Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, May 7, 2009, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
ANNE LAMBERTON, Board Member
PATRICIA M. RINEHIMER, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll call the
2 regularly scheduled meeting of the Tobyhanna
3 Township Planning Commission for Thursday, May 7,
4 2009 to order. Are there any general public
5 comments anyone cares to make?
6 Next item is approval of the
7 March 2009 minutes. We received them
8 electronically. There is a copy up here if anyone
9 would care to see them. Do I have a motion to
10 approve?
11 MR. MILLER: I make a motion we
12 approved the minutes as submitted.
13 MRS. LAMBERTON: I second it.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion
15 and second. All those in favor, please say aye.
16 MR. MILLER: Aye.
17 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
18 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 Second item on our agenda is
21 Lands of Route 940, Pocono Motor Sports.
22 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Good evening.
23 I'm Mark Robbins representing the plans. The owner
24 couldn't be with us tonight.
25 We did get our second review
3
1 from the township engineer. Did we want to go
2 through the items or -- a lot of them are add 10
3 foot dimensions -- things like that.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're talking
5 about the township engineer's review letter dated
6 May 5th, 2009?
7 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes.
8 One of the first comments
9 relates to the lighting plan that we had done and
10 foot candle readings were a bit over the half foot
11 candle allowable beyond property lines. For some
12 reason I didn't even notice that. Usually we use
13 the same company that put that note in there, but
14 they've redone that. They said it's on its way. I
15 didn't have it for tonight's meeting. It has been
16 updated.
17 We did add the note for the
18 second comment that there is no well within the 100
19 feet of that reserved septic area that we've shown.
20 We've updated the notes. I'm just going down the
21 line here. About lighting, that it is in fact
22 metal allied and that's been put on the plan. But,
23 again, I want to bring a plan with everything on
24 it. So that's part of the things for tonight's
25 meeting.
4
1 We've added a note about no
2 additional noise, fumes or emanating odors shall
3 occur from the development. Pocono Motor Sports is
4 presently storing all of their stock, ATVs and
5 motorcycles across the street and at the other
6 buildings.
7 The next comment asks us to add
8 the 10 foot dimensions on the plan; and asked that
9 we clearly label 5 spots for the display of cars to
10 be sold, car sales. We've done that.
11 Next page. This is one of our
12 typical waiver requests for location of 500 feet
13 and its mentioned here that the request appears
14 appropriate for the project. That is requested in
15 writing on the plan.
16 We did send in to the office a
17 copy of the PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit,
18 however we did not send a copy of the final one
19 checked off, that everything has been completed.
20 So we'll have to look that up. We'll get that to
21 the office, but I do remember talking to him.
22 Monroe County Conservation
23 District, we are waiting their final review.
24 Next one is another one of those
25 waivers modification requests. Development 500
5
1 feet. And again it's mentioned that it appears
2 appropriate for this project and it has been listed
3 on the plan.
4 Next one -- I jumped ahead. To
5 provide the executed copy of the highway permit,
6 which we will do.
7 On the lighting plan, we did not
8 show a detail for the mast pole and foundation that
9 has been added.
10 Next, again, L and M
11 modification request listed on the plan.
12 Now we get to proposed
13 landscaping, and we do show on the plan, in the
14 front, that's a land development plan. Do you have
15 a lighting --
16 MS. HAASE: No, sorry, I do not.
17 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Well, pull it
18 down like you had it. In the front, we do
19 illustrate -- you can see it says landscaping area
20 in the front. And we have different shrubs
21 proposed.
22 MR. McHALE: Do you have it on
23 the screen? They have it on their screen.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have it on
25 our screen. There is an updated.
6
1 MR. MARK ROBBINS: You see the
2 different shrubs on there?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Mark, you're
4 lining them all up.
5 MR. McHALE: There is no trees
6 in that particular area, just shrubs. I want the
7 planning commission to know that.
8 MR. MARK ROBBINS: They are
9 lined up. When you have limited space, you use up
10 what space you have. I can see staggering for
11 screen, but how many places do they stagger trees
12 in front?
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: How much area do
14 you have there?
15 MR. MARK ROBBINS: About five
16 feet.
17 MR. McHALE: Ten feet of green
18 area from the property line to the pave.
19 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I'm saying
20 five, with the shrubs and -- okay, there is 10
21 feet. You want to see them staggered in and out
22 for 10 feet?
23 MR. McHALE: I think he's trying
24 to screen those car headlights too from the parking
25 spaces, so --
7
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: What type of
2 shrubs are proposed? Is it on the plan?
3 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes. It's at
4 the bottom of the plan.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: I see it there.
6 MR. MARK ROBBINS: That's
7 lighting.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Where are the
9 trees placed?
10 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I don't have
11 any trees in the front. It's all shrubs.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, I'm
13 looking at -- it's saying 9 trees, Norway spruce
14 and one --
15 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Right. You
16 have to look at it the other way. Look at my
17 symbol and you will see on the plan --
18 MR. McHALE: Mark, I think there
19 is 7 of them in this area.
20 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Right.
21 MR. McHALE: There is a couple
22 trees there.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: I see the other
24 symbols down here.
25 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I have got a
8
1 symbol on the actual plan for each one, designating
2 the trees, shrubs and a mixture of trees and
3 shrubs. We didn't put trees right in the front.
4 We put them in front of the six spaces Bob pointed
5 out, plus we put them in this landscaping with
6 shrubs, over here on the other side of the
7 property.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone have any
9 comments on that? What we are suggesting is
10 putting some trees along there. I don't know --
11 how long is that area?
12 MR. McHALE: There is 14 parking
13 spaces, so probably --
14 MR. MARK ROBBINS: 140 feet.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: So maybe like 3
16 trees along that?
17 MR. MARK ROBBINS: You want to
18 see all mixed in, some type of -- like a fruiting,
19 blossoming --
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. And it
21 looks like you have a barrier along front which
22 would block out the headlights.
23 MR. MARK ROBBINS: You want it
24 staggered.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: See what you can
9
1 do.
2 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yeah, I'll
3 make it look more staggered.
4 MR. BAXTER: The post and rail
5 fence goes along the entire property or just going
6 along the eastern edge?
7 MR. MARK ROBBINS: It's just
8 where that -- yes it stops at the drive, goes from
9 the property line, adjoining property line to the
10 driveway. That's existing.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: You have a small
12 landscaped area off here to the side too.
13 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yeah. So
14 there is actually three.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right there?
16 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that new?
18 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Actually,
19 there are some shrubs and trees there right now.
20 We'll enhance it a little bit.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Anyone
22 else have any questions on the landscaping? We are
23 okay with a couple of trees there in the front
24 staggered a little bit.
25 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Copies of
10
1 deed restrictions, your typical -- there won't be
2 any, you know, notes. You should have all those,
3 the state, federal permits necessary. We can
4 provide the township with elevation and floor plans
5 for the proposed storage building as well. We'll
6 get that together for the next meeting.
7 The last comment on this page,
8 about general note 16, I mentioned the handicapped
9 parking only. The sign will be put up. Violators
10 will be fined 50 -- actually it's 50 minimum, 200
11 maximum. I have actually done a detail of that
12 sign and put it on the plan as requested.
13 The last page, water management,
14 we'll get two signed sealed copies, colored --
15 MR. McHALE: The reason we
16 need --
17 MR. MARK ROBBINS: --
18 photography.
19 MR. McHALE: Yes, for the
20 photographs. But for the hydrographs, where you
21 have multiple hydrogrphas on a single sheet, you
22 can't read it.
23 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Brick and I
24 talked today. He said he'll make that all color as
25 well.
11
1 Next comment, we have in fact
2 changed the owner's acknowledgment and gotten rid
3 of the word substantial.
4 Then we get into the maintenance
5 agreement which I have touched base with your
6 solicitor on. We can get started on that. And
7 we'll get the checks together. Who do we make the
8 check out for the 350 stormwater municipal fund,
9 Tobyhanna Township?
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
11 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Stormwater
12 Management Fund or just Tobyhanna Township
13 Supervisors?
14 MS. HAASE: Tobyhanna Township.
15 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I had a
16 conversation today, which these next two comments
17 are discussing. I have talked to the fire chief,
18 Troy Counterman and also with Bill Weber at the
19 building inspection office. They both agree -- at
20 this time there is about 1100 gallon storage of
21 water requested, because we don't quite have what
22 is needed for the particular gallonages that's
23 figured for the three buildings. It's only about
24 1100 some gallons. So they feel putting a small
25 tank in to store water isn't the best way to
12
1 resolve that because it's a tank, they put their
2 hose in and in less than a minute it would be
3 empty. They said a better way to resolve that is,
4 and if need be we'll get a letter from Locust Lake
5 Village, Pilgrim Lake is right up the road, that is
6 what they would be doing anyway, they have a dry
7 well there, to draw water when needed for the fire
8 rescue purposes. Is that something that the
9 commission would agree to?
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's
11 actually -- it's a building code issue. You're
12 going to have to resolve it with the building code
13 inspector and get some kind of confirmation from
14 him that he's satisfied.
15 MR. MARK ROBBINS: They said
16 they would be happy with this, but they said the
17 township has to say so.
18 MR. McHALE: Sometimes they will
19 allow you to put in a firewall or petition off
20 differently internal to the building to bring that
21 volume down, so you don't exceed the 1100 as well.
22 That's something you can work out with Guardian
23 Inspection Services.
24 MR. MARK ROBBINS: So what
25 basically they agree to and then I'll have to get
13
1 them to put something in writing as to what you're
2 satisfied with?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: This board
5 doesn't have the ability or jurisdiction to
6 override the International Building Code or any
7 other code.
8 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Gallonage.
9 But I guess the next one, Chapter 73, Fire Lanes,
10 you would, which I have talked to them as well. We
11 did get the letter from the building codes officer.
12 MR. McHALE: No. The Fire Lanes
13 for the International Fire Code, Bill Weber's
14 already addressed as far as fire apparatus. The
15 widths are adequate. And for access around the
16 building, that was also adequate according to his
17 letter. The fire lanes here are simply to stripe
18 on the pavement, put a couple signs up in some
19 strategic areas to keep people from parking up near
20 the building and that kind of thing.
21 MR. MARK ROBBINS: We'll put
22 that six foot strip -- what your chapter calls for.
23 I have already listed that on the plan.
24 MR. McHALE: Excellent.
25 MR. MARK ROBBINS: And
14
1 development agreement, which again we'll work out
2 the final with the board of supervisors. That's
3 the end of the comments.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think you also
5 need to resolve your reserved septic area with the
6 board of supervisors.
7 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't think
9 that's been finalized either.
10 MR. MARK ROBBINS: No. We'll
11 write that in the development agreement. That
12 we'll get started. We'll get at least one copy
13 ready so they can read it, see if they are in
14 agreement. That's what we touched base on today,
15 at least. Yes, we are aware that needs to be added
16 to the development agreement and spelled out so
17 everybody agrees how we are going to take care of
18 the reserve area, the fill area and any securities
19 necessary.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: So the reserved
21 area, the proposed reserve area will go here?
22 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Correct.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is the
24 setback here?
25 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Well, you
15
1 could see --
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: 25 there, but
3 this is coming into the 25.
4 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Well, that's
5 a building setback.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: I understand
7 that. So what is the setback for the septic area?
8 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I had it at
9 about 15 feet away. And what I did is, I figured
10 the bed and the berm, that's the outline you're
11 seeing, so that nothing should go beyond that.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, that's
13 okay?
14 MR. McHALE: John Brogan is
15 going to be involved in this portion of it as well
16 as when the development agreement is put together
17 with those provisions on this reserved septic area
18 and he'll be able to add some additional comments.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Any
20 comments? Questions?
21 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I realize
22 there were three pages here. Most -- actually,
23 today addressed most everything, but I'm waiting
24 for the lighting plan to come through so I can get
25 that in final form and get it off to you. You
16
1 know, I feel we pretty much addressed the main
2 issues. If the board agrees, if we could move it
3 forward, that's what I expected today.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I know that's
5 what you expected.
6 Is this a preliminary plan
7 submission or preliminary final?
8 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Preliminary
9 final.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is the
11 pleasure of the board? Do you want to ask the
12 applicant to come back next month and table it till
13 they get this a little more cleaned up or are we
14 comfortable making a recommendation based on a few
15 outstanding items?
16 MR. McHALE: If you all decide
17 to move forward with a recommendation conditioned
18 upon meeting all these items, I would just like to
19 ask that we get a date specific, Mark, that you
20 would agree to turn in these cleaned up plans by
21 like the 14th of next week, the 14th or 15th, that
22 we include that in the motion, if you all decide to
23 go in that direction.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: As well as
25 provide the -- I think we are still waiting for the
17
1 HOP.
2 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes. I think
3 we need to find the --
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: And something
5 from Guardian with respect to water.
6 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yeah, as long
7 as they can get me their letter. They are the one
8 that actually suggested that we just get a letter
9 from Locust Lake for the additional gallonage
10 needed.
11 MR. McHALE: If this were to go
12 before the board in June, I don't want to see
13 things drag on to where it's incomplete, pieces are
14 missing and they are a week before their meeting,
15 and it creates issues.
16 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes. By the
17 15th.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: So if you don't
19 have everything completed to the township by the
20 15th, it will be on our agenda for June. Do you
21 understand that? Does that seem fair?
22 MR. BAXTER: That seems fair.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, if you
24 make a recommendation tonight, it won't be on the
25 agenda in June.
18
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: If he doesn't
2 get all the things into the township by the 15th,
3 then he'll come back to us.
4 MR. BAXTER: That's a week. You
5 can do that?
6 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I'm going to
7 have to. I got a date. He said 14th, 15th.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: Make it a
9 condition of your recommendation.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: And the waiver
11 request has been submitted in writing?
12 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Yes. They
13 are on the plan.
14 MR. BAXTER: If you can get the
15 communications to Locust Lake done in a week?
16 MR. MARK ROBBINS: I will
17 certainly try. I can call them tomorrow and get it
18 going. Do you really need that or just the letter
19 from the fire chief and building officer that
20 that's how they would like to resolve that issue?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, the
22 township is going to need something because if the
23 building code inspector is not going to agree to
24 whatever alternative you're coming up with, he's
25 going to tell you you need this 1100 gallon water
19
1 storage facility on his property. And if you don't
2 like that, you can either appeal it or somehow come
3 up with it.
4 MR. MARK ROBBINS: We actually
5 had this discussion today. Both he and the fire
6 chief thought that was a good remedy.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: The township
8 will need something from Guardian indicating that.
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: What about
10 Wagner's.
11 MR. MARK ROBBINS: Well, I said
12 Wagner's and he said half the time they suck air
13 from that dry well, so he didn't want to. That was
14 my first suggestion.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: So what I'm
16 hearing the board say that we'll entertain a motion
17 to approve the -- recommend approval of the land
18 development plan for Lands of Route 940 known as
19 Pocono Motor Sports, conditioned on meeting all of
20 the items in the May 5, 2009 letter from the
21 township engineer; and we recommend approval of
22 waivers SALDO Section 135.12.D.2 and SALDO Section
23 135.15.A.15, SALDO Section 135.17.L and M; and that
24 all items be turned into the township by the end of
25 business on May 15th. If they are not, then the
20
1 applicant will come back to the planning commission
2 for their June meeting; and adding the three trees
3 as discussed; and that they reply with the Guardian
4 request for the additional water usage for the fire
5 system.
6 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
7 motion.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
9 Do I have a second to the motion?
10 MR. BAXTER: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
12 second. Any discussion? Any comments from the
13 public? All those in favor please say aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
17 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Next item on the agenda is
20 Trevdan Building Supply. Anyone here representing
21 them?
22 We did receive a letter from
23 them requesting that it be tabled for tonight.
24 I'll entertain a motion to table Trevdan Building
25 Supply preliminary final land development plan per
21
1 the applicant's request.
2 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
4 Second to the motion?
5 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
7 second. All those in favor please say aye.
8 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
13 Next item, Kush and Sunny.
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
15 Chris McDermott here on behalf of the applicant,
16 Kush and Sunny.
17 This plan has been before the
18 planning commission for quite sometime. I believe
19 you are all quite familiar with it, so I won't go
20 over reviewing the plan. We have been busy the
21 last month addressing outstanding comments,
22 particularly we have resolved road access issues
23 that included the integration of a one way access
24 onto Hemlock. We've been working with Guardian
25 regarding fire access through that location. We
22
1 have been also working with Guardian regarding fire
2 storage for water. We've now proposed three 12,000
3 gallon tanks. Guardian had indicated that the
4 required storage would be 32,500 gallons. We
5 exceed that now.
6 We have also been working on
7 details on the plan regarding lighting and signage
8 and I believe Bob has had a chance to look at those
9 items.
10 We've addressed sewer capacity
11 issues within the existing collection system, and
12 that information has been forwarded to Bob and I
13 believe that is satisfactory. Bob did have a
14 comment under his stormwater regarding obtaining a
15 jurisdictional determination for the wetland
16 boundaries. We have performed or actually Lisa
17 Sparren (phonetic) had previously done a wetland
18 delineation in accordance with your ordinance on
19 this property. We discussed a JD and a JD process
20 with the planning commission, I think two months
21 ago, and particularly we discussed a preliminary JD
22 which the corp may offer. I have been in contact
23 with Elaine Moyer. I sent her the necessary
24 paperwork. A visit was scheduled for today at 12.
25 Elaine could not make that due to I believe an
23
1 illness with her daughter, so that process is under
2 way. What that entails is going out in the field
3 and physically marking where the wetland
4 delineation is. The Army Corp. would come and
5 anoint that line or to a degree. It is not the
6 same level as a full JD because now full JDs can
7 take well over a year. But they did something
8 called a preliminary jurisdictional line which they
9 say, well, this is a line which we don't believe
10 wetlands go over, but they don't go as far as to
11 say what a jurisdictional line is. So it's a
12 watered down version, I guess, but we have that
13 process under way.
14 We have submitted a traffic
15 impact study to the township. I believe, Bob,
16 that's under review.
17 MR. McHALE: Yes, that's
18 correct.
19 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
20 We've previously discussed four waiver requests.
21 And, forgive me, because I don't remember whether
22 the planning commission took action on those waiver
23 requests or not. They are on the cover. I think
24 that you may have in your March meeting, but I
25 don't directly recall.
24
1 There are some other minor items
2 having to do with sign sealing on the plan, but I
3 believe we have taken care of everything except for
4 that outstanding agency approval with the PennDOT
5 HOP. Of course the township traffic engineer --
6 who is your traffic engineer?
7 MR. McHALE: L and V
8 Engineering.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: L
10 and V Engineering. I guess they've had that since
11 the 16th of April and they are taking a look at
12 that. So what I've asked for tonight is a
13 conditional recommendation for approval so that we
14 can move on to the supervisors' level.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just for the
16 record, this is a preliminary submission that
17 you're asking for a conditional approval on?
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Go ahead, Bob.
20 MR. McHALE: I was just going to
21 request Chris to give the commission an overview of
22 the traffic study and the results of the traffic
23 study.
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
25 Well, a traffic study is the traditional traffic
25
1 study in which you would go out and do traffic
2 counts within the area and then you do a
3 calculation of the traffic generation, how much
4 traffic would be generated by this development.
5 MR. McHALE: Just the results.
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
7 Well, I don't even have a copy with me, but the
8 results are that we are proposing traffic
9 mitigation and that mitigation would be a center
10 left hand turn lane along Route 940 from about the
11 area in front of the bank stretching all the way to
12 the intersection where the Wawa is.
13 Now, PennDOT would traditionally
14 just require a left hand turn lane, I think we've
15 reviewed this at the last meeting, but in
16 discussions with PennDOT about the existing roadway
17 width and potentially permitting a 4 foot shoulder
18 rather than a 6 foot shoulder, they would be
19 amenable to that if we provided the center left
20 hand turn lane for that entire distance, which
21 would be most beneficial to the others in the
22 immediate surrounding area. In other words, the
23 Hemlock Drive people could benefit from it, the
24 Moose Crossings across the street, the Dunkin
25 Donuts. So it's a much more beneficial improvement
26
1 rather than just doing a left hand turn for this
2 development. It actually provides left hand turns
3 for everybody.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Chris, on the
5 traffic study, it's still being reviewed. First, I
6 understand that the plans were submitted after our
7 cut-off date for this month.
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: That
9 would have been -- I think they were submitted on
10 the 16th.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: The last review
12 letter that this commission has is dated March 4th
13 of '09. Basically it's my understanding that you
14 submitted your revised plans after the cut-off
15 date. So we don't have an updated review letter at
16 this point to go by.
17 MR. McHALE: We'll be getting
18 the traffic study review comments.
19 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: What
20 was the cut-off date?
21 MR. McHALE: 14th.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, it was the
23 16th, but you submitted it on the 17th.
24 MS. HAASE: Tuesday, April 16th
25 was the cut-off date.
27
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: So
2 we'll get the review tomorrow?
3 MR. McHALE: You will have the
4 review for the next month's meeting, if that's what
5 you're asking.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just so you
7 understand, we'll review it tonight and give you
8 our comments, but I have to point that out for the
9 record. Okay?
10 Bob, do you want to go over the
11 traffic study, what you wanted to discuss with us?
12 MR. McHALE: Yes. The
13 commission has a packet in front of them. I was
14 anticipating that Chris would go over this, but
15 I'll just highlight a couple items that I had seen
16 just briefly.
17 If you look at the second page
18 of that packet that's in front of you, that's kind
19 of the report card, if you will, for the levels of
20 service on the left hand side. This is Table 1 in
21 the middle of Page 2. The signalized
22 intersections, that is seconds of delay for each of
23 the basically levels of service listed A through F.
24 If you go to the next page, Table 13 identifies the
25 p.m. peak hours future at the year 2015, future
28
1 without development conditions. So if the
2 development was not to go in, this is what we would
3 anticipate to see, the west bound left turn lane
4 would be at level service E and we would have 57.9
5 seconds of delay. The overall intersection would
6 be a C with a 34.8 seconds of delay.
7 Now, if you turn to the next
8 page, you will see this is the 2015 p.m. peak hour
9 future with development, again, year 2015. The
10 west bound left turn lane goes to an F with 118.2
11 seconds level of delay. So it's almost an extra
12 minute of delay. The overall intersection goes
13 from a C in the without development conditions to a
14 D with development. And then if you look at the
15 Saturday, which is Table 14, it lists the west
16 bound left from an E, 61.7, to a 78.3 seconds delay
17 on that last sheet.
18 Second to the last page in the
19 report is, under A, mitigation improvements, it
20 says there are improvements that are needed to
21 maintain the level of service at the study
22 intersection during the build year and future year
23 condition. There were no identified drops in level
24 of service which exceed 10 seconds as directed by
25 strike-off letter 470-9-4 TIS guidelines, therefore
29
1 no mitigation improvements are required at any of
2 the study intersections. So the report is saying
3 that even though they are creating degradation of
4 the intersection, they don't believe that they need
5 to be responsible for any improvements.
6 Now, if you look at the last
7 sheet, which is an excerpt of page 29 of the
8 PennDOT strike-off letter, the right hand column
9 kind of goes through the application of the 10
10 second variance that's being allowed now by PennDOT
11 and in the first portion of it it's speaking to a
12 10 second delay variance for the overall level of
13 service at the intersection. As you get down into
14 the second paragraph and the latter portions of it,
15 it's speaking to -- and I'll just read a portion
16 it. It says, if the intersection level of service
17 meets the level of service requirements, applicants
18 may still be required to provide mitigation to
19 address critical lanes or approaches. The
20 locations where the level of service of the design
21 horizon year without development is level of
22 service F, the remedy shall provide an estimated
23 delay which will be no worse than the delay for the
24 design year without the development.
25 So, I think from the traffic
30
1 study portion of it, we still need to get a
2 complete review for this portion of it, and I think
3 that the planning commission would need to be
4 looking at the impacts to the intersection and then
5 take in light also the improvement that the
6 developer is proposing in front of development with
7 the left turn lane. And, Chris, as I understand,
8 are you still planning to do the left-turn lane
9 into Hemlock as well?
10 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It
11 would be a shared center left hand turn lane, per
12 PennDOT's request.
13 MR. McHALE: But it would also
14 service Hemlock. So you would have a left turn
15 that would continue to the east beyond Hemlock, as
16 it's shown on the drawing, correct?
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It's
18 a shared left-hand turn lane.
19 MR. McHALE: I understand that,
20 but you're not looking to cut it off at the
21 intersection of Hemlock as the drawing is showing.
22 You're continuing through.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
24 PennDOT required that you continue through the
25 intersection and provide the taper.
31
1 MR. McHALE: I know the study
2 indicated that the warrants were not met for left
3 turn lane for Hemlock, that's why I was asking that
4 you're still planning on doing that and PennDOT's
5 still --
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
7 PennDOT indicated that that's what it would like.
8 MR. McHALE: So those are kind
9 of items, and, again, we'll need to kind of defer
10 to the review that we'll get back from the traffic
11 engineer regarding the whole traffic study. But
12 it's just something that we need to keep in mind as
13 we look at the whole proportionate amount that the
14 developer is proposing. Right now there is nothing
15 being proposed for anything to be done with the
16 intersection of 940/115.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just to review
18 that, is it this lane here, this left-hand turn
19 lane, shared left-hand turn lane, is not required
20 under the warrants?
21 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
22 Correct.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: But the
24 developer is going beyond what is required under
25 the warrants in proposing. Now, one thing the
32
1 commission may want to look at is, do we want this
2 or would we rather see improvements down at
3 940/115, which it currently has the left-hand turn
4 lane right in front of Wawa.
5 MR. McHALE: There may be one
6 other item related to that too, Mark, is that they
7 may not have an option with Hemlock. PennDOT,
8 because the left turn tapers go into the
9 intersections, that's why they are being proposed
10 to extend that through the intersection and to
11 include that to Hemlock. It's not --
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's not an or?
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: In
14 order to develop the left-hand turn lane, if we had
15 just done a left, we would have had to develop a
16 taper through the intersection. They would have
17 required that road or lane development through the
18 intersection no matter what.
19 Now, Bob brings up some good
20 points about the PennDOT process and this -- any
21 degradation of service elsewhere will be examined
22 through the PennDOT HOP process and the township
23 will be fully involved in that. And those issues
24 sure can be discussed with the supervisors.
25 Now, it's interesting, PennDOT
33
1 has now embraced smart transportation, so they have
2 changed some of their guidelines. In fact, per
3 their February letter, they say now you don't have
4 to look ten years out, just look five years out.
5 And now we are not going to hold you to maintain no
6 delay, no increase or degradation. We are going to
7 give you 10 seconds leeway. But at the same time
8 they said we are not going to grant any waivers,
9 you have to provide mitigation, and they are saying
10 some of that mitigation may be other improvements
11 you do. In this case we are extending that
12 left-hand turn lane from our development all the
13 way back to 940. And I think that we are going
14 above and beyond the call of duty there. I think
15 -- and I think that that is an improvement for all
16 the businesses and all that use them in your
17 community. So I think we are mitigating and that
18 mitigation may go to speak to some of the
19 degradation that is at 940. And I think those
20 issues can be worked out with PennDOT and with the
21 supervisors because I think that has to occur at
22 the supervisors' level. I don't believe that any
23 of those improvements would affect the layout of
24 this property and the development as you see it,
25 within the confines of property. And that's why
34
1 I'd like to move forward with the plan and sort of
2 resolve those issues at the supervisors' level,
3 because, frankly, it may be a negotiation that
4 typically occurs at supervisors' level.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think you're
6 still waiting for comments from Guardian and the
7 fire department.
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: You have them?
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: They met the
11 requirements.
12 MR. McHALE: They added three
13 12,000 gallon tanks.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Go over to where
15 the tanks are. Right there. They put in three
16 12,000 gallon tanks with dry hydrants. The only
17 comment that I saw in Guardian's letter, they want
18 some sort of automatic refilling or monitoring of
19 what the current levels are of those tanks.
20 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We'd
21 be glad to work that out.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's in
23 Guardian's letter. Do you have Guardian's letter?
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
25 don't know that I have that latest one. I have had
35
1 the March one.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you have that
3 on there. It's dated April 18th. Just scroll
4 down. The proposed changes -- water level
5 maintenance and indicative devices. They said
6 that's something that can be worked out in the
7 building design stage.
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: That
9 would make sense. You'd probably want to integrate
10 that with a remote signal inside.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. So we are
12 okay with the fire.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I was
14 going by the March review letter.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
16 Also, going back to the traffic,
17 we have received a copy of the photographs and
18 comments from the residents that use that road and
19 specifically on the drop-off points for the school
20 bus, which we have pictures of. There are
21 residents here. Do you care to make any comments
22 at this time?
23 MS. DINA LAKE: A member of our
24 community, Linda Weben (phonetic), is the one that
25 took these pictures. Linda couldn't be here
36
1 tonight, as well as some of the other parents from
2 our community because of school and practice and
3 all those kinds of obligations. There is a recital
4 at TEC or something too. So they would like to
5 express that they are all supporting this flier and
6 what it is stating as far as the situation on the
7 street.
8 The pictures -- I don't know how
9 many of you are familiar with that area, but the
10 pictures here are at the corner of Hemlock and 940.
11 And the bus arrives from 940, going in a west
12 direction, stops between Hemlock and Greenwood
13 Acres entrance/exit and the parents line up -- if
14 you'd scroll down a little bit to the bottom
15 picture, the parents line up from Hemlock and go
16 down Hemlock all the way that way. So Palmerton is
17 behind them there. Their proposed entrance, now
18 exit only, from the parking lot of the proposed
19 building, would essentially come out where that
20 last car is parked, the fourth car there. So the
21 cars, they just park on the side of the road and
22 that's how they pick up the children. The
23 children, some of them get picked up by car, some
24 of them walk. Some of them walk down Hemlock, some
25 walk across the street to Greenwood Acres. So the
37
1 kids are walking in that area, you know, playing in
2 that area. Hemlock is one of the few level streets
3 in the area. The kids all come down Hemlock and
4 ride their bikes and their skateboards,
5 specifically, on Hemlock for that. And we are just
6 concerned about the increased traffic that way, but
7 also, mostly, because now the entrance/exit, exit
8 only, will be going out onto Hemlock, going towards
9 940 and at those peak times when the bus is there
10 it's at least what, four times a day.
11 MS. DIANE LAKE: We'll get three
12 different schools and twice a day for the three
13 different schools. We don't have any more, you
14 know, 12 -- noontime, because we have all day
15 kindergarten.
16 MS. DINA LAKE: But the cars are
17 there multiple time throughout the day, which, yes,
18 this is going to be a banker's hours kind of
19 business, but that is when the kids are in school,
20 that's when the parents are picking them up at the
21 bus stop. Originally we were trying to figure out
22 a way where we could think of some sort of idea
23 where this exit would work onto Hemlock, but the
24 more we all thought about it and got input from the
25 parents and everyone who is going to be, you know,
38
1 greatly impacted by this, they all said they just
2 don't feel safe with that entrance/exit being
3 there. They don't feel, you know, that that's
4 going to be conducive for the neighborhood, safe
5 for the kids.
6 And originally, last meeting,
7 one of the other people, I forgot her name, she had
8 mentioned it's not necessarily required that they
9 have to have this exit onto Hemlock. If it comes
10 down to, you know, the board decides they can't
11 have it, you know, then we'll deal with the one
12 entrance/exit they have on 940. They even said
13 themselves it's not required. They would just like
14 it due to the flow of traffic. But we don't feel
15 that the flow of traffic is going to impact our
16 neighborhood in a positive way. It will be
17 dangerous for the kids. It will be dangerous for
18 the parents. It's going to cause congestion when
19 the school buses are there, because you have to
20 stop. You can't go while the school buses are
21 there. So that's going to increase the congestion
22 not just on 940, now people who are leaving the
23 parking lot into Hemlock are going to back up
24 there. And we just feel that if the planning
25 commission is going to take a look at the proposed
39
1 plan, that seriously consider that exit onto
2 Hemlock. And we would really appreciate it if you
3 would take a look at these pictures and just really
4 get an idea, a feel of what kind of congestion that
5 would cause with regard to the parents' cars, the
6 kids and the patrons of the business. Please, we
7 don't want the exit.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I just want to
9 correct one thing you said, we have received a
10 review letter from the fire codes enforcement
11 officer and they do say that a secondary road is a
12 requirement.
13 MS. DINA LAKE: It is required
14 for fire?
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: To meet -- it
16 actually says --
17 MS. DINA LAKE: Does it have to
18 be open all the time?
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll read it to
20 you so we have it in the record.
21 It says, in meet, but I think
22 they mean, to meet compliance with the fire
23 apparatus access road, a one way exit onto Hemlock
24 Road is proposed. This is shown as a 20 foot wide
25 means of travel which can be utilized by emergency
40
1 vehicles as a second means of access and egress
2 from the site. Signage is also shown to designate
3 this as a fire lane.
4 MS. DIANE LAKE: Another
5 developer that was going to be developing on 115
6 just off of Ferncrest, you had decided there that
7 that would be gated or chained. Why can't that be
8 done here?
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: It can be.
10 MR. McHALE: Is that the McElroy
11 project? They're not going to be doing that.
12 MS. DINA LAKE: Was that
13 decision because of regulations or just a decision
14 because of convenience and what that person
15 building wanted?
16 MR. McHALE: It was a number of
17 factors. One was a fire code as well. I'm just
18 bringing that up to clarify that.
19 MR. BAXTER: But it would have
20 worked, Bob, had they not chosen to do it
21 differently?
22 MR. McHALE: We would probably
23 want to verify that with Guardian Inspection
24 Services, but that is a possibility.
25 MS. DINA LAKE: Is there
41
1 anything that's going to -- you said signage. Is
2 this going to be a fire entrance/exit only
3 emergency. Is there anything going to stop the
4 general public from utilizing that?
5 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
6 We've integrated private road signs into our plan.
7 We've actually shown them on the plan. That was
8 really per -- we met with the group of neighbors
9 about two and a half months ago and we discussed
10 that --
11 MS. DIANE LAKE: You need more
12 than private, you know development. You need a lot
13 of children at play. People have to be aware that
14 they are on the street. Not that it's just a
15 private road, that they are going to come out to
16 children. And that has to be done too. So besides
17 that, whatever signage you come up with, if this
18 does go through, you need to make sure that people
19 are aware that they are driving into children,
20 because, as you see, the children that are out
21 here, some of them are high school students who
22 have gone out to get their siblings. The parents
23 haven't come out with a car. So they are standing
24 out there in the middle of the street. The problem
25 is they are so used to this, they have been doing
42
1 this for years, that to now all of a sudden have
2 this impact on that area -- the parents also make U
3 turns at that point to go back into the
4 development. So, just whatever -- if this goes
5 through, you have to think about the signage that
6 you're going to put there.
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: You
8 know, we'll definitely work with the township. If
9 there is children playing signs, I think that we
10 probably could integrate that.
11 MR. McHALE: Is that a full
12 scale drawing?
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
14 MR. McHALE: How far is it from
15 the access?
16 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: To
17 the development?
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does the school
19 bus stop at Maple Road and 940?
20 MS. DIANE LAKE: I don't think
21 so.
22 MS. DINA LAKE: No. They stop
23 where they do because it is a stop point for us and
24 for Greenwood Acres. It's a way for them to be
25 able to come get their kids and drop off their kids
43
1 as well as our development.
2 Some of them do turn into
3 Greenwood after that stop, yes, but then they go
4 down further down past the storage facility, all
5 the way down there and stop down there. So they do
6 have a stop inside Greenwood Acres, yes.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Chris, do you
8 have an agreement to access that private road?
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes,
10 we've been working on it.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: They do not have
12 a signed agreement, but you have been working on
13 it.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will need to
15 provide that to the township.
16 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
17 As well as a sewer connection. The distance from
18 this driveway to 940 is approximately 150 feet. So
19 that's relatively close. This doesn't extend up
20 Hemlock a great distance. We had spoken about
21 putting another speed bump in. I'm sure if your
22 children are playing in the road, I would imagine
23 they are playing up closer to the other side. I
24 don't think --
25 MS. DIANE BLAKE: It's mostly
44
1 during this time when the school bus is there,
2 they are in that area, yes. But that's a lot of
3 children.
4 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: If
5 it's like my neighbor, the school bus is there, I'm
6 there at 6:30, 7:30 and 8:15 -- that's what my
7 school bus duty is.
8 MS. DINA LAKE: I believe 8:30
9 is a pick up and then I think there is one more
10 after that too. There is an early one.
11 MS. DIANE LAKE: Because we have
12 an elementary, a middle school and a high school
13 and they are all picking up and dropping off.
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
15 That's occurring partially over the peak morning
16 hours. Now, for the business end of this, the
17 business hours for a bank occur after that, in the
18 morning.
19 MS. DINA LAKE: I can tell you,
20 I work for a bank. We are 9 to 5, but there are
21 plenty of branches that are 8 a.m. as well. So it
22 all depends on what bank you bring in there.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: And
24 in the afternoon, the banking is mostly done
25 earlier. So I think you have limited impact with
45
1 this type of use.
2 MS. DINA LAKE: I don't see
3 that. You have a three lane drive-through proposed
4 for that bank, and have said all along you have an
5 ATM and two drive-through lanes. I work in a bank
6 that has two drive-through lanes and the ATM is
7 inside the branch, and we are one of the busiest
8 banks in the neighborhood. And the amount of
9 traffic that comes through our drive-through, if
10 you guys get comparable traffic through that bank
11 and all those drive-through people are going to
12 come out that exit, it's going to be considerable
13 traffic coming through that area on a daily 9 to
14 five, if the bank is open 9 to 5 basis.
15 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
16 see you're parking on the shoulder and doing
17 U-turns and things. I mean they are all safety
18 concerns on how you're operating the neighborhood.
19 So I think working together, we are trying to make
20 this better for everybody and benefit this business
21 who will benefit the community.
22 MS. DIANE LAKE: We realize
23 that, but we don't want to wait until a child has
24 been hit by a car and then say, well, we better
25 close that and not do it. We want every single
46
1 thing to be considered to make sure that it is a
2 safe area for our community.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
4 owner has indicated before he wants to work with
5 the community. He wants to be a benefit and asset
6 to the community. So he continues to try to make
7 it as safe as possible, as safe as we possibly can.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Go ahead,
9 Mr. Bockius.
10 MR. BOCKIUS: It's all wrong.
11 You know, you're sitting up there as a developer.
12 This is not right what you're saying. Why wasn't
13 Palmerton allowed to come out on Hemlock, the bank?
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
15 can't speak for --
16 MR. BOCKIUS: Because that's a
17 private road. Who is going to maintain Hemlock?
18 Are you going to plow the snow from your lane?
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's going to
20 be an agreement between the applicants and --
21 MR. BOCKIUS: I'm here to gather
22 information. That's what I'm doing.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
24 Hemlock is a private road owned and maintained by a
25 private entity.
47
1 MR. BOCKIUS: Right. I know
2 that.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
4 are negotiating or working with them to get
5 permission to access it, and part of that is the
6 maintenance aspect. Everybody else who fronts on
7 those roads have to pay for the funds for
8 maintenance and that would be part of the
9 agreement.
10 MR. BOCKIUS: It's still wrong.
11 Dunkin Donuts only comes in and out one exit.
12 They're going to have more traffic than you will.
13 They only have one entrance and exit onto 940.
14 Okay? Dunkin Donuts, Keswick Pointe only has one
15 entrance and exit on 115. It does have a back fire
16 lane that they closed off, correct?
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Correct.
18 MR. BOCKIUS: And look at all
19 the traffic that will be generated in Keswick
20 Pointe, but only one exit and entrance. Dunkin
21 Donuts, one. Why do you need two?
22 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It
23 would certainly enhance --
24 MR. BOCKIUS: No, no. Not
25 certainly. Why? Give me the exact reason why you
48
1 need two? That's all I want to know.
2 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
3 asked for two. We've been working with --
4 MR. BOCKIUS: But do you need
5 two?
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Sir,
7 if you're going to badger me --
8 MR. BOCKIUS: I'm not badgering.
9 I'm asking you questions. You're dancing around
10 everything. I want specific answers.
11 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: With
12 all due respect I've tried to answer you twice.
13 MR. BOCKIUS: Okay. You answer
14 me. I'm listening.
15 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
16 have been working through this exact issue with the
17 township planning commission and with the neighbors
18 for the past five months, speaking to these exact
19 concerns. And we've gone over, we've met with the
20 neighbors, the neighbors were very nice. They
21 understand --
22 MR. BOCKIUS: I'm not nice?
23 MS. DINA LAKE: Mr. Bockius is a
24 neighbor. He happens to be up a couple streets up,
25 but he's a neighbor. He walks that street on a
49
1 daily basis, sometimes two three times --
2 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Sir,
3 I think you're extremely nice.
4 MR. BOCKIUS: Thank you. I have
5 been a resident for 31 years.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's not get
7 into shouting matches. If you have a specific
8 question for the applicant, please ask it.
9 MR. BOCKIUS: Why he needs two
10 entrances.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Chris, would you
12 answer that, please.
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
14 second entrance provides optimum flow for this
15 development, for the bank to sweep through. All
16 right. The second reason we need two entrances is
17 the fire code requires two entrances through the
18 property.
19 MR. BOCKIUS: But why didn't
20 Dunkin Donuts and Keswick Pointe?
21 MS. DINA LAKE: And Bank of
22 Palmerton.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
24 Because of the size of the building.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: It is the size
50
1 of the building. Palmerton was before the fire
2 code was in effect, because the fire code is
3 relatively new for the township.
4 MS. HAASE: Mr. Bockius, if I
5 can answer that for you. Keswick Pointe and Dunkin
6 Donuts both do have a second entrance and exit.
7 That is gated and that's for emergencies only.
8 MR. BOCKIUS: Well, then this
9 one could be gated for emergencies only too.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes, it can. We
11 are still struggling, the commission is still
12 struggling with that.
13 MR. BOCKIUS: That would stay
14 within the same philosophy of the board and the
15 other developments, Dunkin Donuts and Keswick
16 Pointe, correct?
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are listening
18 to the applicant, we are listening to the neighbors
19 and we are trying to -- that's what we are
20 struggling with.
21 MR. BOCKIUS: Now, you build a
22 philosophy. Now you have a direction to go in.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's correct.
24 MR. BOCKIUS: Because it's
25 happened twice before.
51
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Phyllis, can you
2 put up the land development plan again?
3 Chris, right in this area here,
4 you have these three lanes of traffic coming into
5 one. We had asked you I think sometime ago why do
6 you have this here? Why can't this traffic come
7 out and go out?
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It
9 physically can. This flow of traffic would be an
10 enhancement. It would minimize conflicts within
11 the parking lot. It also provides, frankly, from a
12 traffic aspect, it provides dual access or egress
13 from the property site. And PennDOT is encouraging
14 that. You know, part of their smart traffic is
15 grid patterns, create areas for more relief for
16 traffic to move to, and that's what this does.
17 With the internal circulation only, you will bring
18 all the -- both the left hand turn movements out
19 and the right hand turn movements within the
20 development to that one point. With the other one,
21 you can split that. What happens when you split
22 that, gaps get formed along 940 which cars can make
23 their movement. If there is a gap, two vehicles
24 can take advantage of a gap as opposed to one. So
25 it relieves congestion.
52
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
2 Commission, do we have any questions here?
3 MR. BAXTER: Not at the moment.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have to take
5 this under consideration, I think, and we have to
6 come to a decision on what we want the applicant to
7 do because he has been working for quite sometime
8 to try to come to a resolution to this.
9 MR. BAXTER: Personally, I feel
10 that the gated approach would be a good resolution
11 from a traffic standpoint on Hemlock. The number
12 of kids and the number of bus stops and cars coming
13 and going, it's only likely to continue to grow.
14 And I know in our development, just with the few
15 people coming and going, when you've got somebody
16 who is pulled on the side of the road and then
17 backs out into the middle of the road to turn
18 around and go back into the development, it's just
19 a problem waiting to happen for somebody coming in
20 off the highway. And then you add to that regular
21 traffic coming out of the project and I think it's
22 a complication that personally I'd like to see us
23 avoid, if we could.
24 MR. McHALE: I just want to ask
25 a question about the school bus stop. They stop
53
1 there at that intersection of 940, Hemlock and
2 the --
3 MS. DINA LAKE: And the entrance
4 to Greenwood Acres.
5 MR. McHALE: And the reason they
6 don't go down Hemlock, is that because it's a
7 privates road?
8 MR. BAXTER: I would think so.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
10 ideal place to pick up students would be within.
11 MR. McHALE: As time goes on, I
12 mean, as the school district grows, that seems to
13 be one stop there on 940 which inherently makes,
14 you know, traffic issues of its own by stopping on
15 an arterial like that. And my question is, is
16 there a reason or has anyone approached the school
17 district about driving down into Hemlock and going
18 around the block and picking up students so they
19 are not right on 940?
20 MR. BOCKIUS: They would have to
21 go into Greenwood too.
22 MR. McHALE: I understand, Jim,
23 that's why I'm saying has anybody approached the
24 school district to do that, because that's not an
25 ideal bus stop.
54
1 MS. DIANE LAKE: The only time
2 they do come in is for the special students.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes, but I
4 thought you said that the school bus does go into
5 Greenwood Acres? Greenwood Acres is a private
6 road.
7 MS. DINA LAKE: It goes into
8 that one road that goes straight down Greenwood
9 Acres. Where it goes after that, I'm not sure.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: It turns around
11 in the parking lot at the playground and it drops
12 off students there.
13 MS. DINA LAKE: I believe so.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes, it does.
15 I've seen it.
16 MS. DINA LAKE: I don't know if
17 it was because there was more students coming out
18 of Greenwood, so feasibilitywise. But now there is
19 a lot more kids. The neighborhood has grown, it
20 has changed demographics. There are more children
21 in Old Farm Estates. Maybe Greenwood had more
22 children so the school district didn't see the need
23 to come down. They had them come to the corner.
24 Like you said, that's something you'd have to ask
25 the school. But either way, the kids are still
55
1 coming out of the community. Whether they do that
2 for elementary, middle school and high school, they
3 might make the high school kids walk to the corner
4 and come in for the elementary kids. Either way
5 it's still a school bus, because now you have a
6 school bus turning on the street. Now you have
7 traffic coming out of the parking lot. That's even
8 worse.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, we are
10 saying could it make a loop?
11 MS. DIANE LAKE: Chestnut to
12 Maple?
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Or it could come
14 in Maple and come down Anna and come back out on
15 Hemlock.
16 MR. McHALE: You would have the
17 stops at those other intersections, which would
18 make it a tremendous amount of traffic less than --
19 MR. BAXTER: You have two-way
20 traffic on both sides of this building. What's the
21 feasibility if that was a gated emergency use only
22 of the traffic looping basically in one direction
23 around the building so it might ease that flow a
24 little bit?
25 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
56
1 think -- I mean, we could look into that. I would
2 prefer to maintain a two-way access through. I
3 would likely have to provide the same amount of
4 pavement. It wouldn't reduce it, because it would
5 become a fire access.
6 MR. BAXTER: I was just thinking
7 the internal flow.
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: If
9 everybody has to egress out of the one side, I
10 think it could be a detriment. I don't know. I'd
11 like to ask my client that, you know, from a sales
12 standpoint. This man has to develop a property
13 that is interesting and desirable for tenants and
14 that could be a tenant issue that I would like to
15 discuss with him.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, also,
17 Chris, your applicant would not -- the applicant
18 would not have to put all this infrastructure in,
19 because over at Moose Crossings, theirs is
20 simply -- I think they paved it. They weren't
21 required to pave it, but they did pave it.
22 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: One
23 option is, I mean, we could do this and maybe
24 create a mechanism in which we review how it
25 operates afterwards and work with the residents. I
57
1 mean, if we find out that there are problems, maybe
2 it goes away.
3 MS. DINA LAKE: No because that
4 to me, that gives you what you want and then
5 afterwards you could say, oh, yeah, it's working
6 great. It's like giving a lollipop to the kid and
7 then saying, oh, let's see if they are allergic
8 after they eat half the lollipop. To me that
9 doesn't seem like a good solution, let's let them
10 do it for a little while and then say sorry, it
11 wasn't working.
12 MR. McHALE: One more thing to
13 keep in mind too is, with the amount of traffic
14 flow and the type of business that you're
15 proposing, if you try to funnel everything through
16 that one access point, then you're having people
17 that are waiting to make left turns onto 940 and
18 people that are trying to get out to make a right
19 turn onto 940 coming out of one access location.
20 When people begin to get frustrated with times and
21 with openings and gaps and such, they tend to take
22 more risks, which inherently induces a little bit
23 more of a safety issue if you have one access.
24 So, you know, as far as looking
25 into different opportunities, I think that trying
58
1 to get the school district to consider coming down
2 into the development and getting them off of an
3 arterial like 940, especially if they are going
4 into Greenwood right now, seems to make a lot more
5 sense than trying to restrict all the flow into one
6 location. Because the free-flow traffic coming
7 through the drive-through has an option to go back
8 to get on 940 to make a left or they can free-flow
9 out, make a right in front of Palmerton Bank. So,
10 those are things from a traffic standpoint I'm
11 saying that --
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
13 agree with you, Bob. I think that it's a very good
14 question or inquiry to the school district and I'll
15 be glad to draft a letter. I would like it if the
16 township would endorse the inquiry.
17 MR. McHALE: I think the
18 residents, it would be appropriate if they could
19 petition the school district because it would
20 certainly be a lot safer for the bus to come in at
21 an intersection that's away from 940, because as
22 time goes on, 940 is going to get busier and busier
23 as we've seen over the last decade or so.
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
25 think it's a valid question.
59
1 MR. McHALE: Why don't you all
2 work together.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
4 think that's a valid question whether that road is
5 there or not. I believe it's an extremely good
6 question.
7 MS. DINA LAKE: I disagree with
8 that, Bob. Just one little side note. I don't
9 think the residents should have to petition the
10 school. They want it, they should petition the
11 school.
12 MR. McHALE: Well, it's your
13 children, and it's a safer location if they are
14 down off of 940. So if you all work together,
15 you'd probably get a lot more accomplished by
16 having the school bus stop in your development
17 rather than at the fringe of 940.
18 MS. DINA LAKE: I agree with
19 you. But if we can get all the parents to come to
20 a consensus about things and be together as one
21 thing, we'd have them all here. To try to get all
22 the parents together with the school board will
23 take time, which he probably doesn't want to have
24 to take time either. I'm just giving you the full
25 picture.
60
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Got
2 all the time in the world. It's taken this long.
3 MR. BOCKIUS: Plus Mark, again,
4 your philosophy was one in, one out at Dunkin
5 Donuts and Keswick Pointe and gated for
6 emergencies. That was this board's philosophy.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just for the
8 record, the board -- I took a straw poll here and
9 the board's recommendation is that that be a gated
10 emergency only access, based on the information we
11 heard from the residents and what we heard.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I'd
13 ask for a conditional approval with that
14 recommendation.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: We can't give
16 you that conditional approval on the entire plan
17 for tonight because you submitted plans late and we
18 do not have a review letter from our township
19 engineer. So the latest letter we have is back in
20 March. So we need a current review letter which
21 wasn't completed.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: It'll give the
23 traffic consultant time to incorporate that into
24 the engineer's review letter.
25 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: All
61
1 right.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: The traffic
3 study is not only being reviewed for PennDOT, it's
4 being reviewed for the township. Understand that.
5 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
6 understand that.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we need to
8 see the comments from that traffic study. Okay.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
10 Thank you for your sometime.
11 Please, if you have any other --
12 you can contact me. I think I have given you my
13 contact information. When I say we have all the
14 time in the world, it's a little facetious. This
15 developer has expended a lot of time, effort and
16 money. This is a tough economy. Things do need to
17 move forward and I'd appreciate everybody's help
18 and the township's help on that, just in
19 recognition of the times.
20 MR. BAXTER: And you might,
21 given time, together with him, if you did talk to
22 the school district, I think everybody wins if the
23 buses come in and pick your kids up.
24 MS. DIANE LAKE: Well, if they
25 started and then they need us to sign off and get
62
1 the support, we can get whatever you need for us to
2 sign or whatever, but --
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
4 would gladly write the letter to the school
5 district, however, developers often don't get the
6 attention that private residents or townships
7 would. I think it would be beneficial if either
8 the township endorsed the question --
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think we are
10 getting a little bit off target here. Everyone
11 understands the concern.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
13 Could Bob or the township join with me in writing a
14 letter of inquiry to the school district?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: That will be a
16 question for the board of supervisors.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's beyond
18 us.
19 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Move
20 me on to the supervisors. I'll go.
21 MR. McHALE: Excuse me. One
22 more item. Is there a homeowners association?
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, there is
24 not.
25 Okay. I'll entertain a motion
63
1 to table Kush and Sunny land development plan,
2 preliminary land development plan.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
4 Thank you for your time and consideration.
5 MR. MILLER: So moved.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second the
7 motion.
8 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
10 favor please say aye.
11 MR. MILLER: Ay.
12 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
16 Next item on our agenda under
17 open projects, Wee-Wons Day Care Expansion.
18 Anything new to report? We have an indefinite time
19 waiver, so we'll do what we traditionally do. I'll
20 entertain a motion to table Wee-Wons Day Care
21 Expansion preliminary final land development plan.
22 MR. MILLER: So moved.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
24 to the motion.
25 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
64
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
2 favor please say aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
5 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
6 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
8 Glorious Church land development
9 plan. Same situation. We have an indefinite
10 waiver, so that I'll entertain a motion to table.
11 MR. MILLER: So moved.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Do I
13 have a second to the motion?
14 MR. BAXTER: Second.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second. All
16 those in favor please say aye.
17 MR. MILLER: Aye.
18 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
19 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
20 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
22 Glorious Church conditional use
23 application. I'll entertain a motion to table.
24 MR. MILLER: So moved.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Do I
65
1 have a second to the motion.
2 MR. BAXTER: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second. All
4 those in favor please say aye.
5 MR. MILLER: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
8 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
10 Locust Ridge Quarry, 940
11 Contractors Shop preliminary land development plan.
12 We haven't heard anything and the time waiver is
13 indefinite also. We'll entertain a motion to
14 table.
15 MR. MILLER: So moved.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Do I
17 have a second to the motion?
18 MR. BAXTER: Second.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second. All
20 those in favor please say aye.
21 MR. MILLER: Aye.
22 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
23 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
24 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: John McElroy
66
1 preliminary final land development plan. We are
2 okay with time waiver?
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I think
4 their time runs out sometime in June, but you're
5 okay. Let me make sure. June 9th.
6 It's also right after a board
7 meeting, so you're okay.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
9 motion to table.
10 MR. MILLER: So moved.
11 MR. BAXTER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
13 second. All those in favor please say aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
17 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Questions?
20 MR. BOCKIUS: Bob, what was the
21 question you had or the statement you had about
22 them coming on to Ferncrest Road? They took that
23 out -- this is McElroy.
24 MR. McHALE: McElroy is looking
25 for full access off of Ferncrest and full access
67
1 off 115.
2 MR. BOCKIUS: So you haven't
3 done anything with that yet, right?
4 MR. McHALE: It's still in
5 planning, yes. It's still here at this planning
6 commission.
7 MR. BOCKIUS: That has a
8 definite impact on me personally and that's why I'm
9 here tonight. But the other thing I wanted to
10 bring up was, we are all waiting with abated breath
11 that 903, as you know, they are going to put an EZ
12 Pass on and off 903. That's going to have an
13 impact on Blakeslee Corners down the road. A lot
14 of people are going to get off there and come up to
15 where I live. It's much shorter. And that's
16 something that this board has to think about in
17 terms of any development on 115 and even on 940, in
18 the next three years. I think it's going to be
19 done in three yeas. A lot of people won't get off
20 at Pocono anymore. They'll get off 903 and come up
21 115. So that would have an affect on this McElroy.
22 Now, I don't know if you're asking them to put a
23 turning lane or not.
24 MR. McHALE: They are proposing
25 a left hand turn lane into their development. And
68
1 they are also proposing one in Ferncrest. So
2 that's similar to this situation where they are
3 kind of going above and beyond somewhat to get that
4 left turn, but it would enhance the access that you
5 all would have in Ferncrest.
6 MR. BOCKIUS: I would trade that
7 off for my life, to make a left hand turn into
8 Ferncrest anymore because it's extremely dangerous,
9 plus also getting rear ended in that area. But,
10 again, I caution the board.
11 I also commend you for your
12 decision about putting that fire lane in on that
13 development that this gentleman was talking about.
14 But we are going to get a lot of traffic in
15 Blakeslee Corners in three years. It's tough to
16 come out of Ferncrest now. I anticipate it will be
17 tougher.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: We hope to see
19 you when the plan is before us, so we have your
20 comments.
21 MR. BOCKIUS: Well, I apologize
22 for not getting here before, but being retired, I
23 like to go to Florida and do things like that.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's good for
25 you.
69
1 MR. BOCKIUS: You don't know
2 when it's going to be on again, do you?
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: What I would do
4 is check with the township.
5 MR. BOCKIUS: I did. I got an
6 email today from them, but they are not here.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think we were
8 expecting them, but they may have cancelled at the
9 last minute.
10 MR. McHALE: They are listed as
11 an open project, meaning that they are still --
12 they are open to still be reviewed, but they
13 haven't turned anything into us to take any action
14 or further consideration.
15 MR. BOCKIUS: Okay.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Time waivers.
17 We acknowledge that we have time waivers for the
18 lands of Route 940, LLC, Pocono Motor Sports and
19 Kush and Sunny.
20 And we have amending the
21 definition of land development in the zoning
22 ordinance.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: As you know,
24 when there is a zoning ordinance amendment, it
25 comes before you to make a recommendation before
70
1 the board of supervisors, before they adopt it.
2 There is a public hearing scheduled or will be
3 scheduled for their June meeting. What this
4 ordinance does it takes the definition of land
5 development and makes it comply with the definition
6 of land development in the Pennsylvania
7 Municipalities Planning Code. Right now it's a
8 little inconsistent as it stands in the current
9 zoning ordinance. This is just having it comply
10 with the appropriate MPC provisions.
11 And the other section of the
12 amendment is revising to extend the duties of the
13 zoning officer per the requirements of the zoning
14 permit, mainly to require that applicants comply
15 with not only the zoning ordinance, but all other
16 sections of the township's code of ordinances.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Would you
18 explain to the commission why this is coming about.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Phyllis, the
20 zoning officer, may have a better explanation, but
21 my understanding is there are certain applicants
22 that come in for zoning permits that although they
23 may technically comply with the zoning ordinance
24 provisions of the township code of ordnances, they
25 may not necessarily comply with the sewage chapter
71
1 or the building codes chapter of the township code.
2 So this is a way to kind of tie them all in.
3 MS. HAASE: Not only am I the
4 zoning officer, I'm also the code enforcement
5 officer. It's difficult to issue a zoning permit
6 if they are not meeting requirements of other
7 sections in the ordinances. And this will clean up
8 any type of question that an applicant may have.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any questions
10 from the board? We just got it tonight for the
11 first time. You need time for review? You want to
12 consider it next month? Sounds like an improvement
13 to me.
14 I went through it. Pat and I
15 discussed it. It's really just to clean up the
16 language and just tightening up our current zoning
17 ordinance, tighten it so that the zoning officer
18 doesn't have any conflicts with applicants. Not
19 that she has conflicts.
20 MRS. LAMBERTON: What are your
21 feelings? It's going to affect you.
22 MS. HAASE: It's heading in the
23 right direction. That's actually what we needed to
24 do, so there's no question for the applicant.
25 MR. BAXTER: Does it take a good
72
1 step?
2 MS. HAASE: Yes.
3 MR. BAXTER: Is there anything
4 you would like to see in this that's not there?
5 MS. HAASE: No. I think
6 Mr. Armstrong worded it as it needs to be. The
7 only question I had was the one section that speaks
8 to that I shall issue it as long as it meets all
9 the Commonwealth and federal government laws, but
10 Mr. Armstrong assured me that I'm not going to be
11 required to know every single law in the federal
12 government and state. So I'm good.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't even
14 know them.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: So what is the
16 pleasure of the commission?
17 MR. BAXTER: If she's good with
18 it, I'm good with it.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any questions?
20 Motion?
21 MR. BAXTER: I would move we
22 support the amendment as prepared.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Do I
24 have a second?
25 MS. RINEHIMER: I'll second it.
73
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
2 favor, please say aye.
3 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
4 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
5 MR. MILLER: Aye.
6 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
8 Anything else from the
9 commission? Anything else from the public?
10 I'll entertain a motion to
11 adjourn.
12 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Do I
14 have a second to the motion?
15 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second. All
17 those in favor please say aye.
18 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
19 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
23 (Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.)
24 ---
25
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 I hereby certify that the
8 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
9 accurately in the notes taken by me, to the best of
10 my ability, at the hearing in the above matter; and
11 that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript
12 of the same.
13
14
15
16 JOSEPHINE HOLLMAN, C.R.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25