Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, October 4, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll call the
2 regularly scheduled meeting of the Tobyhanna
3 Planning Commission, Thursday, October 4, 2007, to
4 order.
5 Our first order of business will
6 be approval of the September 6, 2007 minutes which
7 we all received electronically.
8 MR. BAXTER: Move we accept the
9 minutes.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Do I
11 have a second to the motion?
12 MR. MILLER: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
14 second. All those in favor please say aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Public comment? Anything in
20 general, not anything specific on the agenda.
21 I notice there are a couple of
22 people that are not usually here. If you do speak,
23 please state your name clearly. The reporter may
24 ask you to spell it. Also state where you're from.
25 Thank you.
3
1 I'm announcing that we are going
2 to have a work session meeting on October 23, 2007
3 at 5 o'clock here at the township. The work
4 session will be to discuss the proposed EV
5 designation letter of support and the second one
6 would be to discuss the Act 167 Stormwater
7 Management Plan for the McMichaels Brodhead
8 Watershed.
9 MR. McHALE: Yes.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Also I'll
11 announce that we have rescheduled our November
12 meeting to November 8th at 7 o'clock here.
13 Our first order of business is
14 Shikhman. Do you see Sarah? Is Sarah expected
15 tonight?
16 MR. McHALE: I don't know. I
17 think we can proceed.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Shall we
19 proceed? You don't want to wait a little while?
20 MR. McHALE: You can, if you
21 want.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'll wait a
23 little bit for Sarah.
24 We'll move on to the Blakeslee
25 minor subdivision. Anyone here representing them?
4
1 We'll hold that one too.
2 Pyramid.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: I spoke with
4 Mike Grab this afternoon. He requested we table.
5 Just a couple more informational things that the
6 applicant has to submit, some changes to the
7 proposed easement.
8 MR. BAXTER: I move we table the
9 Pyramid Network Service's final land development
10 plan.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
12 Do I have a second to the motion?
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
15 second. All those in favor please say aye.
16 MR. MILLER: Aye.
17 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 Next one is Maguire minor
21 subdivision.
22 MR. MARV WALTON: Marv Walton
23 from Niclaus Engineering. Also Chris Maguire is
24 here, who has an agreement of sale on the property.
25 This plan was before you last
5
1 month. It was tabled. We received a comment
2 letter from Bob and unless something's come up
3 between now and then, I think we have everything
4 resolved. I look to Bob to expound further if he
5 wishes to.
6 MR. McHALE: No.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like
8 the applicant is requesting waivers from SALDO
9 Section 135-15.A, Subsection 15; and SALDO Section
10 135-17, Subsections L and M.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any member have
12 any questions? Comments? I'll entertain a motion
13 to approve the proposed minor subdivision for lands
14 of Chris Maguire, equitable owner, and suggest
15 recommendation of waiver to SALDO Section
16 135-15.A.15 and SALDO Section 135-17.L and M.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
18 MR. BAXTER: Second.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
20 second. All those in favor please say aye.
21 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
25 MR. MARV WALTON: Was that
6
1 action on the plan also or just an action on the
2 waivers?
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: What was just
4 done, they recommended approval of the plan with
5 the waivers.
6 MR. MARV WALTON: With the
7 waivers?
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: Pursuant to the
9 September 24, 2007 letter of the township engineer.
10 MR. MARV WALTON: Very good.
11 Thank you for your time.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Sarah, are you
13 ready?
14 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: We skipped over
16 you. So we'll do Shikhman.
17 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Thank
18 you.
19 I believe that we met all of the
20 requirements. We did get a traffic study. It does
21 recommend a left turn lane on 940. We will be
22 dealing with PennDOT on that issue. We did widen
23 this to 26 feet and we put in two foot wide gravel
24 on each side. I did get a copy of the memo from
25 Guardian today saying that they didn't have any
7
1 problems. We have resubmitted to the conservation
2 district and we have already submitted to PennDOT.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is
4 language from Guardian that should be put on the
5 plan, according to this memo.
6 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
7 That was already done. It's on the last note on
8 C-2. You did get new plans yesterday.
9 MR. McHALE: That was some
10 additional language that Bill Weber had asked for,
11 Sarah, and you did put that on the drawing. Today
12 we also received a letter from Guardian which we'll
13 give you a copy of.
14 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: I have a
15 copy of it.
16 MR. McHALE: He asked for some
17 additional language.
18 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: He did?
19 MR. McHALE: Yes. He said
20 approval should carry stipulations to require
21 that -- he added some extra language. If you put
22 that information on the drawing before it goes to
23 the board of supervisors, that should be
24 acceptable.
25 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Which
8
1 plan --
2 MR. McHALE: Towards the bottom.
3 Right above the --
4 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Oh, this
5 planning gauge. Okay. I can add that. I'll add
6 that to the same note.
7 Does anybody have any questions?
8 You also did get the review letter from the county
9 planning commission.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Did you want to
11 just let the commission know which waivers you're
12 requesting? I know it says in the review letter,
13 but it looks like the applicant is requesting
14 waivers from SALDO Section 135-12.D.3, SALDO
15 Section 135, Section 15.A.15.
16 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: And SALDO
18 Section 135-17, Subsection L and M.
19 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm sorry, did
21 you request those?
22 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: No we
23 didn't, because we show the 500 feet.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're not
25 requesting waivers from SALDO Section 135-17 --
9
1 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: No.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: The applicant is
3 not requesting waivers from SALDO Section 135,
4 Section 17, Subsections L and M.
5 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Yes. We
6 show the 500 feet along the road.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: There are some
8 additional waivers. You want to take us through
9 those?
10 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: I don't
11 have my waiver letter in front of me. I have got
12 an inch thick correspondence file.
13 Which letter are you looking at?
14 MR. McHALE: We got it here.
15 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Okay.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. I was
17 looking at a previous review letter. It appears
18 the applicant is actually not requesting any
19 waivers, is that correct?
20 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Actually
21 that may be -- I thought we met everything.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. There are
23 no waivers being requested. Please let the record
24 reflect that the applicant is not requesting any
25 waivers and no waivers need to be recommended for
10
1 approval tonight.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
3 motion to approve the land development plan and lot
4 consolidation plan of Isaac and Sophie Shikhman,
5 subject to the township's engineer review letter of
6 September 24th, 2007 and the additional language
7 requested by Guardian Inspection Service dated 4,
8 October, 2007.
9 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
11 to the motion?
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
14 favor please say aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Finally, Sarah, you did it.
20 MS. SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Only two
21 years. Thank you.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone here from
23 Blakeslee? We'll move on to Creek View.
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Charlie
25 Unangst with Hanover Engineering. We were here
11
1 last month. If you'd like, I can put a plan up on
2 the board, but basically a couple months ago we
3 were here trying to subdivide the parcel into two
4 pieces. It's a 136-acre parcel. Last month we
5 came back looking to subdivide it into three. We
6 made some revisions to the plans. We submitted
7 them to the township. We received Mr. McHale's
8 review letter dated the 27th. We have made
9 additional revisions and resubmitted yesterday for
10 Mr. McHale to provide a comment on the review
11 letter. And if you'd like, I'll go over every
12 individual comment. If someone wants to chime in,
13 go ahead, if not then we would like to go over the
14 waivers and ask you to act on the waivers and we'd
15 like to request conditional approval.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so the
17 planning commission is clear, you're going to go
18 over the September 27, 2007 review letter?
19 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Correct.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: And the last
21 revised September 13th, 2007 request for waivers?
22 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That is
23 correct.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think we'll
12
1 ask you to put up a plan. You have to go through
2 these one at a time. Also, for the record, the
3 declaration of covenants was submitted to
4 applicant's counsel and we are awaiting word from
5 him.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: I have not heard
7 back from Mr. Weiner. The only real changes from
8 the prior declaration --
9 MR. BERARDI: I reviewed it.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: It was basically
11 the addition of Lot 3.
12 MR. BERARDI: It was accepted
13 with just one area of discussion, which we
14 discussed at the last meeting, and I'm just not
15 sure what the answer was. Charlie, you have that?
16 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Sure.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think we have
18 Pennsylvania DEP and you wanted --
19 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: No. You
20 have PennDOT. We wanted to expand it to the Army
21 Corp and DEP in with that. If any of them say we
22 can't touch this wetland, you have room to move the
23 driveway to the north, move it to the north. It's
24 just cooperation with the township; with that
25 understanding. You put the note in with PennDOT.
13
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: I understand
2 that. I think what you just said, I don't know if
3 we would be okay with, because you said if any of
4 them have a problem with it. I think the way the
5 declaration reads is --
6 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: I guess
7 what our concern is if someone says we are not
8 going to give you a permit for that location
9 because of this, we are stuck then. All we are
10 doing is asking for -- the way the note is written,
11 it's just we both agree that we are going to
12 work -- try to work something out. It's not
13 promising anything. It's just stating that we'll
14 cooperate with each other to work --
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: We are talking
16 about paragraph 4, page 2?
17 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes.
18 MR. McHALE: But we also might
19 run into some resistance if some of the wetlands
20 need to be impacted and PennDOT is saying this is
21 the best location, and the township is saying this
22 is the best location, that we need to work through
23 that. We can't just simply say that the DEP says
24 we don't like it there.
25 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: No. No. I
14
1 think where it says that we'll cooperate to -- and
2 that's all we want because it may take then a
3 letter from the township to say, listen, this is
4 what you really want. Can you look favorable upon
5 them?
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: What's important
7 is that the last section of that sentence, which
8 says -- which is the owner and the township shall
9 cooperate in relocating the proposed future
10 driveway if there is a problem with PennDOT
11 regulations.
12 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We are not
13 opposed to the note.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: You want to add
15 DEP and Army Corp of Engineers; and/or.
16 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: And/or.
17 And the reason we are saying that is, we have a
18 number of projects in the works right now that DEP
19 is not only just saying -- reviewing the plans and
20 saying how like -- you used to address things and
21 send it up and they'd accept it and review it and
22 make some comments. They are now telling us to
23 redesign because certain people -- it depends who
24 you send it to. They literally say, no, no, you
25 should redesign this and move things and we are
15
1 stuck on a number of jobs because, you know, they
2 send some up from Northampton County, one reviews
3 it. They like it this way. They send it to Lehigh
4 County or Monroe or somebody else and we are stuck.
5 MR. BERARDI: We are not opposed
6 to this but the township has the influence to
7 change their thinking and we are back to where we
8 were, that's fine. Just that for us to deal with
9 that becomes very difficult.
10 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We can go
11 round and round. That's really the only change
12 that I'm aware of.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's the only
14 request you have?
15 MR. BERARDI: Yes.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: What I will do,
17 and I'll get with Bob and -- it's a matter of
18 making the language work for both you and the
19 township. We'll do that and I'll send it out to
20 Mr. Weiner and make sure. But everything else in
21 the declaration you're okay with?
22 MR. BERARDI: Yes.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Bob, I
25 don't know, would you like me to just go through
16
1 all the comments from before or have you looked at
2 them to eliminate some of them?
3 MR. McHALE: Yes. Everything is
4 in pretty good order as far as notes were added to
5 the plans, the revised DEP planning module mailer
6 was submitted to us, which was forwarded to our
7 sewage enforcement officer. But everything is in
8 order to provide a recommendation tonight for
9 approval.
10 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Also,
11 there are a number of waivers per our September
12 13th letter of waiver requests. And we have gone
13 over some of those, and, basically, what they are
14 for is the fact that we are not proposing any
15 development at this time and these are referencing
16 future development. So we realize and we noted
17 that it is only for this plan. Any piece of this
18 land coming back in front of you, these waivers are
19 off the table for that piece of land. It's a brand
20 new plan. And for utilities and everything else,
21 these waivers are no longer enforceable or
22 whatever.
23 MR. McHALE: The plan references
24 the declaration of covenants. And the declaration
25 of covenants refers back to those waivers that are
17
1 stipulated on the plans.
2 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We have
3 the waivers noted and the note about the covenants.
4 This is the same three lots we brought in last
5 time. There will be a common driveway. One of the
6 concerns or one of the comments were maintenance
7 for that. At this time we are saying three equal
8 parts. We have no idea who's going in and what is
9 happening there. So at this point, if there is a
10 road constructed back through there and it cost 100
11 bucks to plow it, 30 bucks, you each pay 10 bucks.
12 Right now it's set up three equal shares towards
13 the maintenance of that driveway.
14 MR. McHALE: You've added a note
15 to that effect? If you want to point that out.
16 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes.
17 Right here. Responsible equal shares for
18 maintenance cost or improvements.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does the
20 commission want to go through each waiver or do we
21 want to accept the letter of recommendation per
22 Bob?
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: You've addressed
24 all the outstanding issues that were outlined in
25 Bob's September 27th letter?
18
1 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We've
2 addressed the majority of them. Some of them are
3 upon recommendation of the supervisors, we submit a
4 CD of --
5 MR. McHALE: Right and
6 signatures.
7 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: No
8 problem. We will submit to the township a signed
9 and sealed plan of this prior to going to the board
10 of supervisors. We have no problem with that. We
11 just -- I don't like having a lot of signed and
12 sealed plans out there until we are pretty close to
13 having them complete. We'll gladly submit that.
14 We have no problem with any of these. We've
15 addressed, I would say, all but probably 2 or 3 and
16 now it's 2.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will be
18 complying with all the --
19 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes, we
20 will.
21 MR. McHALE: Anything related to
22 adding notes and modifications to the declaration
23 of covenants and any notes added to the plan, all
24 that has been covered. The only thing that's
25 outstanding is some signatures and CD electronic
19
1 drawings.
2 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Correct.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: If you want,
4 does the commission want to go through the request
5 for waivers dated September 13th, 2007?
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: We've been over
7 these. Are we all okay?
8 MR. McHALE: And they are listed
9 on the drawing as well.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are granting
11 these waivers because there is no buildings
12 proposed at this time. It's simply to facilitate
13 the subdivision of the land.
14 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Correct.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
16 motion to approve the Creek View Estates minor
17 subdivision, subject to the declaration of
18 covenants being submitted for review by the
19 township solicitor and executed by the applicant
20 and recorded in the Monroe County Courthouse; also
21 recommend approval subject to the township
22 engineer's letter dated September 27th, 2007; and
23 we recommend approval subject to the waivers on
24 Hanover Engineering Associates' letter last revised
25 September 13th, 2007, specifically Section
20
1 135-15.A.15, Section 135-15.A.25, Section
2 135-15.A.27, Section 135-17.L, Section 135-17.M,
3 Section 135-17.U, Section 135-17.V, Section
4 135-18.B.13; and also a waiver to the Tobyhanna
5 Township Stormwater Management Ordinance, Chapter
6 124. Did I get everything?
7 Do I have a motion?
8 MR. MILLER: I'll make the
9 motion.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
11 Do I have a second to the motion?
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
14 second. Any further discussion?
15 All those in favor please say
16 aye.
17 MR. MILLER: Aye.
18 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
21 MR. BERARDI: Thank you very
22 much.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Have you sent a
24 petition in for the board of supervisors for a
25 zoning change?
21
1 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes.
2 MR. BERARDI: We are going to
3 have a workshop discussion prior to that. That's
4 the step we want to take. Thank you.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Blakeslee minor
6 subdivision. Anyone here representing Blakeslee?
7 Are they not expected?
8 I'll entertain a motion to table
9 the Blakeslee minor subdivision.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
11 MR. MILLER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor please say aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye. We have to
18 go through our list of projects.
19 I'll entertain a motion to table
20 Wee Wons Daycare expansion land development plan.
21 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone here?
23 No one here. I have a motion.
24 Do I have a second to the motion?
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
22
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
2 favor please say aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
7 Locust Ridge Quarry Contractors
8 Shop. Anyone here representing Locust Ridge? I'll
9 entertain a motion to table the preliminary land
10 development plan for Locust Ridge Quarry.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
12 MR. BAXTER: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
14 favor please say aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Glorious Church land development
20 plan. Anyone here representing Glorious Church?
21 I'll entertain a motion to table Glorious Church
22 land development plan.
23 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
24 MR. MILLER: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
23
1 second. All those in favor please say aye.
2 MR. MILLER: Aye.
3 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
6 I'll entertain a motion to table
7 Glorious Church conditional use application.
8 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
9 MR. BAXTER: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
11 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
12 MR. MILLER: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
16 Lands of Elaine Brockett.
17 Anyone here representing Elaine Brockett? I'll
18 entertain a motion to table the lands of Elaine
19 Brockett final land development.
20 MR. MILLER: So moved.
21 MR. BAXTER: Second.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
23 favor please say aye.
24 MR. MILLER: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Omnipoint Communications, T
4 Mobile land development plan?
5 Is that the same thing as
6 Pyramid or are they separate?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: They are two
8 separate plans. Omnipoint T Mobile is a
9 collocation. Pyramid Network Services is I believe
10 a --
11 MR. McHALE: Sign
12 communications.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone here
14 representing Omni Point?
15 I'll entertain a motion to table
16 the Omnipoint Communications T Mobile preliminary
17 final land development plan.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
19 MR. BAXTER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
21 favor please say aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
25
1 E and T Realty, Brick City.
2 Anything on that, Bob?
3 MR. McHALE: They are in the
4 process of making changes. They are not going to
5 be here.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
7 motion to table E and T Realty, also known as Brick
8 City minor subdivision plan.
9 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
12 second. All those in favor please say aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
17 Next item on our agenda is Kush
18 and Sunny, LLC sketch plan. I'm going to be
19 commenting on this plan so I'm going to recuse
20 myself from the board. I'll turn it over to Joe.
21 MR. BAXTER: I will be too.
22 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: My
23 name is Chris McDermott. I'm with Reilly
24 Associates. We prepared the sketch plan for Kush
25 and Sunny, LLC.
26
1 On that plan the developer's
2 proposing to develop a lot located at the corner of
3 Route 940 and Hemlock Road for an office and bank
4 combo. Now, you probably -- most of you are
5 familiar with this location. It is directly across
6 the street from the Moose Crossing Storage
7 Facility. This is currently an undeveloped lot.
8 There are wetlands located on the southwestern
9 portion. There are actually two lots. A lot which
10 fronts Route 940 and the lot running Hemlock.
11 We'll be proposing to join those
12 two lots together to create a four-acre piece of
13 land. Within that we'll be constructing two access
14 driveways, one off of Route 940, one off of Hemlock
15 Road. They will be to service the single building.
16 This building will have a multiple use. It will be
17 a two story building approximately 60 feet wide by
18 200 foot long. There will be a bank located in the
19 front.
20 The lower level is bifurcated or
21 open to create an access aisle for a drive-through
22 service lane for the bank. The upper floor will be
23 one continuous floor which will provide office
24 space. The total square footage will be
25 approximately 2400 hundred or -- sorry. Let me get
27
1 that right. 24,300. 7,000 square feet will be
2 provided in the front portion. Approximately 2100
3 square feet right over the drive-through lanes and
4 the remaining 13,000 to the south of it.
5 We will service the property by
6 the connection to the municipal sewage collection
7 system which is located on 940. An on-lot well
8 would provide water. Stormwater control areas have
9 been reserved to the east and to the south --
10 southern portion of the property. Discharge from
11 those basins would go to the wetland area, which is
12 located to the southwest.
13 We brought this plan before the
14 commission to get any comments that they may have
15 on it. There is one particular area that we'd ask
16 you to comment or get some direction on and that is
17 along Hemlock Road we provided a 25 foot landscaped
18 buffer. Let me point that out on our plan; in this
19 location. The reason we've done that is there was
20 a section within your subdivision and land
21 development ordinance that requires a landscaped
22 buffer be provided when you're proposing a
23 commercial use that would adjoin a residential
24 area. We've shown that on this plan and respected
25 it, but we wanted to discuss that to find out what
28
1 your interpretation of a residential area is.
2 If you note, the C District is
3 located along Route 940, and this entire lot is in
4 the C District where banks and office buildings are
5 permitted. This lot, which is this entire area, is
6 split zoned. Along 940 is the C Zone; along
7 Hemlock, in the lower portion, is the R-District.
8 We've shaded that. There is a bank on this
9 location. The bank parking lot does infringe upon
10 the R-1 Zone and there is a detention basin located
11 in the rear which services the bank. That basin,
12 in fact, discharges to a pipe which in turn goes
13 onto this property. It's a commercially used piece
14 of property. The commercial use appears to extend
15 into the R-1 District. There does not appear to be
16 enough area to subdivide, which in the R-1 Zone I
17 believe you have a one acre minimum for a
18 residential lot. There is not sufficient area
19 within this lot to subdivide that off to create a
20 residential property. So in terms of use, this
21 appears to be a commercially used piece of
22 property.
23 Now, we've provided that buffer
24 because we saw that requirement in the ordinance.
25 However --
29
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Do you know the
2 section of that?
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes,
4 135. You are under commercial and industrial,
5 under Landscaping 1.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: If
8 we could move closer to the road, what that would
9 allow us to do is shift some of our parking lower
10 to the roadside and create more of a buffer
11 adjacent to the wetland. And given the current
12 guidelines established by DEP, that the wider the
13 buffer you could provide, the better. And since
14 that would work well from an environmental
15 standpoint, what I'm really asking you is, is this
16 considered a residential area? It doesn't say
17 residential zone. It doesn't say residential use.
18 It says residential area, I believe.
19 MR. McHALE: I would say that is
20 a residential area and that the buffer should
21 extend along that eastern portion of the property
22 as well as the southern portion where there should
23 be a 25 foot buffer, but it doesn't appear on the
24 sketch plan. I think there is a detention basin
25 shown on that area, so that it would be my opinion
30
1 that it would extend along both sides of the
2 property. At some point in time that could be
3 utilized, but the way it's zoned is what would
4 dictate for the most part, because it could be
5 utilized as a residential. They could split that
6 into two lots at some point in time, commercial
7 district separate from the residential.
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: And
9 that's exactly what I was thinking, maybe they can
10 split this lot.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think your
12 first assumption is correct.
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: But
14 I don't think they have enough area to split that
15 lot. In other words, there isn't a one-acre area
16 left on this lot to split it off.
17 MR. McHALE: Well, the use
18 that's there on the commercial district may not
19 always be there. The split could occur at the
20 zoning district.
21 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Are
22 there any other concerns or comments that the
23 planning commission may have?
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I had a question
25 about Hemlock Drive. I don't know if anybody in
31
1 the audience here has any comments.
2 MS. DIANE LAKE: My name is
3 Diane Lake. I live on Hemlock Road in Old Farm
4 Estates and that is definitely one of the issues
5 that I was prepared to speak about, is the access
6 on Hemlock Road. My understanding is that Hemlock
7 Road is a private road and that to have commercial
8 access to it adds more traffic to our road. As it
9 is, we do have people who cut through from 115,
10 through our development, to get to 940 to avoid the
11 light, even though we have our speed bumps. This
12 would mean more traffic through our community and
13 we pay for maintenance of our road. That would be
14 part of that road also.
15 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
16 You're on Hemlock?
17 MS. DIANE LAKE: Yes. I'm on
18 Hemlock, the same side of the street that you're
19 talking about putting --
20 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
21 We'll look into the status of the road and the
22 rights that this property owner has to access that
23 road. They do have frontage, but, certainly, I'll
24 ask my client to look into his particular rights
25 for use of that road.
32
1 MS. DIANE LAKE: Also, that
2 corner is a bus stop and a lot of children get on
3 and off buses there, all day long, morning, noon
4 and afternoon.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Where is the bus
6 stop?
7 MS. DIANE LAKE: The bus stop is
8 right there at Palmerton Bank. Sometimes the bus
9 drops off the -- I guess the north side of 940.
10 Then of course they pick up on our side, but they
11 pick up children for a few different schools in the
12 morning, then they have the Kindergartners at noon
13 time and then we have different times in the
14 afternoon that right there, between us and
15 Greenwood, the bus stops and let's children off on
16 both sides.
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
18 Right at the intersection?
19 MS. DIANE LAKE: Right there,
20 yes. Thank you.
21 MR. ANDREW LAKE: I live with my
22 mother in the same exact place. My question I had
23 for you is, you talked about drainage from the
24 property itself.
25 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
33
1 MR. ANDREW LAKE: We need a
2 better explanation to us about what you're going to
3 do, because it is very wet as it is. Even a
4 smaller rain storm our backyards already fill up.
5 I want to make sure that's not going to add to it.
6 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
7 township requirement will require us to limit the
8 rate of runoff from the property. In addition to
9 that, the state requirements will require us to
10 limit the volume or really tell us we cannot
11 increase the volume of runoff on a two-year storm.
12 So we are going to have to do a few things. We are
13 going to do volume control and rate control.
14 Conceptually, our ideas are to
15 gather stormwater in the area adjacent to the
16 wetland. This development will likely be elevated
17 above the existing ground, because I believe the
18 groundwater table is close to the surface. We will
19 infiltrate what increases we have into the ground,
20 where the ground will permit that. Both areas
21 shown on the plan and also any area that is located
22 underneath the parking lot, we will have to utilize
23 for subsurface infiltration and possibly subsurface
24 detention. So a large portion of this development
25 would likely be elevated above the existing ground
34
1 level.
2 So, essentially, what you're
3 doing is really trying to capture that rainwater
4 that falls on the surface, swing it underneath, and
5 reintroduce it to the ground.
6 MS. DINA LAKE: I have a
7 question. My name is Dina Lake. I also live at
8 that residence. You're proposing a bank. It's
9 also going to be business offices. Is there an
10 idea of what kind of business it is and what hours
11 of the day they will be open, as far as traffic and
12 noise in that area?
13 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: What
14 we would presume would happen now would be either
15 business offices or perhaps maybe medical, like a
16 dentist office or something like that. But there
17 have been no specific uses identified other than
18 the bank.
19 MS. DINA LAKE: No food places,
20 restaurants?
21 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
22 are not proposing to do that.
23 MS. DINA LAKE: How far back
24 from 940 to the furthest point back of the trees
25 are you going to be, just so we can have an idea
35
1 for where the trees are going to be cut down to?
2 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: From
3 940.
4 MS. DINA LAKE: From 940 going
5 back towards Hemlock, towards our house pretty
6 much?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You can come up
8 and look at the plans.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
10 Probably with the construction of this, wood
11 cutting would extend almost the entire depth of
12 those lots from 940.
13 MS. DINA LAKE: Where is the
14 residential, John and Chris's house?
15 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: This
16 is residential. So it would be approximately 70
17 feet between the lot line and the parking lot.
18 MS. DINA LAKE: This is the
19 speed bump here. So you're going to clear past the
20 speed bump?
21 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It
22 depends on how much clearing is required for
23 stormwater area.
24 MS. DINA LAKE: The building
25 will go this way. People will be coming off.
36
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
2 Well, the most likely path of travel will be
3 entering into, you know -- if you're coming north
4 bound on 115, you would likely come into this,
5 circulate through and either exit back out this way
6 or exit onto Hemlock to the proposed intersection.
7 MS. DINA LAKE: Just so the
8 board knows, many children ride their bikes back
9 and forth on this road here into Greenwood Acres,
10 into our development. Kids are back and forth very
11 often. Right now this is all trees, all trees
12 except the bank. This is very secluded. Nobody
13 comes back here unless you live here or you are
14 going to cut through. But the speed bump, this is
15 far back. And if they are going to clear the trees
16 all the way back to this far, that's going to be
17 substantially infringing on the residential area.
18 So just consider that when you're thinking about
19 this access. That's what we'd like you to think
20 about.
21 MR. VANDERVLIET: Shouldn't we
22 be getting something on the ownership of that road.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will go back
24 and find out from your client what if any rights he
25 has to that private --
37
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: When
2 we come with the land development plan we'll have
3 that.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: Is there a
5 reason why you don't just want that one access
6 point from 940?
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: It's
8 often better to utilize an existing intersection,
9 so that we don't create -- so we try to minimize
10 conflict between these two, so that would somewhat
11 distribute the traffic. Also it creates a nice
12 flow through the site.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: It's a
14 commercial site. It would be better if you had two
15 entrances from 940. In the same vein, on the
16 drainage, you're going to show topo on there and
17 then attest to it on the as-built as to how the
18 flow is going to run so it doesn't go in their back
19 yards.
20 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
21 We'll do the drainage in accordance with the
22 ordinance. So we'll absolutely show the topo. We
23 will absolutely provide all the testing
24 information. We'll absolutely provide it to your
25 engineer for his review.
38
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Mark Sincavage,
2 President of SIDE Corporation. We have ownership
3 of those roadways and the previous speakers did
4 mention that as owners of that road, we do charge
5 the residence of Old Farm a maintenance fee for
6 those roads. This lot was sold previous to us --
7 to SIDE Corporation acquiring the property, so I'm
8 not familiar with what's in the deed. I mentioned
9 this to Chris earlier today when we spoke. He's
10 going to check out the deed to see what rights may
11 be in that deed. It was sold prior to us, so I'm
12 not familiar with what was ever granted.
13 We have strenuously objected to
14 any commercial access onto our road, as the
15 planning commission is aware. Specifically,
16 Palmerton Bank, when they proposed their
17 development, they also asked and we stringently
18 opposed that.
19 Secondly was the car wash, which
20 is on Chestnut. They proposed an access road onto
21 there and we objected to that and they did keep
22 their road. Their driveway's off our roadway. So
23 we will be objecting to any access onto Hemlock
24 Road.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: I think that
39
1 the public would be served better if you have an
2 ingress/egress on 940.
3 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: This
4 is the value of a sketch plan.
5 MR. McHALE: It's likely you're
6 only going to get one access off of 940.
7 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: We
8 won't propose multiple off of 940. This is a
9 proposed two-way.
10 MR. McHALE: It appears that
11 they have done a good job in keeping separation
12 distances away from the intersection as far as they
13 can, considering the wetlands that are on the
14 property.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: It can be a
16 two way, ingress/egress.
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
18 MR. McHALE: What they may end
19 up with is just a full access low-volume driveway
20 off of 940.
21 MR. MARK SINCAVAGE: Does that
22 road align with Moose Crossing, Chris?
23 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Yes.
24 The driveway -- we align the driveway directly
25 across from Moose Crossing. Thankfully, that
40
1 aligns with the wetland.
2 MS. DINA LAKE: As a side note,
3 we would appreciate any amount of extra buffer,
4 obviously the tree line that's left, to keep the
5 residential still residential from the commercial
6 that is allowed. I know you were mentioning how
7 much you would have to leave or not, but as much as
8 able to be left is appreciated because 70 feet is
9 not a lot of distance between -- our house is right
10 next to the house that's on the border there, so.
11 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: If I can
12 speak. I'm Alexis Wilkinson. I'm with Reilly
13 Associates. I was actually involved with the
14 layout of this plan and I wanted to pose something
15 to the residence there because I hear what your
16 concern is. I'm wondering whether -- ideally we
17 have some conversation and ideally it's always
18 better to have more than one egress/ingress for a
19 parcel for a couple of reasons; for safety and it
20 distributes the volume of cars that you're
21 experiencing at any one entrance so you don't have
22 these heavy influx of vehicles inundating one
23 entrance. But I notice that the concerns seem to
24 be because the entrance is close to the residential
25 area.
41
1 Would there be less objection if
2 the entrance was pushed closer to the intersection
3 of 940, opposite the commercial area? That was one
4 of the things that we are proposing. We thought we
5 were actually doing more of a service by pushing it
6 back so that it was more so an ingress/egress for
7 the residents of that area.
8 MS. DINA LAKE: I would say no
9 because of the fact that when people go to leave,
10 then they could come to the right then and go down
11 in front of our house and come out and go that way
12 to cut through to go down to 115 that way. They
13 may not always go left to go back to 940 that way.
14 So you're going to increase the traffic down our
15 road. It is a very quiet, quiet, neighborhood.
16 The only people that travel through there are the
17 people that live there. We are all on an acre plus
18 lot, so there is not many of us to begin with. And
19 I would say no. If you have an entrance on 940,
20 when you gotta leave, you leave 940. You make your
21 left or your right. But if you're going to leave
22 on Hemlock Road, you could still make your right or
23 left and then they are coming in front of our
24 house.
25 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: And if I
42
1 can just point out one last thing, I don't mean to
2 play devil's advocate, but it should be pointed out
3 that if a person's intent is to come down Hemlock,
4 they're still going to do it whether they leave off
5 of 940 because of the close proximity. So we can
6 do what we can to discourage it, but just be aware,
7 if that's a person's intent, they will still use
8 the access.
9 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Your
10 input is valuable. We'll have to go to PennDOT.
11 PennDOT, like you, will tell us, we would rather
12 you not do any entrance on 940 and entrance
13 everything off of Hemlock. So we can use your
14 comments to help support our --
15 MR. ANDREW LAKE: One other
16 question I had for you is, the proposal for this
17 lot is the undeveloped lot that's there, not the
18 lot that has a current building, the lot that's
19 there?
20 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
21 Correct. This is adjacent to it. The existing lot
22 is closer to the Wawa. It's directly across from
23 the Moose Crossing.
24 If that's everything, I'd like
25 to thank you for your input. We will take the
43
1 appropriate items under consideration.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will check
3 on the interest of the --
4 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
5 Absolutely.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'll move on to
7 V & M Realty, also known as Nish Nick. I'm not
8 sure why this is back on here.
9 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: I don't
10 know either. Hopefully I can explain that. Alexis
11 Wilkinson, also from Reilly Associates representing
12 Nish Nick properties.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry,
14 Alexis, before you continue, I have to go back over
15 there again.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're recusing
17 yourself again.
18 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: So if I
19 may, I think there might have been a bit of a
20 misnomer as to sketch plan because, if I
21 understand, there was a land development plan for
22 this parcel already in front of the board. I was
23 not part of the original submission, but the basis
24 of the sketch plan, which was submitted for your
25 review back in September 26, was because the client
44
1 approached us with some site plan changes that he
2 wanted to see happen. So what we wanted to do is
3 give you an opportunity to review those changes
4 since it kind of caused a ripple effect across the
5 site.
6 Just to give you a little bit of
7 history of what you're seeing in front of you, what
8 was presented in front of you, what essentially
9 happened with this plan is that originally the
10 building was further northwest, you might as well
11 say closer to the swale, the top of the ditch. It
12 was only a 20 foot offset from that which was
13 essentially 50 feet from the property line. You
14 will see on the plan that's in front of you, now
15 the building has shifted and the offset was
16 increased to 73 feet. The reason for this was
17 because the client expressed an interest of having
18 the bays or that the -- it's a repair, truck repair
19 shop proposed -- and he wanted to be able to have
20 the drive-through access for the bays. So
21 essentially a car being serviced would come in
22 here -- I mean a truck being serviced would come in
23 through here and now would be able to exit through
24 the rear of the building. So there is adequate
25 space now provided. We provided a 40-foot cartway,
45
1 but 20 feet of that is still provided as a fire
2 access.
3 What we did try to do, since we
4 already had detailed stormwater management plans
5 design done, was to maintain all of our existing
6 stormwater management features. So in order to do
7 that, we made some adjustments for the increased
8 impervious area. I tried to demonstrate here, to
9 simplify it and give you a quick synopses of what
10 happened. We widened this, but what we tried to do
11 is, originally this was shown on your plan as a
12 gravel area. The good thing for us is,
13 conservatively, when we did the stormwater
14 management design, if you refer back to the report,
15 we actually considered that area as pavement
16 anyway, because we figured there might be a
17 possibility that it would be paved at a later date.
18 That later date came early. Since this is going to
19 be a space that is utilized frequently, we decided
20 that it's best to be known as a paved area. What
21 we did do to try to balance things was there was an
22 additional three-foot sliver of this cartway that
23 didn't need to be there, so what is shown in green
24 will become grass. The remaining 40-foot swatch
25 will be paved.
46
1 In addition to that, what we did
2 was this was originally all shown -- this whole
3 area was shown as a gravel temporary secured
4 parking space, parking area, which is fenced in to
5 try to balance the site, and I'll talk about that a
6 little bit better with the impervious. So we did
7 not alter this current stormwater management
8 design. We reduced this area of pave, so what's
9 shown in green will now be grassed area.
10 In addition, some of the changes
11 that the client also presented -- if you see right
12 in this area, this is going to be office space.
13 What is currently proposed as now that office space
14 would include both a basement and a mezzanine area.
15 Where the mezzanine area is is split between
16 additional office space and storage area. The
17 basement area was added because it was opted to
18 remove -- we used to have a water storage tank in
19 this vicinity, and what we decided to do is to
20 install sprinklers in accordance with NFPA
21 standards, NFPA 13 standards. And if you note, our
22 note 28 addresses that they will be held to install
23 fire protection per this code.
24 Because they increased the
25 square footage of the building, not the footprint,
47
1 but because they added the basement and the office
2 area, we revisited the parking requirement and
3 therefore this is an additional impervious area
4 that was added to add more parking spaces to
5 accommodate. We actually sized the number of
6 parking spaces rather conservatively. We took into
7 account the additional -- it's a total of 4,410
8 square feet, including the basement and the
9 additional mezzanine area. I know we don't -- I
10 believe the ordinance says that it's only the
11 office space that would run into this calculation,
12 but to be conservative, we included the entire
13 space. So you will see, in the parking data table,
14 the total building square footage was increased to
15 22,010 square feet and we provided parking at the
16 ratio of 1 to 300 parking spaces -- 1 to 400
17 parking spaces in accordance with that. We
18 actually ended up with a net reduction of
19 impervious by almost three thousand square feet,
20 2,881, by eliminating these areas as paved areas.
21 That is essentially it. I was
22 wondering, since it was -- I don't know why it was
23 labeled as a sketch plan, per se, but this is
24 essentially the level of effort that we went
25 through for the plan that's in front of you, land
48
1 development status. So, I'm wondering, is there
2 anything else that needs to be submitted in order
3 for the board to make a motion?
4 MR. McHALE: Well, you know,
5 this is a sketch plan. This is not a land
6 development application.
7 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: One was
8 previously submitted.
9 MR. McHALE: Correct. So you
10 would basically resubmit that entire set again with
11 all these modifications that you're proposing.
12 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: Okay.
13 I'm also here to answer any questions of the
14 changes. It's also my understanding that our NPDES
15 permit is like in the mill kind of thing. I know
16 Bob signed off that we were in accordance with the
17 Act 167, so we are anticipating that permit
18 shortly.
19 MR. MARK SINCAVAGE: Bob, the
20 previous land development plan was approved.
21 MR. McHALE: Correct.
22 MR. MARK SINCAVAGE: You were
23 approved.
24 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: Right,
25 but we came for -- these were sort of major
49
1 changes, so I don't know at this stage what we
2 needed to do in order to -- whether that still
3 holds or do we need to come back before you.
4 MR. McHALE: Well, they've
5 eliminated the water storage tank; the lighting
6 plan changes; the grading plan changes; everything
7 except to where the perimeter of the parking lot
8 changes. So if they take that set of drawings and
9 update it, they have all the notes and everything,
10 pretty much it shouldn't be a problem.
11 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: Okay.
12 Great. We just resubmit and that's it.
13 MR. MILLER: We don't need to
14 table?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is a sketch
16 plan tonight, so there is no action needed by the
17 commission.
18 Just so I understand what's
19 going on, you're going to be resubmitting both
20 plans. It'll come back before this commission.
21 They will make a recommendation to the board of
22 supervisors and the board of supervisors will then
23 look at it.
24 Have you been before the board
25 of supervisors to discuss your changes at all?
50
1 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: No.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will
3 resubmit it. It will come back here. So we'll
4 look at it. You will get a revised review letter
5 from Mr. McHale and then if there is a
6 recommendation it will go before the board of
7 supervisors at that time.
8 Any waivers, Alexis, that were
9 requested in the first application, just resubmit a
10 written waiver document, same documents that you
11 would have submitted in the first application, just
12 resubmit.
13 MS. ALEXIS WILKINSON: Okay.
14 MR. McHALE: Even if the
15 stormwater calcs don't change, it'll be a part of
16 this package.
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Bob,
18 should this just be submitted as a revision to the
19 approved land development plan?
20 MR. McHALE: We don't have a
21 process that's separate, that would do anything
22 different, Chris. So it's pretty much just a land
23 development application. You can write in
24 parenthesis revised and put the approved date if
25 you want on the information form.
51
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: That
2 may make some of the other administrative things a
3 little bit easier for the planning commission and
4 the supervisors because they are previously
5 approved and can just carry over.
6 MS. ALEXIS McDERMOTT: Thank you
7 very much.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We'll
9 move on to Faith Lutheran Church sketch plan.
10 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: What we want
11 to do is, Faith Lutheran Church is, we want to take
12 off 600 square feet of what is right now office
13 space because they are in very poor shape. What we
14 want to do is relocate that 600 square feet to the
15 other side of the building to facilitate bathrooms,
16 and actually what the architect calls a cry room,
17 which is where children, when they are -- more or
18 less like a nursery area, during church. Then the
19 offices are being moved into the other section of
20 the church that was classrooms at one time. So
21 what we are looking for is a waiver of the land
22 development act.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. I see
24 you've given us a written request for waivers.
25 Bob, have you taken a look at
52
1 this?
2 MR. McHALE: Just as far as what
3 was submitted to us on the 3rd. I didn't go
4 through and check all the numbers and reference off
5 the section of the ordinance.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
7 MR. McHALE: Refresh my memory,
8 Steve, but I think this plan, when a previous
9 expansion had occurred, there was stormwater
10 calculations that were submitted at that point in
11 time?
12 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Yes.
13 MR. McHALE: They are not
14 changing or increasing anything. They are going to
15 demolish 600 square feet of what are modular type
16 structures and move it over to the other side. So
17 the action -- what you're requesting is a waiver of
18 the land development requirement, which is a little
19 unique, but what they are proposing is in a
20 commercial district. And, Phyllis, you might want
21 to comment on how this comes about with the zoning.
22 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: This is a
23 nonconforming use of the land. A church is not
24 allowed in a commercial district. The applicant
25 has gone before the zoning hearing board and
53
1 received a variance for expansion of the 600 square
2 feet. So they have obtained that from the zoning
3 hearing board.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: So they are
5 asking us, in essence, to switch out to one area of
6 600 square foot for a new area of 600 square foot
7 and asking us to recommend a waiver to the land
8 development.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: What type of a
10 structure is the structure that you're removing?
11 Is it like a modular type structure?
12 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: It's a
13 framed modular structure. It used to, you know --
14 at one time it had wheels underneath, but that was
15 all taken off because it had to be more or less set
16 as a permanent structure. It has a foundation
17 underneath it.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: And one of
19 equal -- the same spacewise, just going to be moved
20 to a different area of the church.
21 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Yep. It's
22 going to just be located in a different area.
23 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: You will
24 raze the existing --
25 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Yes. The
54
1 existing 600 feet is definitely coming out of there
2 because it's in bad shape.
3 MR. BAXTER: The new
4 construction will be what type of construction?
5 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Stick frame.
6 Not going to be modular. It will be on a full
7 crawl space.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: And then if
9 they're not within the setbacks with the proposal,
10 the building setbacks --
11 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: It meets all
12 the setbacks.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're not going
14 to be increasing parking? Stormwater?
15 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: No.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Sewer flow?
17 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: No. None of
18 that is going to change.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're
20 requesting -- I mean, ultimately it's going to be
21 before the board of supervisors. You're requesting
22 a waiver of land development. I'm just curious why
23 you're also requesting a waiver of all these other
24 sections of -- it looks like SALDO.
25 MR. McHALE: The way it's
55
1 written, to the best of their knowledge, these
2 items don't apply to what they are doing, but
3 unless we got into it, we wouldn't really know,
4 unless we looked up every section, what does apply
5 or doesn't. So, really, I think the request is
6 over all very broad. They are just asking for a
7 waiver of land development because of the
8 uniqueness of what's being proposed.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: So the planning
10 commission, tonight, if you have any questions as
11 to other than what he's already indicated to you,
12 what the church is going to be proposing, what is
13 before you is whether or not you would recommend to
14 the board of supervisors to approve the request for
15 a waiver of land development, given the proposal of
16 the applicant, and subject to any conditions that
17 you may have in mind or subject to any conditions
18 that the board of supervisors may have. Conditions
19 similar to like stormwater or --
20 MR. McHALE: I think one note
21 that we've asked other applicants, in fact, Creek
22 View Estates, when they were requesting regarding
23 their minor subdivision, was things related to that
24 this is not a precedent setting action, if you do
25 decide to move forward with a recommendation for
56
1 waiving of the land development, but any future
2 development beyond this should be subject to any
3 and all requirements of the ordinance as they exist
4 at that time.
5 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Right.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Comments from
7 the board?
8 MR. MILLER: I have no problem
9 with it.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: No problem.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Obviously one of
12 the conditions would ultimately be that the
13 existing 600 square foot would be removed.
14 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Absolutely.
15 Absolutely. Well, actually, the handicap ramp is
16 going to change around. Instead of sawing back and
17 forth, it's going to be a straight run shot.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think that's
19 an important point, that you still have to conform
20 with all the building code requirements.
21 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Absolutely.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: That would also
23 be a condition of any kind of a waiver.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
25 comments from the board? Any comments from the
57
1 public?
2 MR. BAXTER: We need a motion,
3 conceptually, because I'm not sure without looking
4 into all of these specific citations, that we would
5 want to comment on those.
6 MR. McHALE: Correct.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: So that if it's
8 so inclined for the planning commission to make a
9 recommendation this evening, it would just be a
10 recommendation either that the request for a waiver
11 of land development be approved by the board of
12 supervisors, pursuant to whatever conditions the
13 planning commission wants or that you recommend
14 that his request for a waiver be denied, of land
15 development.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll suggest
17 that -- I'll entertain a motion to recommend to the
18 board of supervisors a waiver to the requirements
19 for providing land development plan for the Faith
20 Lutheran Church subject to removal of the 600
21 square foot existing office trailer and replacement
22 of no more than the 600 square foot of -- office
23 space?
24 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: No, actually
25 toilet facilities.
58
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Toilet
2 facilities.
3 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: We are
4 eliminating what bathrooms we have now. Where the
5 bathrooms and classroom that we have now are going
6 to be office, the pastor's and secretary's office.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So there is no
8 increase in the sewer flow? No increased
9 bathrooms? You're replacing the existing
10 bathrooms?
11 MR. STEVE SLUTTER: Right. We
12 are replacing the existing bathrooms.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: I didn't
14 understand that.
15 Condition that number one,
16 removal of the 600 square foot and replacement of
17 no more than 600 square foot; that the existing
18 bathrooms be replaced with the new proposed
19 bathrooms so that there is no increase in the sewer
20 flow; that any further development past this point
21 would require submittal of a land development plan;
22 and that all building codes and L and I
23 requirements be met.
24 MR. BAXTER: I would make that
25 motion.
59
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
2 Do I have a second to that motion?
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
5 seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor
6 please say aye.
7 MR. MILLER: Aye.
8 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
11 I'm going to announce that a
12 time waiver was received for the Shikhman medical
13 office building, Locust Ridge Quarry, Creek View
14 Estates and Omnipoint T Mobile.
15 That takes care of everything.
16 And I have to recuse myself for the next item.
17 Joe, it's up to you.
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: I'm
19 Chris McDermott again, still with Reilly
20 Associates. At this time I'm here regarding the
21 land development plans.
22 You have two items on your
23 agenda for land development as to Lot 100 and Lot
24 110 of New Ventures Park. I'd ask that you
25 consider both of these concurrently.
60
1 We submitted the plans
2 concurrently. They are a set of plans for Arcadia
3 Properties, LLC. Mr. Shawn Langen is here from
4 Arcadia. We submitted these plans. They are
5 substantial plans. They're going to take your
6 engineer sometime to review, so I would like to
7 just present the plan in general to you tonight,
8 get any comments which you may have, and then we
9 will sit back and wait for Bob's comments and move
10 forward accordingly.
11 Just to orient you, the lots in
12 question are Lot 100 and Lot 110 located in Section
13 3 of New Ventures Park, Industrial Park. I think
14 you're all familiar with this. It's been through
15 several times. You just approved or sold Lot 13,
16 which is located in this area. Last year the
17 subdivision which created Lots 100 and 110 had gone
18 through, and at that time there was an internal
19 road system which was proposed to service these
20 lots. You may recall, the internal road system in
21 Lot 100 was proposed that there would be an access
22 road, which would loop around and go into Lot 100
23 and come out into Venture Avenue. We are just
24 building upon those roads which were already part
25 of that subdivision.
61
1 Lot 100 is the larger of the two
2 lots located on the northern side of the property.
3 Again, the access road will be Venture Avenue,
4 which enters onto Commerce and ultimately onto
5 Route 115. What we are proposing is to develop
6 this Lot which is a 207 acre lot for a warehouse
7 and distribution center. The proposed building
8 itself is about one and one quarter million square
9 feet. It is a substantial building. We will be
10 providing 267 parking spaces for employees; a large
11 loading dock area along the southern portion of the
12 building; 118 truck trailer spaces located --
13 opposing that truck -- the loading dock area; 119
14 trailer spaces and a satellite parking area; and
15 also an additional satellite area for trailer
16 parking, which would accommodate 286 trailers.
17 This is proposed into the future. We wouldn't be
18 constructing that immediately.
19 The development will be served
20 by the existing central sewage collection system,
21 and connection to the municipal sewage treatment
22 system. We are proposing a low pressure line,
23 which would run along Venture Avenue.
24 We are also looking into the
25 existing gravity line on Lot 15 which we may be
62
1 able to connect to, so we may change that to a
2 gravity instead of low pressure collection system.
3 We'll propose to provide water to the building via
4 on-lot wells. There will likely be multiple wells,
5 a well that serves the building itself and also one
6 to replenish a proposed fire suppression tank which
7 would be located adjacent to the satellite trailer
8 area. This suppression tank will be available for
9 both Lot 100 and Lot 110. Cross easements will be
10 established for that use. Lot 110 is a 600,000
11 square foot building; also provide vehicle parking
12 for employees. There is 213 spaces provided.
13 That's well in excess right now of the number of
14 employees expected to be generated by this
15 building. There are a total of 228 trailer parking
16 stalls provided along the side of the building.
17 Again, we'll have an on-lot well connection to the
18 existing central sewage collection. We have
19 proposed a 16 inch low pressure line along this
20 access road as part of the previous subdivision.
21 Stormwater: What we are
22 proposing are an internal collection system which
23 will gather water from the building and the parking
24 areas and route it to a stacked stormwater
25 detention basin. This basin is essentially a two
63
1 stage basin. One where we'll collect stormwater in
2 volume from a two-year storm, which will then be
3 routed to the subsurface infiltration areas
4 underneath the parking lot and a portion of the
5 access way adjacent to both the north and south
6 side of the Lot 100 building. There will also be
7 an additional subsurface detention area underneath
8 the paved area. What we are doing with the
9 detention area is, really, we are gathering water
10 so that we can interject it or distribute it into
11 the subsurface infiltration areas and this is to
12 meet the state guidelines as far as controlling the
13 volume of runoff from the property. And that is
14 for, potentially, a two-year storm. Storms that
15 are less frequent or greater in quantity, will be
16 routed to the lower portions of the detention basin
17 here, and also held in the detention basin, in this
18 area, which will then be discharged towards the
19 wetlands and toward Tobyhanna. We'll be designing
20 individual rate controls, which I think you're all
21 familiar with, which we've traditionally always
22 done.
23 Likewise, this building will
24 also have a two-stage detention basin, again
25 collecting the more frequent storms, most of the
64
1 rain that falls through, and introducing that into
2 a subsurface infiltration area underneath the
3 proposed parking. And the less frequent, higher
4 volume storms, would be detained in the lower basin
5 and then discharged at a controlled rate to the
6 tributary, to Goose Run.
7 In regard to traffic, both of
8 these facilities will access Commerce Boulevard,
9 which enters onto Route 115, the existing driveway
10 entrance adjacent to the hotel. When the Phase 3
11 subdivision was going through and prior to the
12 submission of this plan, there had been talks with
13 PennDOT and this township and Tunkhannock Township
14 about traffic from this facility.
15 We have determined the scope of
16 the traffic study which will be required for this.
17 Both townships and PennDOT have agreed to that
18 scope. We have performed traffic counts and we
19 have completed a significant portion of that study
20 and we anticipate completing that within the next
21 few weeks and submitting that directly to the
22 township for their review. And that will address
23 the access concerns and any improvements or
24 additions, alterations that would have to be made
25 to this intersection as well as any other
65
1 intersection that was identified in this study.
2 Again, this is a large plan.
3 We've asked Bob to take a look at it. We've told
4 Bob it is a big plan and should he need our help or
5 input as he reviews this, we are certainly
6 available. So we know you can't have significant
7 design comments at this meeting, but if there is
8 any comments which the planning commission members
9 have, I welcome to take them at this time and
10 answer any questions.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Pretty big.
12 MR. McHALE: There is only a few
13 documents that are in process, being prepared, to
14 make the application complete. Once that occurs,
15 it sounds like within the next couple of weeks,
16 then we will continue to proceed ahead in the
17 process. The applicant did request that we begin
18 the technical review in advance of while they are
19 having discussions with the DEP and conservation
20 district and these types of agencies.
21 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
22 We'll note that we've already had a pre-application
23 meeting regarding the NPDES and stormwater
24 requirements as far as the state is concerned with
25 DEP. And we are currently arranging a
66
1 pre-application meeting for the erosion permit,
2 pollution control plan, with the Monroe County
3 Conservation District. They were invited to the
4 meeting with DEP, however they were unable to
5 attend due to a conflict.
6 MR. SHAWN LANGEN: If I can give
7 you a quick background. Thankfully -- I looked at
8 the agenda and saw I was 22, 21 out of 23, I
9 thought we'd be here till midnight.
10 My name is Shawn Langen. I'm
11 Vice-President of Development for Arcadia. Sounds
12 kind of important, but I'm the only guy in
13 development. So I'm kind of the head in my own
14 department. I'm the guy in the pickup truck out at
15 the site. I'll be integrating with the township
16 staff.
17 We are here to get started on
18 taking this through the land development process.
19 We are kind of picking up the torch from SIDE Corp,
20 who's done a great job and had a lot of foresight
21 for this location, close highway proximity, good
22 infrastructure with utilities. We are definitely
23 here to move forward. We are not looking to push
24 the envelope with the approvals. We realize that
25 that your township engineer has a lot of work ahead
67
1 of him to review. We realize that and we are going
2 to move forward at the pace that we can kind of
3 handle.
4 Some of the collateral I gave
5 you, our company is not a large company, but we are
6 a successful company building this type of product.
7 We have a few significant projects underway and
8 completed. The last few years we started out with
9 Lehigh Valley, Arcadia West Industrial, if you've
10 ever been on Route 22 where it becomes 78 as you
11 leave the valley, on the right hand side there is a
12 few rather large buildings, nothing this size, but
13 several hundred thousand square feet. We brought
14 in large companies, -- Advanced Auto Parts, a
15 number of other companies located there. We have
16 the Arcadia North Industrial Park, which is in
17 close proximity to the Pocono Mountain Municipal
18 Airport, if anybody is familiar with that, Johnson
19 and Johnson Warehouse Distribution facility, that
20 we developed within the park. That's basically
21 opening very shortly. That's bringing several
22 hundred new jobs to the area.
23 This size building, based on our
24 other projects, would definitely be probably a
25 multi-ship facility, which is great because it
68