHALE: Are there any
15 existing agreements in place? I don't know what
16 was provided to the original homeowners, but is
17 there anything written in those agreements that
18 would say they have a right of access directly
19 within the development to all other areas of the
20 development?
21 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Once you
22 file a map, you got it.
23 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: There isn't
24 anything in writing.
25 MR. McHALE: Okay. So the
56
1 people from the west side can't come back and say,
2 well, you made a one-way road there. I have a
3 right to get to the golf course straight through
4 the development.
5 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: No. There
6 is nothing like that.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So what do we
8 need to get that issue resolved, Bob?
9 MR. McHALE: That's all I was
10 looking for is if the one-way scenario goes forward
11 are there any folks out there with existing
12 agreements that would say they had that right and
13 it create an issue.
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: No.
15 Twelve, we'll also provide a
16 note on the plan there.
17 Thirteen is the same as we were
18 talking about before on No. 3. We have a letter
19 from Aqua. The tanks are already in.
20 Fourteen is already resolved.
21 Fifteen and 16 we've ordered the
22 traffic study. I have a question about this -- go
23 ahead.
24 MR. McHALE: Could I interject?
25 Could we maybe just hold for a little bit on the
57
1 traffic study portion of it, only until we know for
2 sure about this loop, whether it's a one way or two
3 way?
4 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I would
5 think a traffic study --
6 MR. McHALE: It's going to
7 reflect --
8 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Yes. It's
9 going to throw it all one way.
10 MR. McHALE: Right.
11 I guess maybe that would be
12 conservative to utilize that access.
13 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I think a
14 traffic study is something you would want to know
15 if the road is going to be one way, what the impact
16 of the traffic study has with a one way road.
17 MR. MIKE GABLE: Bob's only
18 point is you'll have to do the study over again if
19 it's determined it's a two way. It's something
20 that would be appropriate to have those numbers for
21 the traffic impact study because this is really a
22 traffic issue with the one way road, more than a
23 land development issue. And Benchmark, the traffic
24 engineers, should be able to address this a lot
25 better than I can for you.
58
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: What about the
2 presubmission, Ed.
3 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: We've never
4 been successful in trying to have a presubmission
5 meeting with PennDOT. They just don't seem to want
6 to do it.
7 Has anything, Bob, changed in
8 the history of that, you know, where the township
9 and PennDOT get together with the developer and
10 they say we ought to check this corner and that
11 corner and that corner or whatever?
12 MR. McHALE: What do you mean
13 what has changed or not changed? That's really
14 what they are speaking of, exactly what you said,
15 what should be looked at within the scope of the
16 study. That's essentially what we are looking at.
17 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: We can't
18 get them to respond.
19 MR. MIKE GABLE: When you're not
20 putting a highway occupancy permit in, getting them
21 to talk to you is very, very difficult.
22 MR. McHALE: Is this study going
23 to include only Phase 7 or is it going to include
24 all the phases in this section?
25 MR. MIKE GABLE: I would presume
59
1 we are going to take the old study and up date it.
2 I think at this point it might be a good idea to
3 add all those, so we are done in one shot.
4 MR. McHALE: Are they all coming
5 in within the next year?
6 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Well, no.
7 To answer your question, this study was going to be
8 for Phase 7 only because of the conditions in the
9 approval requires me to do it at each -- so if I do
10 the whole thing, you're just going to tell me to
11 redo it. So that's why I did that. Now, if you
12 want to change that, I can --
13 MR. McHALE: No, I don't believe
14 we should change what's been given. I agree whole
15 heartedly. You will just provide one for each
16 phase then?
17 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Yes, that's
18 right.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you will have
20 a presubmission conference with PennDOT?
21 MR. MIKE GABLE: If we want to
22 have the preconference this time next year we'll
23 get it done for you, but --
24 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Even that,
25 we've had a request for 5 and 6 and we haven't had
60
1 one yet.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: What do you want
3 to do with that, Bob?
4 MR. McHALE: I wasn't aware that
5 PennDOT was not responding. Typically when we call
6 them, they even drop by.
7 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: You're
8 Tobyhanna Township. You're not some developer.
9 MR. McHALE: Let me call
10 PennDOT. We have the scope for 5 and 6. You're
11 saying basically we'll model that. So we can send
12 that scope or Peter Terry can send the scope to
13 them to look at first.
14 MR. MIKE GABLE: You can
15 coordinate with Pete Terry directly to get what you
16 want.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: You will
18 coordinate with them for the traffic study?
19 MR. McHALE: Yes.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Go ahead.
21 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Next one,
22 stormwater management. Mike, you want to talk
23 about this?
24 MR. MIKE GABLE: Bob, I think
25 when they collated my packages they neglected to
61
1 put the predevelopment stormwater analysis in there
2 for you.
3 MR. McHALE: I saw that.
4 MR. MIKE GABLE: I apologize for
5 that. Do you have the post development maps? I
6 emailed you some of them along with the overall
7 view. Did you get that?
8 MR. McHALE: Yes, but trying to
9 print it out -- I did get the hard copy, but I
10 don't have the predeveloped.
11 MR. MIKE GABLE: Right. We
12 talked about the infiltration test, trying to get
13 that done. The fencing, they were put in -- some
14 around some of the basins, I think the basin, Bob
15 correct me, it's just sections -- the only one
16 where it's specified would be Phase 2, Section 3.
17 That was something we talked about. It's not
18 something that's required under the tentative
19 approval. And I think Ed wants to talk to you
20 about that.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: How deep are
22 your basins?
23 MR. MIKE GABLE: The basins
24 themselves are about 6, 8 feet deep. They are a
25 wetland bottom basin. It think there is three
62
1 basins.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: So there would
3 be a foot of freeboard.
4 MR. MIKE GABLE: I think 18
5 inches of freeboard, if my memory serves me
6 correctly.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: What would you
8 like to talk about?
9 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: How silly
10 it is to do these basins in the first place that
11 don't hold water.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll agree, but
13 go ahead.
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Number one,
15 and when you have all these wetlands, why can't you
16 divert the water through them, number two. And
17 number three, where Westminster just was, they put
18 up a split rail fence to keep kids out of there.
19 Now, come on. That's what I want to talk about,
20 how stupid all that is.
21 MR. McHALE: I think the split
22 rail fence has a chain link fence around it as
23 well, does it not, Mike?
24 MR. MIKE GABLE: Split rail is
25 supposed to have the chicken wire fence, chicken
63
1 wire mesh.
2 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: It wasn't
3 when I was down there.
4 MR. McHALE: Well, I think it's
5 in place like that.
6 MR. MIKE GABLE: I don't know.
7 I haven't seen the fence.
8 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: So my
9 question was, is fencing required in the law?
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think it's
11 been the position, anything over three feet would
12 require fencing around it.
13 MR. McHALE: That's in the
14 subdivision land development regulations.
15 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Which don't
16 apply to this.
17 MR. McHALE: But safety does
18 apply to this.
19 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Oh,
20 absolutely. I'm not making that issue. I'm
21 wondering if there is a better solution.
22 MR. McHALE: You can present
23 other solutions.
24 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Okay. All
25 right.
64
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Did we skip 17.
2 MR. MIKE GABLE: Nope.
3 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: No
4 pedestrian pass. That's the stormwater, and
5 obviously we'll sign the stormwater management
6 agreement and the trust takes care of the
7 maintenance of these stormwater bunkers.
8 Anyway, 19 is resolve.
9 Twenty has to do with 5 above
10 which has to do with the water, sewer and the
11 certification and all of that. I don't know
12 whether really if 20 applies to us or to Aqua.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: It says the
14 applicants shall comply.
15 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: With all
16 DEP regulations regarding construction, operation
17 and maintenance of the sewage disposal system.
18 When this was written, I owned it, but now Aqua
19 owns it.
20 MR. MIKE GABLE: Aqua did
21 provide their commitment to connect and all the
22 facilities are all existing. The township already
23 does have all the permits on file. Every single
24 application has been filed subsequently.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'll look into
65
1 that.
2 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I'm sure
3 that's what you will find.
4 Anyway, 21 is a traffic impact
5 again. Twenty-two is resolved, 23 is resolved, 24,
6 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 is resolved.
7 Thirty, I gave tonight Bob a
8 copy. Every time we come back we update the thing.
9 And we also, on an annual basis, update the phasing
10 schedule, dates and all of that, every August.
11 Thirty-two, we'll provide
12 obviously those permits wherever we require it. We
13 don't have a Labor and Industry. Pretty much all
14 we have is the Conservation District, I guess. And
15 33 is resolved.
16 Bob, the last one, community
17 standards, is this about the loop road again or is
18 this something else?
19 MR. McHALE: The community
20 standards for the roadways.
21 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: So its the
22 same thing.
23 MR. MIKE GABLE: Bob, I'm
24 assuming you noticed the pervious pavement
25 specifications on all the cul de sac roads? I just
66
1 want to explain that to the board.
2 We are proposing pervious
3 pavement. I don't know if you've heard of it.
4 It's new technology -- well, not new, but more
5 widely used now. Basically you put down -- your
6 pavement section has a lot less of a smaller
7 aggregate, a lot less tar and underneath that
8 paving you put a sand gravel layer. It allows
9 water to go directly into the pavement and go into
10 the table below. It acts more like a lawn than
11 traditional pavement. The proposed road throughout
12 the development, with the exception of the one way
13 road we were talking about, are all proposed to be
14 pervious pavement. The roads along the center,
15 because they are being placed over top of existing
16 dirt roads and will have no benefit of this
17 technology because you can't get stormwater to
18 percolate through a hard compacted surface that's
19 been driven on for over 50 years now, are proposed
20 to be traditional paving, non pervious paving. I
21 just wanted to make sure that you're aware of that.
22 It is something that's slightly different. I don't
23 know that the tentative approval specifically tells
24 you what pavement specs you use, Bob. I don't
25 remember. Just something all the way from Phase 1
67
1 A, dating back 10 years I believe.
2 MR. McHALE: I don't remember
3 seeing anything that would say you couldn't use
4 porous pavement.
5 MR. MIKE GABLE: I want to make
6 sure everyone was aware of that.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else
8 from you?
9 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: No.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, any further
11 comments?
12 MR. McHALE: Not at this time.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Everyone
14 has things to look at. Any comments from the
15 board? Questions? Anything from the public. We
16 need a motion to table.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: We do have an
18 extension of time dated January 25, '07 it looks
19 like.
20 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Yes.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're going to
22 be resubmitting a revised plan, I suppose with --
23 MR. MIKE GABLE: Some of the
24 turn offs.
25 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: What we
68
1 discussed here tonight?
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
3 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Yes.
4 MR. MIKE GABLE: We are going to
5 put together conceptual plans for submission to the
6 different authorities throughout the township, the
7 fire department and emergency services. We'll let
8 them say yes we agree, no we want this, this, this,
9 and then what the plans are because it is labor
10 intensive to update 34 sheets.
11 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Thank you
12 folks.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move to table.
14 MR. RIEKER: Second.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion
16 and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
17 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Dunkin Donuts
22 land development plan. Are we still tabling this?
23 MR. McHALE: Yes. We received
24 an extension this afternoon, I believe.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have received
69
1 an extension to the plan for the Dunkin Donuts land
2 development plan. So we need a motion to table.
3 MR. RIEKER: So moved.
4 MR. MILLER: Second.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
6 second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
7 MR. MILLER: Aye.
8 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
9 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Pinecrest Lake?
12 Anyone from Pinecrest? What are we doing with
13 Pinecrest?
14 MR. MIKE GABLE: This is the
15 Phase 4.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: I just have
17 Pinecrest Lake.
18 MR. McHALE: I don't recall that
19 being accepted by the planning commission. That's
20 the one with the subdivision, 4 lots or 3 lots.
21 MR. MILLER: Yes.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Looks like they
23 are going to resubmit 2