Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, June 4, 2009, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ANNE LAMBERTON, Board Member
PATRICIA M. RINEHIMER, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
JERILYN D. LUBEN, P.E,
Township Traffic 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 call the
2 regularly scheduled meeting of the Tobyhanna
3 Township Planning Commission for June 4th, 2009 to
4 order. At our last meeting I was rather remiss in
5 not recognizing our newest member to the board. I
6 was preoccupied, I guess. So I want to welcome
7 officially Pat Rinehimer to the board. Welcome
8 Pat.
9 MS. RINEHIMER: Thank you.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're welcome.
11 Next item on our agenda is any
12 public comment concerning anything in general in
13 the township? Hearing none, we'll move on to the
14 approval of the May 2009 meeting minutes. We
15 received them electronically. There's a copy, if
16 anyone in the public would like to see them.
17 Do I have a motion to approve?
18 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
19 motion.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
21 Do I have a second to the motion?
22 MRS. LAMBERTON: I'll second it.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
24 second. All those in favor, please say aye.
25 MR. MILLER: Aye.
3
1 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
2 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
4 Next item on our agenda is
5 Trevdan.
6 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Good
7 evening, Jim Christman, Keystone Consulting
8 Engineers, here tonight on behalf of Trevdan
9 Building Supply to present the preliminary final
10 land development plan for a proposed 3,000 square
11 foot addition onto the existing warehouse.
12 The existing plan that's shown,
13 shows the existing facilities. There are two
14 existing buildings. One approximately 12,000 or
15 excuse me, 17,000 square feet and then a building
16 to the south that's a 6,000 square foot building.
17 The proposal for this land
18 development involves the addition of a 3,000 square
19 foot building to be utilized for warehouse storage
20 purposes. Along with the land development, there
21 will be an increase to the existing basin, as we
22 have called basin one, we'll slightly be enlarging
23 that, as well as further to the south -- it's off
24 the screen -- we have an additional detention
25 basin, stormwater management facility that will
4
1 help control the additional stormwater runoff
2 that's created from the building, and additional
3 impervious areas.
4 We've worked through a couple
5 comment letters with Mr. McHale. I think we've
6 gotten to a point now where there was a couple
7 issues that we needed to resolve before we came
8 here tonight to request for your approval. I feel
9 we got through that. I have Bob's latest letter,
10 which I can go through and address the comments
11 that are remaining.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're looking
13 at the June 2nd review letter?
14 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: That's
15 correct.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
17 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Going right
18 into the letter, under the zoning items, the
19 only -- Item No. 1 is electronic copy of the plan
20 be submitted. We'll do that.
21 Under subdivision and land
22 development, there are several waivers. We did
23 submit a revised waiver letter to encompass the
24 five waivers that are being requested as part of
25 this project. The first is to show all lands,
5
1 streets, roads, structures, utilities within a
2 distance of 500 feet from the property line. And
3 Bob indicated that that waiver appears to be
4 appropriate for the scope of this project.
5 Item 2, SALDO 135.15.A, existing
6 development, including streets, buildings within
7 500 feet be shown. We've also requested a waiver
8 and Bob's indicated that appears to be appropriate
9 also for this project.
10 Item 20, under No. 2, SALDO, the
11 statement of ownership to be signed, dated and
12 notarized. We had submitted one on one of the
13 previous plan revisions, but we will do that. Just
14 based on the location of where the owner is, in
15 Chester Springs, we figured it would be easier to
16 wait until we were sure we are at a point of final
17 approval.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Fine.
19 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Item 3 is
20 the preliminary plan requirements, Section 135.17 L
21 and M indicates buildings, sewage, bridges,
22 additional features within 500 feet and all
23 existing streets, intersections or driveways within
24 500 feet. And, again, because of the scope of the
25 project we requested that waiver.
6
1 There was one additional waiver,
2 just to kind of a wrap up the waivers, relative to
3 on the next page, and then I'll come back to the
4 international fire code requirement. The
5 stormwater management, Act 167 requirement, is
6 actually No. 4 under the waiver request
7 modifications on page 3 of Bob's review letter. We
8 requested a waiver from the requirements to reduce
9 the 2.33 year storm to 60 percent of the
10 predevelopment. Because of the nature of the
11 proposal and the areas that we have of bypass that
12 we cannot collect, we've tried to encompass and do
13 whatever we could to -- we've added swales and
14 additional stormwater facilities, but we cannot get
15 that 2.33 year storm down to the 60 percent
16 reduction.
17 MR. McHALE: They brought it
18 under the predeveloped rate, but they weren't able
19 to get all the way down to 60 percent because they
20 have a 3 inch orifice and they are only discharging
21 a third of the cubic foot per second as I recall.
22 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Well, as our
23 flow was so minimal to begin with, now we are above
24 or around 1 CFS, reducing that to point 6, it
25 becomes very difficult even with the smallest
7
1 orifice, as Bob was saying, that we were able to
2 implement.
3 MR. McHALE: A 50 year storm
4 event you did accomplish that.
5 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Yes, that's
6 correct.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Could you scroll
8 over so we can see the detention basin? On lot
9 detention basin?
10 MR. McHALE: Yes, there is an on
11 lot sewage absorption area there.
12 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Essentially,
13 all of this area up in here is all bypass that we
14 cannot collect to try and help get closer to that
15 release rate. But our flow is so small and as Bob
16 had said, we are below the preliminary, so we are
17 reducing this amount of flow from the
18 predevelopment to post development conditions. We
19 are just not reducing it fully to the 60 percent
20 for the smaller storm. The larger storm, the 50
21 year storm, we are meeting the 60 percent
22 requirement. So that's why we had included that
23 waiver request.
24 MR. McHALE: The difference in
25 what we are talking about, between the storm that
8
1 they were able to attain, the 60 percent versus
2 what you're actually doing, is about a half of CFS,
3 is that correct?
4 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: That's
5 correct.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob you're okay
7 with that?
8 MR. McHALE: Yes.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you.
10 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: And just to
11 take a step back, related to the international fire
12 code requirement, I'm not sure if you had seen or
13 not -- I have a map that we had put together that
14 showed an agreement that we had worked out with the
15 Stillwater Lake Homeowners Association.
16 Essentially what we looked at is the fire code
17 requirement for the 3,000 square foot addition
18 requires 19,000 gallons of water to be provided to
19 the site. Essentially there is 7,000 gallons that
20 can be provided from Tobyhanna Township Volunteer
21 Fire Company, which means we have 12,000 gallons
22 that we need to provide. What we did is we looked
23 at all the options in the area. The Venezia
24 property has existing water. We did discuss with
25 them, we approached them for the possibility to
9
1 utilize their existing water tower and hydrant
2 that's located on Harvest Lane. Their risk
3 management people basically told us that because of
4 the possibility of fire occurring at the same time,
5 they cannot allow us to utilize their water. We
6 also contacted Pennsylvania American Water, they
7 have facilities on Harvest Lane as well as in Mount
8 Pocono. They have existing water lines as well as
9 the tower there. Now, the gentleman, Dave
10 Ullmiller (phonetic), who is the network supervisor
11 in the Pocono District, he basically said the only
12 way that he can provide water is if we do a
13 developer funded line extension, which is
14 approximately 1500 feet of water line that we
15 figured out to be roughly at a cost of $60,000. So
16 for this site, the only option we felt was viable
17 was the third option, where we go to Stillwater
18 Lake Civic Association, they have a dry hydrant
19 located in their facility that's .75 miles from the
20 Trevdan site. Their board gave us permission to
21 utilize -- for the Tobyhanna Township Volunteer
22 Fire Department to utilize the hydrant for purposes
23 of supplying that required 12,000 gallons. I had
24 submitted this document -- as soon as I received
25 this document from the Stillwater Lake Civic
10
1 Association, I submitted that to Bill Weber. He
2 wanted me to basically supplement in writing, put
3 down what all the options were that we've explored
4 and that we ruled out the closer option, which was
5 Venezia and Pennsylvania American Water. So I did
6 that. I sent that to him on Monday, however he did
7 not reply with a letter or anything for tonight's
8 meeting. So we just request that that item be a
9 condition of the approval tonight.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why isn't the
11 water being supplied onsite, Bob? Why couldn't it
12 be supplied onsite such as they are doing in Kush
13 and Sunny?
14 MR. McHALE: Well, they would
15 put in one tank, basically 12,000 gallon tank.
16 That is one alternative that could be done. Have
17 you talked to Bill Weber about that?
18 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: I mean, that
19 was one thing that was explored, and essentially we
20 just looked at all the options from an economic
21 standpoint, as well as, you know, what is feasible.
22 We talked to Troy Counterman from the fire company.
23 He was okay with this option of utilizing the dry
24 hydrant as long as we had permission. And that's
25 pretty much the route that we explored after
11
1 discussing this with all the parties.
2 And I think what we are looking
3 at, from the standpoint of the proposal itself, we
4 are adding a 3,000 square foot building addition,
5 and the infrastructure, and the cost associated
6 with doing that has become so prohibitive that is
7 it worth to even do the 3,000 square foot addition.
8 So those were the things that we were trying to
9 look at and weigh and balance out the options.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: So the existing
11 part of the building there does not have sprinklers
12 or any water system? That was pre the
13 international building code?
14 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: That's
15 correct.
16 MR. McHALE: How many square
17 feet do you have out there, now, Jim, the first
18 building and the second building that exists?
19 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: 23,000. I
20 believe it's 17,000 and 6,000.
21 MR. McHALE: You're adding the
22 3,000 to the 6,000 square foot?
23 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: That's
24 correct.
25 MR. McHALE: What were you
12
1 proposing as far as storage in that 3,000 square
2 foot addition?
3 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Well, maybe
4 you could -- Walt Dill runs the Pocono Summit
5 operation. Maybe he can handle that question.
6 MR. McHALE: Just generally.
7 MR. WALT DILL: It's building
8 materials that are non-flammable or are fire
9 prohibited material. For instance, type X fire
10 drywall, which is a fire retardant drywall. We
11 don't handle combustible materials at all down
12 there. I have been in the business now 30, 39
13 years and I have never seen a fire in one of these
14 warehouses. There was one and it was set.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Knock on wood.
16 MR. WALT DILL: But, basically,
17 that's it. It's just drywall. Maybe acoustical
18 ceilings, grids, fire-treated lumber at some point,
19 and you all know that doesn't support combustion.
20 MR. McHALE: I believe they had
21 a discussion with fire code officials, the fire
22 chief and it's really left to their decision as far
23 as if they accept that as being within the
24 International Fire Code requirements. I think part
25 of it is because it is a 3,000 square foot
13
1 addition. It's not a project that we are looking
2 at like other projects before us.
3 We do need a letter from the
4 fire code official saying that they approve what
5 you're proposing.
6 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: The only
7 other thing I have in my letter is my discussion
8 with -- Bill Weber wanted us to basically put out
9 in writing all the options. And my discussion with
10 the gentleman from Pennsylvania American Water was
11 that, he essentially indicated he couldn't prohibit
12 Tobyhanna Township from tieing into their existing
13 water system, their hydrant that's located on
14 Harvest Lane. Now, he can't offer that in writing,
15 you know, that, sure, go ahead, use the water
16 that's being paid for by Mount Pocono or somebody
17 else, but he said there are instances and
18 appearances that if it's an emergency situation,
19 other fire companies have and will continue to tap
20 into their lines as needed. So that's the closest
21 option. It's just a matter -- that's not an option
22 that was viable, you know, for a written approval.
23 So that's why we looked at, you know, the other
24 option as well.
25 MR. McHALE: You all may recall
14
1 on the Venezia project, they did have to provide
2 water supply which they worked out an agreement
3 with the flour mill and they added a hydrant which
4 is I guess probably a tenth or two tenths of a mile
5 from this site.
6 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Correct.
7 MR. McHALE: That may be some of
8 the things that the fire chief, fire code officials
9 were looking at. So you have a private hydrant and
10 you have a public hydrant very close to the
11 facility.
12 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Correct.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: The other item
14 is that you have to -- you acknowledge you have to
15 prepare a development agreement. Do you have any
16 comment on that?
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: No. We Can work
18 that out between now and the supervisors' meeting
19 after the supervisors take action on the plan.
20 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: Okay. All
21 right.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else?
23 MR. JIM CHRISTMAN: That's it.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you have
25 anything else? Any questions or comments from any
15
1 of the board members?
2 I'll entertain a motion to
3 recommend approval of the Trevdan Building Supply
4 pre and final land development plan, subject to the
5 letter of the township engineer dated June 2nd,
6 2009, and also recommend the waiver request be
7 granted for SALDO Section 135.12.D.2, SALDO Section
8 135.15.A.15, SALDO Section 135.17.L and M, Chapter
9 124, Act 167, Volume 1, Section 2.B.3 and Table 5,
10 and subject to the development agreement being
11 finalized with the township. Do I have a motion?
12 MRS. LAMBERTON: I make that
13 motion.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
15 second to the motion?
16 MRS. RINEHIMER: Second.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
18 second. Any further comments from the public?
19 Comments from the board?
20 All those in favor, please say
21 aye.
22 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
23 MRS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
24 MR. MILLER: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye. Thank you,
16
1 gentlemen.
2 Next item on our agenda is Kush
3 and Sunny.
4 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
5 Chris McDermott here on behalf of the applicant.
6 Since the last meeting, I
7 received comments from your engineer and also I
8 presume you're the traffic engineer? Chris
9 McDermott.
10 MS. LUBEN: Yes. Jerilyn Luben.
11 MR. McHALE: I'd like to
12 introduce to the planning commission members,
13 Jerilyn Luben, the township traffic engineer.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're the
15 traffic engineer hired by the township for this
16 project? How much traffic movement is coming out
17 of this project?
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
19 There is approximately 550 vehicles per day.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: And who hired
21 the traffic engineer?
22 MR. McHALE: The township does.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: The township
24 does. The board of supervisors recommended that
25 the traffic study be done independently for this
17
1 project?
2 MR. McHALE: Jerilyn will be
3 reviewing traffic studies for many of the projects
4 that are going to be coming before us and she does
5 design work for the township as well.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: A project this
7 small requires an in depth traffic study by the
8 township?
9 MR. McHALE: Yes.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Who recommended
11 that?
12 MR. McHALE: Recommended what?
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: That an in depth
14 traffic study be done for this project?
15 MR. McHALE: Well, it's
16 necessary to know what the traffic impacts are and
17 how it affects the township.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's been my
19 experience in the township that the applicant
20 submits a traffic study to us and it's reviewed by
21 the township engineer and then that traffic study
22 is taken from there. If more is needed, then more
23 is done.
24 MS. HAASE: Mr. Chairman, I
25 believe in 2009 the board of supervisors, if I'm
18
1 not mistaken, retained the services of an outside
2 engineer. We adopted a resolution, a fee
3 resolution to that, which that began in 2009, if
4 I'm not mistaken. Right, Jerilyn?
5 MS. LUBEN: Yes.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Chris.
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
8 Since that meeting, we received engineering
9 comments from Bob and also Jerilyn, and we revised
10 the plan, resubmitted it and have received comments
11 again from Bob. And we also resubmitted a traffic
12 study which was revised in accordance with
13 Jerilyn's comments. I think it was May 14th.
14 Jerilyn has also provided a letter dated May 29th.
15 I see Dina and her mother are
16 here. One of the big things that has changed since
17 the plan was here last month was that the entrance
18 drive onto Hemlock now is designated as emergency
19 access only and a gate is across it. I think that
20 addresses your major concern.
21 MS. DINA LAKE: It does.
22 MS. DIANE LAKE: It does.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
24 also revised some of the plans in regard to Bob's
25 comments, provided additional details and
19
1 clarifications and we can review Bob's letter in
2 detail now.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Chris, the
4 emergency exit, I think I read somewhere there is
5 going to be a gate too. Is there a gate?
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
7 The gate is a proposed emergency access gate with a
8 pad lock, secured chains and lock, and we can
9 coordinate with the emergency services if they want
10 a knock box. If they just want to cut the lock.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: I thought I read
12 it somewhere, I couldn't read it on the size plans
13 I have.
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: So
15 we'll be glad to coordinate with your officials
16 regarding that.
17 Now, going to Bob's letter dated
18 June 3rd, the first comment is in regards to the
19 PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit.
20 We acknowledge occupancy permit
21 is necessary. We will be applying to PennDOT. We
22 had preliminary meetings. I think we are going to
23 talk probably at length regarding traffic. So we
24 acknowledge an HOP will be required. That's an
25 outside agency approval. It can be a condition of
20
1 approval.
2 The second comment refers to
3 some pump details regarding the sewage grinder
4 pumps.
5 Under land development, Comment
6 1, regarding the modification request, that does
7 not -- it has to show all the improvements. I
8 believe this one was roadways within 500 feet of
9 the project. This waiver request has been noted on
10 the cover sheet. I keep forgetting, did you take
11 action on waiver requests?
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, we'll do it
13 all at one time.
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
15 believe there are four waiver requests.
16 Comment No. 2, seals and
17 signatures are necessary. We'll provide that prior
18 to preliminary approval. The applicant is
19 requesting a waiver. This, again, No. 15, has to
20 do with information within 500 feet.
21 Twenty has to do with providing
22 signatures.
23 Twenty-one, seal and signature
24 will be provided. These are administrative items.
25 Twenty-seven has to do with the
21
1 traffic study. And just to move through these,
2 since I'm on Bob's letter, why don't I move through
3 Bob's letter and let's come back to the traffic
4 study.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's fine.
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
7 Comment No. 3 had to do with another modification.
8 This was showing water and sewer within 500 feet of
9 the project.
10 No. 4, another waiver request
11 requesting that we be permitted to use less than 18
12 inch diameter storm sewer pipes on the project.
13 The project has some 15 inch diameter storm sewer
14 collection pipes. The 18, I don't know whether
15 that always just refers to a culvert or whether it
16 refers to the storm sewer, but Bob's reviewed that
17 and I think he is looking favorably upon that.
18 Under storm water, G, the issue
19 of whether we need a jurisdictional determination
20 from the Army Corp. Per the township's request,
21 the planning commission's request, I contacted the
22 Army Corp. and Eileen Moyer from the Army Corp. did
23 come to the site on May 22nd to do a field view.
24 At that time she concurred. And the wording on
25 these, they are not issuing JDs anymore because
22
1 it's very, extremely hard to get. This is what
2 they call a preliminary JD which will say, yes,
3 there are no wetlands on the other side, but they
4 don't say that this is the actual jurisdictional
5 limit. She was onsite on the 26th. We had staked
6 out the wetlands location. She reviewed that in
7 the field, reviewed the report, said I concur and I
8 will issue a memo. I have not received the memo
9 yet. I left a message with her. She's away on
10 training all week, so I would expect to get that.
11 And I'd ask that any of these approvals be -- well,
12 I don't know whether you have to condition, I don't
13 believe it's a requirement of the ordinance, but we
14 are providing it, so.
15 No. 17, horizontal and vertical
16 profile. This was another waiver request not to
17 have to show vertical profile of the swale.
18 Nineteen had to do with the
19 access easement language for the stormwater
20 facilities. Patrick, I don't know whether you had
21 a chance to review the language of Note 14.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: I have not. Are
23 you going to be -- I'm assuming this is for
24 easements around all the stormwater management
25 facilities.
23
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Note
2 14 states that a blanket 15 foot easement is
3 provided around all stormwater facilities along
4 with easement necessary to access.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you won't
6 have any kind of legal description outlining --
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: We could
9 probably do it by a quick one page declaration of
10 easement as well and be recorded. It's a note on
11 the plan.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Do
13 you want to make it a part of the developer's
14 agreement?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Something
16 like that.
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
18 would suggest whatever is the easiest mechanism.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: The problem with
20 stuff like that, I mean, it's okay to note it on
21 the plan. Down the road, people don't typically go
22 to the courthouse and look at the plans. They
23 typically pull out all declarations or covenants or
24 easements.
25 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
24
1 go to the courthouse and get them.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: But, yes, I'll
3 look at the notes, but if it's a blanket easement,
4 the language is pretty, you know, boiler plate,
5 general.
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
7 3.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: Should I be
9 sending that to you?
10 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: You
11 can send it to me.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Send it to you?
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
14 And if you want to copy Michelle Farley, I believe
15 you've been in contact with her before. If you get
16 it to me, I'll get it to Michelle. I'll provide
17 you with her contact information. She is
18 Mr. Patel's attorney.
19 The next item has to do with the
20 PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit. We acknowledge
21 we need a highway occupancy permit.
22 The next item has to do with a
23 stormwater management agreement, maintenance
24 agreement. The owner, he'll have to enter into
25 that as part of the approval. The following item I
25
1 believe has to do with the maintenance fund. And
2 under other, sewer capacity associated fees are to
3 be coordinated with the sewage enforcement officer.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Where is the
5 sewer situation? That's been on here since the
6 beginning, as I recall. Has that been resolved
7 yet?
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: As
9 far as --
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Connecting.
11 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
12 Connecting, yes. We'll be connecting to the
13 existing sewer pressure main that's located in
14 Hemlock. We show the easement here. I believe
15 it's part of SIDE Corp. SIDE Corp. has been
16 contacted regarding that easement. We've provided
17 calculations to Bob regarding the capacity of the
18 two inch line which connects to it, all the way to
19 the sewage treatment plant.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, have you
21 had a chance to talk to John about that?
22 MR. McHALE: He'll need to speak
23 to John about what's listed here. This is not the
24 technical items, per se, related to the tie-in.
25 They are addressing that here. This states that
26
1 they'll coordinate the capacity of associated peaks
2 with the sewage --
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm concerned
4 about the capacity. The capacity issue has come up
5 repeatedly.
6 MR. McHALE: I think they sent a
7 letter --
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
9 think we were 2 or 3 EDU's.
10 MR. McHALE: -- to the board of
11 supervisors asking for 2 EDUs.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm thinking
13 it's a capacity issue in the line itself.
14 MR. McHALE: They've already
15 shown us that. That's not an issue.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: That was my
17 question.
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
19 obtained the plans from the prior subdivision and
20 provided --
21 MR. McHALE: The other Riley
22 Associates. Riley Associates had done some of our
23 work and we scoured the volt to find the drawings
24 and provide the computations to Bob.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is it 2 EDU's?
27
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
2 believe it was. It was 2 or 3 and I have to go
3 back and look. I believe that issue was discussed
4 very early.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: You've already
6 arranged to have EDU's or you're in the process of
7 acquiring them?
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
9 don't know whether they have been reserved.
10 MR. McHALE: That was with the
11 final approval, before the board of supervisors,
12 that would be designated.
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: That
14 was the limit of Bob's letter. I believe that
15 these things are administrative in nature or
16 outside agency approval. With the exception of the
17 traffic, which we might as well just return to
18 right now.
19 Now, way back in the beginning
20 of this project we met with PennDOT and the
21 township. At that time we reviewed the scope of
22 the project and you determined -- one of the things
23 you determined was whether a traffic study is
24 necessary. This project does not rise to the
25 limits of PennDOT's criteria for requiring a
28
1 traffic stop. We are under the threshold, vehicle
2 threshold, but, again, they may require one if they
3 want it. And I believe Bob was at the meeting, and
4 the township encouraged that a traffic study be
5 required from PennDOT. PennDOT said we would
6 require a traffic study. We talked about the scope
7 of the study, the study area. It was determined it
8 should be Hemlock, the driveway that we are
9 proposing and the intersection at 940 and 115.
10 So we went about preparing our
11 study and it has been submitted. It's not
12 particularly a township requirement in my
13 estimation. There is a section of the ordinance
14 that states that the township may require a traffic
15 impact study. From Bob's letter, we got the
16 impression that the township was requiring one. So
17 we have provided to the township --
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: When was the
19 study submitted to the township?
20 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
21 April 16th, April 17th? We received the traffic
22 engineer's comments. We revised the study and
23 provided it to the traffic engineer, and Jerilyn
24 did a very thorough job and provided additional
25 comments dated May 29th. And in response to those
29
1 comments, we went through it and actually found not
2 only some things that you had pointed out, we found
3 another error within our program and I'll talk
4 about that a little bit further.
5 Now, when you do a traffic
6 study, you identify the intersections. You're
7 going to analyze and you go out and you do counts,
8 find out what the existing traffic counts are,
9 which we did. Our Figure 4 spoke to existing
10 traffic on pretty much 940 and in the area. Then
11 the next step is you look to see how much traffic
12 you would generate with your development. This
13 development would generate approximately 550
14 vehicles in a day. All right.
15 Now, for the purposes of this
16 study, you look at certain times of day. Peak
17 hours a.m., p.m., peaks during the week and usually
18 the Saturday peak. That's what we did. And I have
19 some updated criteria, because when we were last
20 reviewing our study and Jerilyn had been, I think,
21 concerned and pointing out that there appeared to
22 be a large delay created in one of the movements at
23 940 and 115, when we were looking at that, looking
24 at -- and gee whiz, I'm saying why is it so big.
25 And we went back and looked at our report and
30
1 naturally there was a little box within the
2 program, and Jerilyn, you probably can help me with
3 the name of this, the activation coordination
4 option was snapped on. What this means, activation
5 is the loop detectors in the road. When you park
6 your car, the red light, there is a little rope
7 that has magnetic conductors that tells the car is
8 there, trips the light to turn. The coordination
9 part is it coordinates with another signal. Well,
10 we had no other signal, so it was messing up our
11 model. So we have new summary tables which I'll
12 pass out, which we had emailed -- I believe Alexis
13 had emailed them to you and I believe I forward
14 them to Bob yesterday.
15 So I'll hand -- I'm going to
16 hand three things out. One is the traffic
17 distribution. These are all for the a.m., p.m. and
18 Saturday peaks. Now what those documents show you
19 are, during the peak hours, the distribution of the
20 traffic that's coming out of our facility, you'll
21 see percentages, then in parentheses, right next to
22 it, you'll see a number and that's the actual
23 number of vehicles.
24 Then I'm going to hand out two
25 other tables which are the a.m. and p.m. peak. And
31
1 these are related to the two intersections, the 115
2 intersection that's 940 and 115 there. I'm going
3 to hand you one more. Than we'll talk about each
4 one of them. This is for the intersection at
5 Hemlock and 940. If we talk about Northeast, west,
6 south and all the other directions, its helpful if
7 you look at the distribution drawings that have the
8 north arrow in them. I have one extra.
9 Now, as part of the study, what
10 we do is we take that information we found and we
11 model the intersection and we sort of rate them, we
12 grade them, A, B, C, D. And it's not exactly like
13 the grades you get in school, but it's related to
14 that the delay that a vehicle would incur at an
15 intersection. And an A would be zero, and a B I
16 belive is above 10 to 20 and C -- as the levels
17 decrease, the amount of the delay would experience
18 increases.
19 So that if you look at the one
20 that says Hemlock Street, right up here. We have a
21 number of columns on here. We have lots of
22 information here. That first column talks about
23 north bound, whether -- which way traffic is
24 moving, whether it's moving north. In this case
25 north would be 940 going up towards Mount Pocono;
32
1 south bound 940 going the other way. East bound
2 would be 940. I'm sorry, I got it backwards.
3 North bound is Hemlock Street going towards
4 Hemlock; South bound is Kimberly, coming down.
5 East bound is 940 going towards Mount Pocono; west
6 bound is 940 going towards Blakeslee corners. The
7 next column describes the movement. The very next
8 column is the grading, essentially, that movement,
9 and the overall intersection. At the very bottom
10 you will see a Bold 1 intersection. That's the
11 overall rating.
12 The next column talks about
13 opening year without development. We project how
14 much traffic is going to be the opening year, in
15 this case 2010. That is so we have a baseline to
16 compare what will -- or what impact our development
17 will have. In the very next one, we look at
18 opening year with development. So this is sort of
19 the 2 columns you want to compare.
20 The following column talks about
21 mitigation. It's not pertinent to this. And then
22 you have two more columns where we talk about the
23 future use. PennDOT used to say for your studies
24 you should look out 10 years. February they
25 changed the criteria and went back to 5 years. So
33
1 in our case, our building year is 2010. Our future
2 year is 2015. Okay. So now we looked down at
3 these columns and let's start at the very bottom,
4 because what we find out here is Hemlock is -- the
5 existing driveway is an A, opening year with
6 development is an A, opening year with development
7 is an A and, in fact, you will notice that the
8 delay, which is in parentheses there, went from 1.3
9 to 1.2, a slight decrease, that has to do with us
10 introducing that center left-hand turn lane that we
11 talked about.
12 2015, again, A, for with and
13 without development. And for the sake of
14 comparison, you'll see in my handwritten notes, way
15 up in the one box, in the north bound lane,
16 mitigation, I just put a star there. This is the
17 worse movement that happened was the through right
18 coming out of Hemlock, which had a 4 second
19 increase. Okay.
20 MR. MILLER: Can I ask a
21 question? We are not engineers. We are not
22 traffic study experts. It either works or it
23 doesn't work. What you're saying here doesn't mean
24 anything to me.
25 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
34
1 was told and directed to give a full presentation.
2 So I will gladly summarize this.
3 MR. MILLER: Please do.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that
5 acceptable?
6 MRS. LAMBERTON: Absolutely.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Absolutely we
8 want to hear a summary. Thank you.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
10 summary is Hemlock Street is going to be an A. It's
11 going to be an A now and it will be an A in the
12 future. I did our ratings for our driveway. It
13 will be an A for future conditions. That is for
14 the a.m. peaks and the same is true for the p.m.
15 peaks and the same is true for the Saturday peaks.
16 The worse delay you will see is that movement
17 coming out of Hemlock which is 6.7 seconds, but
18 PennDOT doesn't look at individual movements
19 anymore. They look at the overall rate. So things
20 are really not affected at Hemlock and our driveway
21 is going to be an A. So not an issue.
22 Then if you look at the next
23 one, which is the intersection of 940 and 115 --
24 okay? -- for the a.m. peak, the increase in delay
25 for the intersection is two seconds. Does not
35
1 degrade the level of service. For the p.m. peak,
2 the increase in delay is two seconds. You'll note
3 that the level of service goes from an A to a B and
4 this is because the second delay is 9.3, it's sort
5 of an A minus minus and it goes to 11.3, a B plus
6 plus. We just happen to be right on the cusp of
7 the A and the B. It's only a 2 second delay.
8 PennDOT says we don't even want to talk about more
9 than a 10 --
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: A 10 second
11 delay.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: More
13 than a 10 second delay as far as mitigation. For
14 the Saturday peak, again, the overall delay, about
15 2 seconds. During the Saturday, just any movement,
16 the biggest delay we have on this is 2015 build
17 year, there was a 9 second delay introduced in the
18 west bound, that would be 940 approaching the
19 intersection, opposite of the Wawa for the left
20 turn movement. So that was projected out 5 years,
21 the worse hour of the worse day, probably the worse
22 15 minutes, the worse movement, still under 10
23 seconds.
24 So, the long and short of it is,
25 we are not proposing mitigation to 940 and 115
36
1 because it's not necessary. And the traffic
2 improvements that we are proposing is the center
3 left-hand turn lane.
4 Now, Jerilyn has a letter -- we
5 could go through your letter. Many of the comments
6 would probably get revised according to this. You
7 had one comment regarding traffic incidences,
8 accidents, crash analysis, which pretty much would
9 be taken up with PennDOT. There was a question of
10 was there a fatality. Just so you know, there was
11 not a fatality. That was an error in our summary.
12 And you had a question about the frequency of
13 accidents, and I believe Alexis in our office
14 talked to you about that.
15 There was an inconsistency
16 between how many accidents there were and how many
17 we reported on a table which indicated the type of
18 accidents they were, and that was mainly because
19 PennDOT tells you how many accidents there were.
20 They only told you what happened in the turn
21 amount, so we had to add another column, other, and
22 put that in. So what I would propose is that as we
23 move forward with PennDOT, that we incorporate
24 responding to your comments in our traffic study
25 that goes to PennDOT.
37
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm trying to
2 keep up. Her comments in the May 29th letter --
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: And subsequent
5 to that letter is when you submitted this
6 additional information?
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: So this
9 additional information is responding to and most
10 likely addressing the issues in this letter?
11 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It's
12 addressed many of them, not every one. There are
13 some certain things in the report. Again,
14 primarily, the report and the issue has to be
15 reviewed by PennDOT and approved by PennDOT. Of
16 course the township can provide their comments. As
17 far as specific township requirements for the
18 study, I think we've met the criteria, because
19 there sort of really isn't a criteria in the
20 township ordinance.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I think
22 like you said, in the ordinance, the township has a
23 right to request a traffic impact study and it
24 looks like this is the process we are going through
25 right now.
38
1 Tell me what you said about
2 PennDOT.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
4 Well, we can incorporate answering these
5 comments -- and we've already prepared some
6 response to Jerilyn and we can provide them, but
7 rather than -- I think we've reached a point where
8 do we need to have three engineers reviewing the
9 traffic study? Because we are going to have a
10 PennDOT traffic person who is going to delegate to
11 a PennDOT outside agency, outside reviewer, who
12 will likely be Pennoni, you have two engineers
13 there, and then we have L and V and we have Bob.
14 I'd like to sort of shift it over to PennDOT at
15 this point and of course I would ask Jerilyn to
16 look at the information we just provided. You
17 know, I think the township's concern is whether
18 there is an issue at 940 and 115. We'll include
19 all this information to the township. But what I'd
20 like to do is ask the planning commission to
21 recommend that their plan be approved conditioned
22 upon response to the items in Bob's letter and that
23 we move forward to the supervisors.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: It is Bob's
25 recommendation in his letter, but I think we should
39
1 hear from the township engineer -- I'm sorry, the
2 township traffic engineer.
3 Do you have a letter dated May
4 29th? I don't have a copy of that.
5 We haven't received a copy of
6 that. While we are waiting for that to be done,
7 Dina or Diane, do you have any questions or do you
8 want to make any comment at this time?
9 MS. DINA LAKE: Just the fact
10 that we appreciate the consideration and we know
11 it's been quite a few months leading up to this,
12 and the time that it's taken to get to this point.
13 Is this -- now that this is in the plan, my
14 question is, is this for sure? Like if it goes to
15 the supervisors, it goes any further and they say
16 something, can this be overturned or is the gate
17 the gate and that's it?
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is an
19 advisory board. I'm assuming they are going to
20 recommend, when they do make a recommendation, that
21 the access as it is on the plan, which is emergency
22 access only with a gate, assuming that will most
23 likely be the recommendation, but at the end of the
24 day, it's on the board of supervisors. Their
25 decision is the decision with respect to that.
40
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I can't see that
2 the applicant is going to change their mind from
3 this board to that board.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: Unless the board
5 of supervisors say no, we don't want this, we want
6 something else.
7 MS. DINA LAKE: That was my
8 question. We wanted to know for sure.
9 And then as far as I just heard
10 mention, like the access to the sewer on Hemlock,
11 is that with regard -- I don't know where it is on
12 the road. Is that something that would be a major
13 construction issue during the summer? This summer
14 we are going to have limited access to get in and
15 out of Hemlock? Will they have to close --
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Generally, what
17 happens -- it was done when the houses were built
18 on Chestnut. It generally takes one day to do it.
19 Generally, the road is closed because it is an open
20 cut. It's easier to get the cut across, but it's
21 just one day.
22 MS. DINA LAKE: Is that then
23 repaved right away?
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. It's
25 repaved. The agreement will be formed with them to
41
1 do it. Phyllis, it was in the documents here
2 sitting on the table.
3 The agreement is done with SIDE
4 Corporation and we have compaction --
5 MS. DINA LAKE: And the impact
6 to the community sewer is not --
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's the
8 township sewer.
9 MS. DINA LAKE: It's not going
10 to affect the houses down the road on the same
11 street, anything as far as that goes.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It
13 will probably help them. Seriously.
14 MS. DINA LAKE: Just a question.
15 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
16 Because on some sewer lines that don't see a lot of
17 sewage flow, they don't get scour velocity. There
18 is not much additional coming in, but on these
19 pressure systems, sometimes it helps to work them.
20 Like a car, it's good to be used.
21 MS. DINA LAKE: And as far as
22 maintenance, since it will be gated, there is not
23 going to be any access from the parking lot onto
24 our road, is the maintenance on Hemlock still going
25 to be provided by SIDE or by Appletree or is it
42
1 going to be now the new development's job to
2 maintain that part of the road?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: It would never
4 have been the obligation of the applicant to do
5 that. They have offered to make a contribution
6 paying their fair share based on their front
7 footage, just as everyone else in the development
8 to pay their fair share of the maintenance cost of
9 the roadways, which is snow removal, blacktopping.
10 MS. DINA LAKE: I was just
11 wondering, would it be half the road got maintained
12 one day, the other half --
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: No. No. They
14 are going to get assessed just like everybody else
15 gets assessed in the development to pay their fair
16 share based on the front footage.
17 MS. DINA LAKE: We just had a
18 member of the community here. Her children take
19 the bus at the corner everyday. Karen, I wanted to
20 say, did you have any questions.
21 KAREN: I just don't like all
22 the traffic idea because I have three alone that
23 take three different buses. That's mine. That
24 doesn't include the high school buses that are
25 there, the middle school buses that are there. The
43
1 intermediate school buses and grade school. There
2 is 10 different bus stops at that time.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Karen, you now
4 understand it's gated now?
5 KAREN: I know it's gated. I'm
6 happy with that. But all that traffic still scares
7 me because I already pulled her --
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Traffic is
9 already on 940.
10 KAREN: I know, but I already
11 pulled her out of the way of a car hitting her
12 getting on the bus on 940.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: We suggested to
14 Dina last time that you may want to talk to the
15 school board about bringing the bus into the
16 development. Instead of stopping it on 940, which
17 is a very hazardous situation, they can bring it
18 into the development, which they do in Greenwood
19 Acres. But that's something that the parents have
20 to do. We, as a board, can't do that.
21 KAREN: We have to go to the
22 school board. I understand that.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: That might be
24 something you can do to help alleviate that
25 situation. That's a situation that already exists.
44
1 KAREN: If they had more
2 traffic, that's another concern. There is enough
3 on there now.
4 MS. DINA LAKE: I think that
5 answers our questions. And, again, I thank the
6 board for this process in considering and hearing
7 us.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are always
9 here to listen to the public.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Chris, before
11 you get going on other things, there are two lots.
12 You're consolidating the two?
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're going to
15 consolidate them?
16 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: You'll provide
18 the township with deeds consolidating the two lots?
19 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
20 MS. HAASE: You need a tax
21 certificate as well.
22 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Do
23 you need it or does the county assessor need it?
24 MS. HAASE: The township is
25 going to need it.
45
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: That will be
2 just when it gets to the supervisors, it will be a
3 condition that upon approval of the plan --
4 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
5 tax bills?
6 MS. HAASE: The certificate.
7 You go to the county, they'll give it to you. Call
8 me tomorrow and I'll give you the information.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Does
10 that state what tax parcel it is?
11 MS. HAASE: You will have to
12 give the township a tax certificate for each parcel
13 that you're combining.
14 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
15 Okay.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: The township
17 will just need a copy of the deed consolidating the
18 two lots. I'm assuming you've been in
19 communication with the owner of the private road?
20 You're going to still provide the township with
21 whatever kind of agreement you work out with that
22 private owner of the road for the right to access
23 it. There is two issues, right to access -- I
24 don't know whether you need the right for the
25 emergency.
46
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I haven't
2 thought about it.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
4 other one would be to access for the sewer
5 connection. That one, no matter what, I know we
6 need.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're talking
8 about the access -- the stormwater or --
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
10 There is only two issues. There is the driveway --
11 the emergency access which connects to Hemlock.
12 It's not -- it's an emergency access, not day to
13 day. We'll talk with SIDE Corp. to determine
14 whether that agreement is needed for that. But the
15 other one would be the access to install and
16 maintain the sewer connection.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will need
18 something, something simple saying you have the
19 right to access that road. The agreement itself
20 can say only in the event of emergency. Yes, for
21 the sanitary sewer connection, you will need an
22 easement.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. That we
24 do.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: I just want to
47
1 make sure you're aware of that. You will provide
2 that to the township.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: That
4 would be the final plan.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. I just
6 want to make sure all the bases are covered.
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No
8 problem. Copies of the agreement.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Chris, do you
10 have anything else?
11 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
12 Nope.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Jerilyn.
14 MS. LUBEN: Jerilyn Luben from L
15 and V Engineering. I just wanted to point out from
16 a summary stand point where the review proces is.
17 As you pointed out, there were some changes from
18 the last submission to the most recent.
19 Of particular concern, and I
20 know there are some technical issues that are to be
21 worked out with volumes, etcetera, I received a
22 spreadsheet today incidentally that did show
23 volumes that were not correct, that I do believe
24 were used to create the models, that are levels of
25 service as shown on here. So I'm not sure -- I
48
1 have never seen the models that support these
2 levels of service yet. That's one concern. I'll
3 be looking for that in the revised traffic study.
4 Twelve angle collisions in 5
5 years. The comments that I had, some of them in
6 fact represent them appropriately in the table,
7 however, some of them -- one of the comments was if
8 you have 5 within any three year period over the
9 study period, correctable by some method, either a
10 left turn phase or some other mitigation, that that
11 should be investigated.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
13 were looking at that. Some of the accidents were,
14 you know, vehicles making a left-hand turn
15 movements from 940. Some of the accidents reported
16 vehicles making left-hand turn from right lane.
17 Some of them were making right --
18 MS. LUBEN: Something is going
19 on in that intersection and you're adding traffic
20 to it, which if there is a crash problem that could
21 be exacerbated by additional traffic, it should be
22 looked at.
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I
24 think as we progress with PennDOT, there's more
25 conversation we can have with PennDOT.
49
1 MR. McHALE: I just want to
2 remind the planning commission that PennDOT does
3 always ask for the township comments on every
4 traffic study and every HOP.
5 MS. LUBEN: That's all I have.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's it?
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I'd
8 like to respectfully ask you to take action on the
9 waivers and the plan, based upon Bob's items in
10 Bob's letter, conditioned on that.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob's letter
12 dated June the 3rd.
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: June
14 3rd.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: He does
16 recommend that the plan be recommended for approval
17 subject to his letter, including I guess the
18 traffic impact has to be resolved somehow and
19 mitigation measures.
20 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: At
21 this time our mitigation measures are going to be
22 the left-hand turn lane or if anything else is
23 identified with PennDOT, then we have to address
24 those with PennDOT.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Last month I
50
1 remember you took them through in pretty detail the
2 left turn.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
4 shared left-turn lane.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Nothing's
6 changed between that meeting and this meeting?
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: The distance.
9 Okay.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: And based on
11 your study, I guess you modified your study based
12 on the discrepancies that you found in there.
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
14 Correct.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Based on the
16 review by --
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
18 Activation coordination.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Based on your
20 study and the revised information that you
21 submitted, the level of service is not
22 deteriorated, given you're putting in the left-hand
23 turn lane, the shared left-hand turn lane?
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
25 Right.
51
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is there any
2 other evidence, questions?
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I wanted to say
5 for the record that I think this traffic impact
6 study is way beyond what is needed for such a small
7 project. I think the cost to the applicant and the
8 township is extensive for a project of this size.
9 I was not aware that the
10 supervisors passed this. I will take it upon me,
11 if the board would like me to, to make an inquiry
12 to the board of supervisors about this and see what
13 their standards are on such a small project
14 requiring such an extensive impact study by the
15 township, if that's acceptable.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: I'd like to
17 understand it more.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's something
19 we can bring up when we meet with the board of
20 supervisors. I think they are trying to schedule a
21 joint meeting.
22 MR. McHALE: Kush and Sunny,
23 McElroy, Blakeslee Pharmacy, they are all similar
24 projects. They've all provided similar studies and
25 are providing them.
52
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. And I
2 think that's pretty extensive given that list of
3 projects. If the township wants commercial
4 development, I think they have to be a little bit
5 more friendly toward the commercial development
6 community.
7 MS. LUBEN: If I can, the
8 volumes do exceed the thresholds for the CIS
9 requirements on a PennDOT basis. It's more than
10 100 peak hours, at least.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: But that's
12 something PennDOT would --
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It
14 was 3,000 vehicles and 100 peak hour or --
15 MS. LUBEN: Or.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
17 comments?
18 Okay.
19 I'll entertain a motion to
20 recommend approval to the board of supervisors that
21 the preliminary land development plan for Kush and
22 Sunny be approved subject to the township
23 engineer's letter dated June 3rd, 2009, and that
24 the waivers be approved for SALDO Section
25 135.12.D.2, SALDO Section 135.15.A.15, SALDO
53
1 Section 135.17 L and M and SALDO Section
2 135.22.C.1.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that it,
4 Chris?
5 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
6 had four. Five sections. We had two sections in
7 one waiver request.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Further, that
9 the lot consolidation be submitted with -- what did
10 you call it?
11 MS. HAASE: Tax certification.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Tax
13 certification, and agreement for the sewer and road
14 access with the private road owner.
15 Do I have a motion?
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: I'll make that
17 motion.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
19 second to the motion?
20 MS. RINEHIMER: I'll second it.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
22 second. Any further comments? Any comments from
23 the board?
24 All those in favor, please say
25 aye.
54
1 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
2 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
5 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Is
6 there a letter that's issued from the PC?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Not to the
8 applicant. What the board will do is they will
9 look at the minutes and I'll probably submit a
10 brief summary to the board.
11 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: So
12 the tax certificate were the only additional
13 things.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: And, I mean,
15 obviously, things in Bob's letter. The preliminary
16 JD we talked about. What else? Whatever was in
17 the letter. That blank easement, I'll get to you.
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
19 Thank you.
20 MS. HAASE: Chris, there is
21 specific verbiage that needs to be placed in the
22 deed. If you want to call me tomorrow, we can give
23 you that information.
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I'll
25 talk to the attorney. I'm not going to do the
55
1 deed.
2 MS. HAASE: Have them contact us
3 so they know exactly what we require.
4 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: You
5 need a copy of the deed --
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Consolidating
7 the two lots. I don't know if you've already done
8 it or not.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: No.
10 Absolutely not.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
12 motion to table the Wee-Wons Day Care Expansion
13 preliminary final land development plan.
14 MR. MILLER: So moved.
15 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Moved and
17 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
20 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
22 Motion to table Glorious Church
23 land development plan.
24 MR. MILLER: So moved.
25 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
56
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Moved and
2 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
5 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
7 Entertain a motion to table
8 Glorious Church conditional use application.
9 MR. MILLER: So moved.
10 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Moved and
12 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
15 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
17 Locust Ridge Quarry 940
18 Contractor Shop preliminary land development plan.
19 I'll entertain a motion to table.
20 MR. MILLER: So moved.
21 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Moved and
23 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
24 MR. MILLER: Aye.
25 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
57
1 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Entertain a motion to -- John
4 McElroy did request -- the applicant requested it
5 be tabled tonight. So I just wanted that on the
6 record. I'll entertain a motion to table John
7 McElroy preliminary final land development plan.
8 MR. MILLER: So moved.
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Moved and
11 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
12 MR. MILLER: Aye.
13 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
14 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
16 Time waivers. Trevdan?
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: They have it.
18 Maureen forwarded that this afternoon in the packet
19 and we are good on Trevdan until -- I think it was
20 a significant amount of time, until October.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you. And
22 John McElroy.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think we got
24 one with John McElroy, and they are good until
25 October as well.
58
1 Just very briefly, you mentioned
2 about the open projects. I think a year ago I
3 probably issued some letters to try to get some of
4 these applicants to come forward. I don't know if
5 that's something you want to consider again. What
6 I would do is I would just issue a letter saying
7 that it's been on the agenda for an extended amount
8 of time, that they haven't provided any activity to
9 the township and if they don't come forward with
10 revised plans, whatever they need to do within 30
11 or 60 days, we'll put it on the agenda and you guys
12 take action.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. Which
14 would mean that we deny it and then it's done.
15 Then they can start over again.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Go ahead and do
17 that?
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. Okay.
19 Mount Pocono's proposed
20 ordinance amendment. Bob, you had some information
21 that you were sharing with me prior to the meeting.
22 MR. McHALE: Yes. I just want
23 to mention in the Mount Pocono ordinance, when they
24 are speaking of lot coverage they don't really
25 speak to whether they have central water, central
59
1 sewer or both, and that sometimes comes into play I
2 know in other ordinances where that number would be
3 different if they had on-lot water and sewer versus
4 if they do not. So it's just something to think
5 about. I guess they are looking for some kind of
6 comment and that would be one comment I would just
7 add to that.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so the
9 planning commission is aware, it must have been how
10 many months ago, the Township of Tobyhanna finally
11 implemented the regional comp plan and part of that
12 implementation is that all of the municipalities
13 that are members of that regional comp plan will
14 provide their proposed zoning amendments and SALDO
15 amendments to all members. So that's why you're
16 getting Mount Pocono Borough's proposed amendments.
17 If you have any comments on it, you can forward it
18 back to Mount Pocono.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: They asked for
20 comments I think by July something. We just got
21 this. I looked through it.
22 MRS. LAMBERTON: I haven't seen
23 it.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I just looked at
25 it really briefly. It's just concerning lot
60
1 coverage. So that we can take it up at our next
2 meeting. I don't see anything major. They are
3 just looking for comments. I think Bob's comment
4 is good. They don't talk about central sewer and
5 central water. And most of the borough is central
6 sewer and central water, so I don't know why they
7 want to look at that. Where this is going to come
8 into play is when we have all the municipalities
9 coming together to form the ordinances, so we have
10 uniform ordinances and SALDOs. That's why this
11 issue is going to come up.
12 Just for the record, Heidi
13 Pickard of the board of supervisors did contact me
14 and asked me to be on a joint committee that's
15 starting up to start that process. So I said I
16 would. Of course, everyone is welcome to attend,
17 but it's going to be like the stirring committee to
18 get it started.
19 MS. HAASE: Correct. Heidi
20 Pickard, Mr. Sincavage and myself from the
21 township. I don't believe that we received the
22 actual formal committees from the other
23 municipalities as of yet. Right now we are
24 planning on having a meeting the third Thursday, at
25 4 o'clock, of the month, while we are going over
61
1 definitions of the different ordinances. At a
2 later date, it may change to evening meetings. So
3 I'll try to keep everyone advised of that.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else?
5 Hearing nothing, I'll declare our meeting
6 adjourned. Thank you for coming.
7 (Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.)
8 ---
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
1
2
3
4
5
6 I hereby certify that the
7 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
8 accurately in the notes taken by me, to the best of
9 my ability, at the meeting in the above matter; and
10 that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript
11 of the same.
12
13
14
15 JOSEPHINE HOLLMAN, C.R.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25