Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, April 3, 2008, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, 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: We'll call the
2 regularly scheduled meeting of the Tobyhanna
3 Township Planning Commission for Thursday, April
4 3rd, 2008 to order.
5 First order of business is
6 approval of the February 7, 2008 and February 21st,
7 2008 minutes. I believe we only received the 7th.
8 Did anyone --
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: I did. I saw
10 the 21st.
11 MS. SINCAVAGE: Since we all
12 haven't seen those, I'll entertain a motion for the
13 approval of the February 7, 2008 meeting minutes.
14 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
15 motion.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
17 to the motion?
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
20 favor please say aye.
21 MR. MILLER: Aye.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
23 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
25 Then we'll have the February
3
1 21st on our agenda for the next month.
2 Did you have an announcement
3 that you wanted to make or do you want to do it at
4 the end?
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: We can do it at
6 the end. That's fine.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: First order of
8 business, Arcadia Lot 100. And I'll turn the
9 meeting over to Joe at this point.
10 MR. McDERMOTT: Hi. I'm Chris
11 McDermott, Reilly Associates. I'm here on behalf
12 of Arcadia Properties in regard to the land
13 development plans for Lot 100 and Lot 110. Within
14 the last month we've resubmitted plans to your
15 engineer. He's provided us a review letter. Most
16 of those comments, I'm going to say all the
17 comments with the exception of outside agency
18 approvals, we believe we can resolve with Bob
19 within the next month. So I'm going to be asking
20 that both the Lot 100 and Lot 110 plans be tabled
21 tonight.
22 There is one issue that Bob and
23 I were discussing this afternoon that we thought we
24 may want to bring up with the board and get your
25 input on. This is an issue that we had discussed
4
1 once before regarding the placement of screening
2 material. Along the northern boundary of Lot 100
3 it adjoins the residential district. When a CI
4 District and a proposed commercial use within that
5 district adjoins a residential district, you're
6 required to provide a 20 foot wide buffer screen
7 and that screen is required to be placed in a 100
8 foot wide buffer. The buffer is required to remain
9 in it's natural state. There are two sections in
10 the ordinance which really define that. There is a
11 section in the CI Zone which requires the screen
12 and that it be part of a 100 foot buffer and the
13 definition further describes what you can do in the
14 buffer. It restricts you in some ways.
15 Now, we talked about the
16 placement of the screen and the only reason we are
17 really proposing the screen is this area is all
18 wooded, but it's deciduous woods, and we felt that
19 we may want to supplement that with some type of
20 evergreen plants.
21 I think a couple months ago we
22 were here and we discussed just where we place
23 those, where would be the most effective place to
24 place the vegetation. Now, here I have it shown
25 down along the edge of the 100 foot buffer. This
5
1 is the property line. Here's the 100 foot line and
2 we've shown the trees here. I had come two months
3 ago and we discussed about whether we put the trees
4 down here at the buffer or that we put them up on
5 top of the hill, close to the edge of the pave. I
6 think we all agreed at that time that it would be
7 more effective to put them close to the pavement.
8 The difficulty came in relationship to the buffer
9 and that the ordinance specifically states that the
10 screening has to be part of the buffer and that the
11 buffer is restricted and that you can't do certain
12 activities, you have to keep it in its natural
13 state. If we extended the buffer up to the edge of
14 pavement, you can see I'm doing all sorts of
15 grading in that area and it also restricts the
16 property a little bit further than the client would
17 actually desire.
18 So we wanted to come and talk
19 tonight about maybe some ways, either with
20 language -- that we could satisfy the ordinance and
21 still place the evergreen screening up close to the
22 pavement. And Bob and I and Patrick just spoke
23 briefly about maybe some ways we could do it and
24 I'd like to get maybe the board's input on what
25 your thoughts would be. I think that what we would
6
1 like to do is place it up here and subject
2 ourselves to the provisions that if those trees
3 were ever moved, that they would have to be
4 replaced within the 100 foot buffer strip or some
5 other location as approved by the township. And,
6 you know, I would like to know, is that concept
7 acceptable to you and then maybe we can work with
8 Patrick and Bob and try to come up with some
9 language that would, you know, allow that to
10 happen. But first I want to run it past you and
11 say is that okay with you.
12 MR. BAXTER: Why would they be
13 moved?
14 MR. McDERMOTT: I don't know. I
15 can't see that far into the future, but if I say
16 they can't be moved, I'm going to bet there is
17 going to be some reason we want to move them. But,
18 again, when I place them here, you can see I'm
19 going to have a lot of fill step down, so that's
20 not going to be in a natural state. That's going
21 to be in a manmade slope. So I'm worried that I
22 wouldn't be maybe meeting the provisions of that
23 buffer strip. But if I place them here as either a
24 supplementary screen and that supplementary screen
25 should become disturbed, then we have to provide
7
1 the screen down here.
2 MR. MILLER: Bob, how do you
3 feel about that?
4 MR. McHALE: Well, one of
5 thoughts that we were discussing was that the
6 buffer strip, that's the 100 foot width, be
7 extended to the back of the curb, because it's not
8 an easement, it's a strip that's to remain in its
9 natural state and we thought that maybe Pat could
10 come up with some language that would state, like
11 today, if it actually turns out to be 210 feet say,
12 which would reach the back of the curb, then that
13 way the language would state something to the
14 effect, and Pat, you can help me out on this, that
15 it could be reduced down in the future to no less
16 than 100 feet and with the replanting of that
17 vegetation that was behind the back of the curb.
18 So if they wanted to push that pavement out and add
19 some additional parking or your drive aisle behind
20 the back of the curbs, something to that effect,
21 this way it would be fulfilling no less than 100
22 feet. It would be a part of the 20 feet and it
23 kind of meets all that criteria. So that was one
24 thought. And, Pat, I don't know if you have any
25 other comments.
8
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, it's
2 something that we have to think about and maybe put
3 some creative language in there, because,
4 understandably, the applicant is a little worried
5 about having the entire buffer strip set so he
6 cannot disturb any vegetation, but if there is a
7 way we can extend that buffer to a 200 level, but
8 they give the applicant the ability in the future,
9 if need be, to decrease it down to the minimum 100
10 buffer, if there is a way that we can word that.
11 MR. MILLER: You think we can do
12 that and satisfy the ordinance?
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think so,
14 because like Bob said, the ordinance indicates that
15 the minimum is 100 feet. If the applicant wants to
16 make it 200 foot buffer, they can. Then the strip
17 of the screening can go within that 200 strip.
18 We'd have to come up with some kind of language.
19 MR. McDERMOTT: It's sort of a
20 two tiered buffer. We are going to create a 200
21 foot buffer where the primary 100 foot remains in
22 its natural state and the secondary 100 foot will
23 contain the screen. And alteration to that would
24 be limited to as approved by the township.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: And then in the
9
1 future, if there were to be any disturbance and if
2 those trees are removed, it would also require the
3 applicant to replant those trees wherever the
4 buffer is decreased to, not to exceed, you know,
5 not to be less than the 100 foot buffer that's
6 required.
7 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't foresee
9 him needing that because I was looking at the plan
10 and Bob and I were talking, I guess it's fairly
11 sloped down.
12 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes. Even
13 within this area, if I was to come down and plant
14 the trees in there, I'm going to have to clear --
15 there is probably 40 to 60 foot high trees in that
16 area, Mark.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: That area.
18 MR. McDERMOTT: If I had to
19 clear it, I would essentially create a narrow
20 tunnel.
21 MR. McHALE: You wouldn't
22 necessarily clear it, you'd try to plant in
23 between.
24 MR. McDERMOTT: Within it.
25 MR. McHALE: But then to get
10
1 them to grow --
2 MR. McDERMOTT: Right, you will
3 have lack of sunshine and they may not thrive.
4 MR. McHALE: Chris, why don't
5 you show them on your aerial where the evergreen
6 areas are.
7 MR. McDERMOTT: There is
8 evergreen area right here. You can see the darker
9 green. Evergreen here. You can see it goes from
10 deciduous and then evergreen up. There is a
11 mixture through the woods, but it's variable and
12 this is a larger area where there is minimal
13 evergreens.
14 MR. MILLER: Comments from the
15 board?
16 MR. BAXTER: Makes sense.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: All right with
18 me.
19 MR. MILLER: I think the board
20 is happy if we can come up with a language that
21 they are looking for.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: You know where
23 he's planning for the screening? He pointed it
24 out. Along the parking, along that drive.
25 MR. McDERMOTT: Right. We do it
11
1 right in this area, adjacent to and partly down
2 that slope, which I think would look good because
3 if you got two tiers of trees with not only them
4 staggered, but staggered in elevationwise, I think
5 that that would create a more solid screen
6 immediately and in the future.
7 MR. MILLER: Where you put that,
8 will that block lights from the residential, lights
9 above your pave.
10 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes. I would
11 put a row close so that we get -- you know, the
12 lights will be up about this high. We have five
13 and a half, six foot trees.
14 MR. McHALE: Chris, I think your
15 drawing on the back of your board has the old plan
16 that was presented with it showing --
17 MR. McDERMOTT: Actually, I
18 think -- oh yeah, we did have that.
19 The berm in this area had
20 changed slightly because of some of the
21 restrictions that the conservation district had put
22 on us requiring some berming or flat areas within
23 the berm, so we had to extend it further out. But
24 I could pull those up a little bit closer, so you
25 can see it was immediately adjacent to the parking
12
1 area. This is where you would see the lights,
2 right in here.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: It sounds like
4 you would be agreeable to some kind of --
5 MR. McDERMOTT: The two tier
6 approach makes sense where we have certain
7 limitations in one tier, and certain limitations or
8 requirements in the other, and recognize that there
9 is some flexibility and really ensures the
10 continuation of the primary one.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: We'll just have
12 to figure out the right language to use and whether
13 to put it as a note or have it separate, you know.
14 We'll have to come up with the best way --
15 MR. McDERMOTT: If Bob can
16 contact you and work that out, we intend to be
17 addressing Bob's comments as quickly as possible.
18 We'd like to be in a position at next months
19 meeting to ask for action on the plan.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: Now, I know you
21 said you're going to be addressing all of Bob's
22 comments. I guess his latest review letter for Lot
23 100 was April 2nd and his review letter for Lot 110
24 was March 19th and March 5th?
25 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes.
13
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Would it be
2 beneficial to go through those letters tonight,
3 Bob, at all, in detail, or just that was the main
4 issue?
5 MR. McDERMOTT: I think most of
6 these things have to do with, you know, very
7 specific things on the plan. Location of a light
8 fixture, addition of -- duplication of language or
9 correction of language. Design the water system.
10 That's probably the most significant technical
11 comment. Many of these other comments, Bob, I
12 think can be addressed very quickly.
13 MR. McHALE: Yes. But keep in
14 mind too, Chris, that you still have stormwater and
15 traffic, and those kinds of items are all part of
16 Lot 100 as well as Lot 110, that when they
17 submitted the stormwater report, it was a combined
18 report that addressed both Lot 100 and 110.
19 MR. McDERMOTT: Right. And I
20 think we've gotten your comment letter on the
21 stormwater and on both.
22 MR. McHALE: For both, yes.
23 MR. McDERMOTT: Actually, we've
24 addressed about 90 percent of that. I really
25 wanted to submit back to you yesterday, but we had
14
1 computer issues.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Are you going to
3 be sending revised plans and resubmittal to him on
4 both 100 and 110?
5 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: And you're going
7 to look for action by this commission on both lots?
8 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes.
9 MR. MILLER: I think we don't
10 need to get into the comments tonight because
11 you're going to address them. Let's save that for
12 the next time, whatever might be remaining.
13 MR. McHALE: Chris, you may want
14 to update the planning commission on the PennDOT
15 meetings, discussions and the location of the road
16 that would tie into 115, because that would impact
17 the land development layout and plans as well.
18 MR. McDERMOTT: We did a
19 preliminary submission of the plan to PennDOT.
20 PennDOT had one very significant comment. That was
21 they would like us to pursue an additional entrance
22 to the development. And it's not because they want
23 two entrances, it's because they were concerned
24 with the proximity of the existing Commerce
25 Boulevard entrance to the ramp of I-80. And what
15
1 they said is that, if sometime in the future there
2 was signalization at the I-80 ramp and a signal
3 here, that they would be very close together.
4 Now, Dennis Toomey said there
5 are no plans for a signal now and he doesn't know
6 if there will ever be plans within the immediate
7 future, but he thinks that there could be plans
8 sometime in the future. He didn't know when. But
9 he's asking us to see if there is another location
10 for an entrance along 115 that we could have a
11 light. So we are looking at that now. The only
12 location really that would create more separation
13 from this, that is available along 115, is the area
14 immediately to the north of the police station.
15 And that is on a down grade and slightly around the
16 curve. So we are placing an entrance there and we
17 are examining that from a plan point of view, from
18 a safety point of view, from a sight distance, how
19 much sight distance can we provide there, what
20 would be the operational characteristics of that
21 intersection, and we are going to present that
22 information, because what PennDOT said was pursue
23 this alternate access and see if there is a viable
24 alternate access point. And we are looking at
25 that. And this location certainly has some
16
1 significant challenges to it. And we are going to
2 present that information to Bob, and then we are
3 going to present it to PennDOT. And I think that
4 in the evaluation of that, we have to look at the
5 overall safety of putting a driveway entrance here
6 versus the -- I'm going to say the conflict or the
7 congestion or really the inconvenience of having a
8 light here and here.
9 A good example of this is, as
10 you go up to 380 and 940, there is a light
11 immediately adjacent on the southern side. Is that
12 really that awful a condition compared to this?
13 And we have to analyze it so that PennDOT can weigh
14 that. But we are going to address that comment
15 with PennDOT.
16 MR. MILLER: We go by what
17 PennDOT wishes on this project? Is that what I
18 understand?
19 MR. McDERMOTT: Well, PennDOT
20 certainly controls the access to 115 and, I mean,
21 we have to address their concerns. And often times
22 PennDOT will -- and they'll require this -- listen,
23 all the books say this is the best condition.
24 Provide us the best condition. And we have to take
25 that and we have to apply it to the real world.
17
1 Sometimes there has to be or there are concessions
2 to the best, and perhaps 380 and 940 are an example
3 of that. There is a light within, I don't know,
4 300 foot, 200 foot, in that location. There are
5 ways that you can coordinate lights that you
6 interconnect them through wire connection, you can
7 interconnect them through radio connection. You
8 can do all sorts of things. Is it the best thing
9 in the world to have a light and a light within 500
10 feet of each other? No, it's not. But is having a
11 light and a light within this distance more of a
12 hazard than having an intersection there? That's
13 what we have to evaluate.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: The only other
15 thing I mentioned to you earlier is, currently we
16 have a time extension until May 12. You're looking
17 for a recommendation from this commission at
18 their -- I think it's May 1st is the first
19 Thursday.
20 MR. McDERMOTT: Yes.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think it's
22 been the township's past practice not to throw
23 something on the board of supervisors' agenda the
24 meeting immediately after the planning commission.
25 I talked to you, if you would talk to your clients
18
1 about getting another extension, maybe 30 days, if
2 you do get a recommendation next week. But be sure
3 to talk to your client about that.
4 MR. McDERMOTT: I will do that.
5 With that, I'd ask that the land
6 development plan for Lot 100 and 110 be tabled;
7 that we be permitted to work with your
8 professionals to resolve the water issue and
9 outstanding engineering comments.
10 MR. MILLER: Do I hear a motion
11 to table Lot 100 and 110?
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
13 MR. BAXTER: Second.
14 MR. MILLER: Motion and second.
15 All in favor? Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
18 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll abstain.
20 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you Joe.
22 Moving on to open projects. Wee
23 Wons Day Care expansion. I see we have a letter
24 from the Army Corp in our packet acknowledging that
25 there is no federally regulated wetlands that will
19
1 be disturbed by the proposed land development. Is
2 that correct, Bob?
3 MR. McHALE: I don't have that
4 letter in front of me, but I believe that's
5 correct. They spoke to the jurisdictional aspects
6 of it.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So they must
8 have changed their plan from the last time I saw
9 it. The last time I think this board saw it, they
10 were proposing filling wetlands.
11 MR. McHALE: Yes. It would
12 still need to coordinate the DEP in that regard.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't think
14 we've seen anything -- any revised plan from this
15 applicant for quite sometime. They had to go
16 before the zoning hearing board to get their
17 special exception, which I think they did, with
18 some conditions. But since then I don't think
19 we've received any revised plans. So if they have
20 changed, I don't think we are aware of that yet.
21 MR. McHALE: The fourth
22 paragraph in this letter from the Corp indicates
23 that based upon information you've provided in the
24 above referenced jurisdictional determination, it
25 has been determined that the proposed project
20
1 described in your submission will not require the
2 approval of this office since it does not involve
3 regulated activities in federally regulated waters
4 or wetlands.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just note that
6 for the record. I also note for the record that we
7 received a letter from -- a copy of a letter from
8 Jeri Inness, that was addressed to Phyllis,
9 concerning the access to the Wee Wons Day Care
10 Center, making reference to an overgrown tree size
11 shrub blocking the left hand turn out of the one
12 way exit onto State Route 423. Just acknowledge
13 that letter.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Do we know whose
15 property this is?
16 MS. HAASE: The vegetation that
17 you're speaking of is actually on Mr. Dembinski's
18 (phonetic) property. It's my understanding, last
19 week, they did sign an easement agreement between
20 Mr. Dembinski and Cathy Guydish. So she will be
21 responsible for maintaining that.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Wee Wons?
23 MS. HAASE: Correct.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
25 I guess we are tabling this.
21
1 I'll entertain a motion to table
2 Wee Wons Day Care expansion preliminary/final land
3 development plan.
4 MR. MILLER: So moved.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
6 to the motion?
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
9 second. All those in favor please say aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
12 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
13 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Glorious Church,
16 both the land development and conditional use
17 application. As you know, that's been on hold
18 since actually before my time, but the township did
19 review the suggested zoning changes from Glorious
20 Church. The board of supervisors did not feel it
21 was in the best planning interest of the township
22 and notified Glorious Church and now we are just
23 waiting to -- I sent out a letter to Marc Wolfe,
24 the attorney for Glorious Church to see what the
25 status is and whether or not they are going to move
22
1 forward with the plans, now that they know the
2 position of the township with respect to their
3 suggested zoning changes. So nothing new on those
4 two projects has come in.
5 Entertain a motion to table
6 Glorious Church land development plan.
7 MR. MILLER: So moved.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
9 to the motion?
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
12 second. All those in favor please say aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
18 The conditional use application,
19 do you want to table that or are you going to talk
20 to them, did you say?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: They are doing
22 both land development and conditional use
23 concurrent, so.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
25 motion to table Glorious Church conditional use
23
1 application.
2 MR. MILLER: So moved.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
4 to the motion?
5 MR. BAXTER: Second.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
7 second. All those in favor please say aye.
8 MR. MILLER: Aye.
9 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
13 Lands of Elaine Brockett. We
14 haven't heard any update.
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: No. We are good
16 on time with that. It was my understanding that
17 she was in the process of switching or
18 contemplating switching engineers, which I guess is
19 the hold up on that plan. But, no, we haven't
20 received a new plan or revised plan on that plan.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
22 motion to table the Lands of Elaine Brockett final
23 land development.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
24
1 to the motion?
2 MR. BAXTER: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
4 second. All those in favor please say aye.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MR. MILLER: Aye.
8 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
10 Land development plan for L&B
11 Partnership.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: We have a review
13 letter from Bob McHale. We haven't -- I don't
14 believe L&B Partnership has been before you yet. I
15 think Bob's letter was two months ago.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: The plans were
17 received January 4th. It was probably in January
18 sometime.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: January
20 sometime. So that I don't know if you wanted me to
21 send them a letter and see if they are planning on
22 addressing his comments to the plan or let it go
23 another month and see if they resubmit a new plan.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: How are we on
25 time?
25
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: We are okay on
2 time. They did sign a time extension.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you know how
4 far we are okay? Oh, here it is.
5 MR. BAXTER: We haven't actually
6 seen the plans.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: No.
8 MR. BAXTER: But it has been
9 accepted complete?
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: It was submitted
11 on January 4, 2008. I don't know that it was
12 complete.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: There is a
14 review letter. There were a lot of deficiencies in
15 the plan.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: The time waiver
17 is needed by June 1st, 2008. So we are good. I'll
18 entertain a motion to table.
19 MR. MILLER: So moved.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second to the
21 motion?
22 MR. BAXTER: Second.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
24 second. All those in favor please say aye.
25 MR. MILLER: Aye.
26
1 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
3 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
5 Brick City review of stormwater
6 and access.
7 MR. McHALE: They had submitted
8 revised plans for both stormwater and the access as
9 well as the response letter to PennDOT. We
10 received that last Thursday. I'm currently looking
11 at that.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: The plans were
13 received after our cutoff date.
14 MR. McHALE: Yes. This is the
15 land development plan per se. It's reviewing those
16 major conduits.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we don't need
18 to table this. It's more informational.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yep.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Then we have new
21 business. Pat has a couple things for us.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: I have a few
23 things. If you remember there's two ordinances
24 coming up for adoption and public hearings before
25 the board of supervisors this month. One of them
27
1 was an amendment to SALDO for deadlines for
2 inactive plans, basically putting a six-months time
3 period for inactive plans. We've discussed it
4 previously at prior planning commission meetings.
5 I think everyone understands what the ordinance is.
6 If there is any other comments or concerns or
7 recommendations, this meeting would be the time to
8 discuss them.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: We've been over
10 it. We did make our comments.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: The purpose of
12 the amendment was because of some of these plans
13 that have been sitting on the agenda for a long
14 amount of time without the applicant resubmitting
15 plans; to give the township an avenue, SALDO
16 provision that gives the township some leverage to
17 put some duty on the applicant's part to move these
18 plans forward. So you're still in agreement that
19 it should be done by the township?
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Any comments
22 from the public? I will reiterate your
23 recommendation to the board of supervisors.
24 And another ordinance that's up
25 for adoption and a public hearing before the board
28
1 of supervisors at their April meeting, is a zoning
2 map change. I don't know if you remember the Creek
3 View Estates subdivision plan, three-lot
4 subdivision. Subsequent to their subdivision being
5 approved, they petitioned the township to consider
6 a zoning map change. There is a public hearing
7 held and the board of supervisors seem to be in
8 agreement that the proposed zoning map was
9 appropriate. It's changing their property and a
10 portion of a neighboring property's property from
11 R2 to commercial.
12 MS. HAASE: Correct.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's up for
14 public hearing and possible adoption before the
15 board of supervisors at their April 14th, 2008
16 meeting. I'm not sure if the planning
17 commission -- I know we discussed it at the
18 subdivision stage. Did we discuss it after they
19 petitioned?
20 MR. BAXTER: I don't think we
21 did.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Not after they
23 petitioned, but we did discuss it and we thought it
24 was a good idea to rezone it, but --
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: It's been sent
29
1 to the Monroe County Planning Commission and the
2 planning commission was in agreement with the
3 proposed change. The surrounding properties -- I
4 don't know if you can get it out --
5 MS. HAASE: I'll grab my map.
6 They are proposing to move the
7 R-2 line.
8 MR. BAXTER: So it doesn't
9 affect any other property?
10 MS. HAASE: There is two
11 residential properties. This one here is split
12 between C and residential.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think all
14 surrounding properties are commercial with the
15 exception of the R-2, of the remaining third lot
16 from the subdivision.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: This is township
18 property.
19 MS. HAASE: Correct.
20 MR. BAXTER: There is some
21 discussion about this.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: I believe the
23 properties have been posted. It's been advertised
24 for public hearing on April 14th. Like I said, the
25 Monroe County Planning Commission has reviewed the
30
1 ordinance, submitted their comments on it.
2 MR. MILLER: It makes sense to
3 me.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will see
5 it's not just the Creek View property, it's also
6 that little out parcel from the neighboring
7 property. What the ordinance -- the amendment is
8 just a zoning map amendment. It amends that
9 portion of the property from R-2 to commercial.
10 Any comments from the public?
11 Open it up to the public. I believe
12 recommendations would be in line.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
14 motion to approve the resubdivision from R-2 to
15 commercial per the presentation by Pat Armstrong.
16 MR. MILLER: So moved.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
18 to the motion?
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
21 second. All those in favor please say aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
24 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
25 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
31
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's all I
3 had. You were all at the joint work session with
4 the board of supervisors on the Act 167 Plan. I
5 believe we are still in the process of putting
6 together those changes. Once those are done --
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob had sent out
8 an email to us all from Chesapeake Bay about the
9 riparian buffers, and I thought that that was
10 interesting that the buffers had a range as opposed
11 to what the original 167 had a very specific one.
12 So I'm comfortable with the range that we are
13 proposing, that we all kind of agreed to and
14 finally got to, and it's kind of reinforced by the
15 Chesapeake Bay report.
16 Anybody want to discuss that any
17 further? Okay.
18 Anything from the board members?
19 MR. BAXTER: Anne and I went to
20 a session on the official map. We were talking
21 just informally about that beforehand. I copied
22 one of the handouts they gave us. It gives a
23 little bit of information about that. I didn't
24 know whether our governing body had given any
25 thought to doing something along those lines in our
32
1 township, meaning the supervisors. Tunkhannock
2 is -- actually their draft map was one of the
3 examples. Chestnuthill is one of the other
4 townships that has adopted it and worked with it.
5 So I just was curious if there had been any
6 discussion in our township about doing that.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Can I get a copy
8 of that?
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: There was
10 discussion when the comprehensive plan was done
11 being developed, the regional comprehensive plan
12 was being developed and there was some
13 presentations, some information was given to the
14 task force in regard to that. I think everyone was
15 just trying to get through the regional
16 comprehensive plan. That's kind of a reverse step
17 anyhow in order to start developing the official
18 map. I think that's just where it was.
19 Now, I don't know where we are
20 with the regional comprehensive plan either.
21 MS. HAASE: I don't either.
22 MR. BAXTER: The county is
23 waiting for the intergovernmental agreement. Do we
24 have any idea where that stands? It sort of seems
25 a shame to have all that time and effort put into
33
1 the regional comp plan and sort of gets stalled
2 again.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, I think
4 this is good information and maybe we can look over
5 this and discuss it a little bit further at the
6 next meeting.
7 Anything else anybody wants to
8 bring up?
9 Anything else? If not I'll
10 entertain a motion to adjourn.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
13 to the motion.
14 MR. MILLER: Second.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
16 favor please say aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
20 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
21 (Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.)
22 ---
23
24
25
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 I hereby certify that the
10 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
11 accurately in the notes taken by me at the hearing
12 in the above matter, to the best of my ability; and
13 that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript
14 of the same.
15
16
17
18 JOSEPHINE HOLLMAN, C.R.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25