Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Reorganizational Meeting and
Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, January 14, 2010, 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
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
---
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 Tobyhanna Township
3 Planning Commission to order. Our first order of
4 business is the reorganizational meeting. I'm
5 going to propose that we dispense with the
6 appointment of a temporary chairman.
7 And if someone has a nomination
8 for the position.
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: I would like to
10 make a motion to nominate the current commission
11 members as they stand.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: And just for the
13 record, those positions are chair, Mark Sincavage;
14 Vice-Chairman, Joe Miller; Secretary, Rob Baxter.
15 Is that correct?
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: That is
17 correct.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: And do I have a
19 second to the motion?
20 MRS. RINEHIMER: I'll second.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
22 seconded.
23 All those in favor please say
24 aye.
25 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
3
1 MR. MILLER: Aye.
2 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
4 We'll adjourn the
5 reorganizational meeting.
6 Any public comment?
7 Next order of business is
8 approval of the November 5, 2009 meeting minutes.
9 Motion to approve?
10 MS. RINEHIMER: I'll make that
11 motion.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
13 Do I have a second to the
14 motion?
15 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
17 second.
18 All those in favor please say
19 aye.
20 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
21 MR. MILLER: Aye.
22 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
24 Next item is approval of the
25 December 3, 2009 meeting minutes. We have some
4
1 corrections that Tisher should be Teicher,
2 T-e-i-c-h-e-r, on Page 9, Lines, 9, 10, 11, 16;
3 Page 10, Lines 15, 17; Page 11, Line 5; Page 17,
4 Line 6.
5 Do I have a motion to approve
6 the December 3rd meeting minutes as corrected?
7 MR. MILLER: So moved.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
9 Do I have a second to the motion?
10 MRS. LAMBERTON: I'll second
11 that.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
13 second.
14 All those in favor please say
15 aye.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
17 MR. MILLER: Aye.
18 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 Under old business we have
21 Wee-Wons Day Care, final land development plan.
22 Pat, you were going to check on
23 that for us?
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, we have an
25 open ended extension from the applicant. They were
5
1 going to investigate whether or not they were going
2 to change their plan around. I have not heard
3 back. It's my understanding that they're still in
4 the works.
5 Is anyone here from Wee-Wons
6 tonight?
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: All right then,
8 we'll just leave it on the agenda.
9 Do I have a motion to table
10 Wee-Wons Day Care?
11 MR. MILLER: So moved.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
13 second?
14 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
16 second.
17 All those in favor please say
18 aye.
19 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
23 Locust Ridge Quarry, 940 Shop
24 preliminary land development plan. I guess that's
25 still on --
6
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, they
2 submitted a letter a few months ago indicating that
3 they're going to put their project on hold for a
4 little bit. We have an open ended extension for
5 that as well.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Do I have
7 a motion to table Locust Ridge Quarry?
8 MR. MILLER: So moved.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
10 Second to the motion?
11 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
13 second.
14 All those in favor please say
15 aye.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
17 MR. MILLER: Aye.
18 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 Under new business, the first
21 item is going to be a conditional use application.
22 Do you have any comments on that
23 at this time?
24 MR. CHAD LELLO: Before you
25 start discussing, this is for Arrowhead Lake?
7
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Uh-huh.
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: I can go into
3 base -- what would be the second item, land
4 development for --
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: -- Arrowhead
7 Lake? My presentation would be just for the entire
8 project and you can overview it.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's do it that
10 way.
11 MR. CHAD LELLO: Just do it that
12 way? Sounds good. All right.
13 I believe there was a
14 presentation made at a meeting, I guess, back in
15 November, I believe, for I guess it would have been
16 a presubmission meeting for the conditional use.
17 And I'll give you another overview. We can over
18 the site plans with you, just to bring you back up
19 to speed on what the project entails. And then
20 I'll discuss some of the other issues that are open
21 based on some of the comment letters we've received
22 from the township engineer, Monroe County Planning
23 Commission and also the conservation district.
24 Give you a status of all those items.
25 Again, this is -- this plan is
8
1 the Arrowhead Lake Community Lodge project near
2 Arrowhead Lake Community. We're before the
3 planning commission for a conditional use
4 application and preliminary/final land development
5 plan for the construction of a 12,480 square foot 1
6 story community lodge which replaces the old lodge
7 that was there, I guess, up until the middle of
8 last year.
9 I'll give you a heads up on the
10 existing site. The existing site is about 4.23
11 acres. It's currently zoned R2, but it's subject
12 to a conditional use since it's a site amenity --
13 considered site amenity and it's subject to the RR
14 district requirements. The old lodge on the site
15 was demolished back sometime in 2009. What's left
16 on the site is the existing parking lot to the
17 facility, which is a paved parking lot and access
18 road, along with the gravel access road and parking
19 lot that comes off of Arrowhead Drive. Also on the
20 site is open grassed areas, trees, some existing
21 wetlands that basically front the lake.
22 The proposed plans you see up
23 there is the 12,480 square foot lodge. It will
24 contain a 3700 square foot banquet hall that should
25 seat up to close to 250 people, a fitness center,
9
1 billiards room, great room, reading room, cafe`,
2 full kitchen. A lot will be multipurpose rooms,
3 support spaces such as restrooms, bathrooms,
4 storage spaces, screened porch, a deck off the back
5 and a patio.
6 There's parking currently
7 planned for 70 cars and we do meet the zoning
8 requirements based on the amount of people that
9 could be in that facility at any one time. We
10 based it on a maximum of 250 people being in the
11 facility, and based on the parking calculations you
12 would need 66 parking spaces. That would be, you
13 know, probably the largest event we ever hold at
14 the facility. But most days there won't obviously
15 be that many folks there because they'll just be
16 using -- you know, the people coming to the
17 recreational facilities.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry, how
19 many parking spaces are you providing?
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: 70. The
21 existing tennis court is proposed to be converted
22 over to a parking lot without having to excavate it
23 out or construct an additional parking. And if I
24 had a -- I wish I had a pointer on me, but -- do
25 you have a pointer? Excellent.
10
1 The existing tennis court is
2 right here. And all that we're proposing here is
3 to possibly repave it but at a minimum just
4 restripe it for parking. Take the fence down,
5 create an access point here to the drive aisle in
6 to the facility here. Access is going to be
7 provided from the existing roadway which is Lake
8 Shore Drive, I believe, here and also one off
9 Arrowhead Drive. This is Lake Shore Drive, this is
10 Arrowhead Drive, and basically a new paved entrance
11 at the existing gravel entrance that's there today.
12 There will be handicapped
13 parking spaces here, a handicap ramp here. Loading
14 dock area on the right-hand side of the building,
15 on the east side. Garbage dumpster here. This
16 thing here is a proposed rain garden. But I'll get
17 into that in a few more minutes here.
18 The stormwater basically will be
19 conveyed to the lake with a series of inlets and
20 pipes. Many of the roof leaders along the building
21 will just outlet right into the grass which will,
22 you know, help decrease the amount of water to
23 runoff directly into the lake. We're proposing a
24 rain garden here which will act as a water quality
25 treatment facility to slow down the runoff into the
11
1 lake.
2 We are requesting a waiver. One
3 of the waivers that we're going to request is for
4 meeting the stormwater detention, the stormwater
5 requirements. This site sits in the Lehigh River
6 watershed, thus we only need to meet the
7 requirements for the two, 10 and 25 year storms.
8 But due to the proximity to this large lake, we're
9 right off the existing lake, any increase in runoff
10 -- but we're only proposing a small increase in
11 runoff which really is going to be pretty
12 negligible compared to, you know, what was going
13 there before.
14 So that's why we're asking --
15 we're requesting the waiver so we wouldn't have to
16 construct such a large detention basin right next
17 to the lake. So we'll talk a little bit more about
18 that when we get to the waiver letter.
19 Sanitary sewer, currently I
20 understand that you're aware of the issues with
21 Arrowhead Lake and some of the sewer issues there.
22 I guess right now they're currently updating their
23 Act 537 Plan. And the direction that we were given
24 was to test the site for -- I lost the plan -- the
25 direction was given to do testing on site to see if
12
1 an on-lot system could be constructed.
2 The testing was performed by
3 your SEO and did a series of soil tests out there.
4 We're unable to even set up any perk test because
5 none of the soils would have perked anyway so
6 basically the testing proves that an on-lot system
7 is not feasible for this site. So that would
8 hopefully allow us to connect to the existing
9 public system that's constructed in the
10 development. And what we're proposing to sewer the
11 facility with is with an on-lot grinder pump
12 system, sanitary sewer system.
13 We submitted landscaping and
14 lighting plans and they were submitted to only meet
15 the ordinance requirements. The landscaping plans
16 shows -- I think we have a landscaping plan -- if
17 you scroll a while, you'll be able to see it. And
18 what's proposed for landscaping is just buffering
19 along the front of the property here along Lake
20 Shore Drive, along the side there of Arrowhead
21 drive. There's some additional screening trees
22 here which are rows of evergreen shrubs and
23 evergreen arborvitae and I believe inkberries along
24 here. This plan is the most up to date plan. We
25 revised this plan based on comments by Mr. McHale.
13
1 We've also submitted a lighting
2 plan which provides lighting to meet the ordinance
3 requirements for onsite lighting. There's nothing
4 -- I mean, right now the plans do not show any
5 additional landscaping in detail within the site
6 confines. That would just be up to Arrowhead on
7 what they would want to do with signage there. But
8 we're purposing what's required by the ordinance.
9 We are within the ordinance requirements.
10 We've got a few issues. We did
11 receive, like I said, a comment letter from
12 Mr. McHale and the letter includes some zoning
13 issues and a number of issues. I don't know if
14 you'd like to get into the comment letter and go
15 through each issue point by point, but I think that
16 would be more of a waste of time rather than just
17 talking about some of the issues that really are a
18 bigger issue.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think from
20 what I understand a lot of the issues on
21 Mr. McHale's letter are just engineering stuff.
22 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yeah, a lot of
23 engineering. We've already discussed --
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that correct,
25 Bob?
14
1 MR. McHALE: Yes, sir.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: So if you guys
3 want to work that stuff out, but let's talk about
4 the bigger issues because you have some bigger
5 issues here.
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
7 And I'm, you know, prepared to speak.
8 The number one issue was with
9 our submission we provided a letter right from the
10 get go requesting relief to a buffer requirement.
11 Right now, as the site sits as a -- as a site
12 amenity. If you go into the zoning ordinance and
13 look, there's a requirement for a 20 foot buffer
14 along the entire property line. You can see the
15 property line runs here, which is the right of way
16 line for the road, runs along here and then runs on
17 this cul-de-sac bulb here.
18 And if you look at this line
19 here, this is a 20 foot buffer line. Basically it
20 states that there shouldn't be anything in it
21 besides landscaping, but as you can see the tennis
22 court encroaches into it, the whole time, the
23 tennis court nearly all the way up to the right of
24 way line. It's pretty interesting, if you look
25 just right at the roadway it's hard to tell from
15
1 this plan where the existing roadway is because
2 there's some line types that are awfully dark, like
3 the sewer line here, it's just really dark. But
4 the edge of pave for the roadway is right about
5 here, kind of parallel with that sewer line. And
6 you can see the right of way line is here.
7 Actually, the roadway is not even on center with
8 the right of way line, so the right of way line
9 really pushes the buffer, you know, further into
10 the property than it really needs to be.
11 MR. McHALE: Can we scroll back
12 to the site plan, please?
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: This is the site
14 plan.
15 MR. McHALE: No, that's the
16 conditional use plan.
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's a
18 cleaner plan. Yeah, you can see it a little bit
19 better there. There's not so many -- the utilities
20 are much lighter. There's the existing roadway,
21 you know, and -- actually the tennis court was
22 about 40 feet off the roadway. Anyway --
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: How much did the
24 tennis courts intrude into the 25 foot buffer.
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: 20 foot buffer?
16
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: 20 foot, yeah.
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: I think close
3 to 15 feet. It's pretty substantial. And then up
4 along here, if you were to run the buffer line
5 around -- you run the buffer line around the
6 existing right of way, you know, like there was
7 never really a cul-de-sac built in here, the
8 roadway went up into a parking lot, so, you know,
9 there was public parking for the existing facility
10 in the cul-de-sac area at the time.
11 And what we're proposing is, see
12 the -- this hash, this dark hash up here is all the
13 existing paving that's there today. So you can
14 see, you know, how much pavement is already in that
15 cul-de-sac right through that buffer and beyond
16 that. And what we're proposing here is, you know,
17 parking -- five parking stalls here, you can see
18 the buffer line does extend into the drive aisle a
19 little bit, you know, but we're trying to -- are
20 proposing a series of arborvitae and shrubbery
21 along here to create a hard buffer along that.
22 And, like I said, we don't have
23 any parking stalls, you know, proposed in the
24 buffer. The same thing with this area here, the 20
25 foot buffer, we're not proposing any parking
17
1 stalls. There is another buffer too that --
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so I'm
3 understanding, so where's the edge of the pavement
4 on that road?
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: Right here.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. And then
7 from that to the proposed parking lot is what, 40
8 feet?
9 MR. CHAD LELLO: About 40 feet.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So that
11 you're taking the 20 foot buffer from the edge of
12 the right way.
13 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Is that what
15 you're doing?
16 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
17 The buffer is measured off the right of the
18 property line.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: And that's how
21 it's described in the ordinance or defined. So
22 we're requesting that we -- we're basically
23 requesting relief from that part of the ordinance,
24 from that 20 foot buffer that mainly, you know --
25 for the conditional use process. I think that's
18
1 the largest issue that we have.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is your
3 rationale for requesting it?
4 MR. CHAD LELLO: Well, trying to
5 keep all of the parking. Trying to get the most
6 parking we could possibly get without building an
7 additional lot in the rear.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: But you do have
9 property on the lot that you could build a parking
10 lot without intruding on the buffer.
11 MR. CHAD LELLO: Here's the
12 other story: The other part of story is this --
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Before we get
14 too in depth, that's a zoning regulation --
15 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: -- right? So
17 any relief from that this board doesn't have -- I
18 mean, you can give your comments on it but they
19 can't grant you a variance for relief from a zoning
20 ordinance.
21 MR. CHAD LELLO: I think there's
22 a little confusion on that. Is that something that
23 could be addressed as part of -- during the
24 conditional use hearing? If this is a conditional
25 use -- it's not a straight land development where
19
1 we would have identified that right away as a
2 variance item. The direction I received from the
3 zoning officer was to address this from the get go
4 here and try to address it during the conditional
5 use hearing process. And she didn't believe it was
6 a case for applying for a variance.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well --
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: That was the
9 interpretation that we received and the direction
10 that we got.
11 MR. McHALE: In the definitions
12 -- and this is one of the reasons why they had
13 submitted a request for relief, even though
14 technically they're not being granted a variance,
15 but just from looking at the interpretation, if you
16 look at Section 155101, Subparagraph (I) it says a
17 buffer strip not less than 20 feet in width shall
18 be provided between any such use and any plotted
19 lot in the subdivision. And then under the
20 definition of buffer strip it's a strip of land at
21 least 15 feet in width which may be part of the
22 minimum setback distance with the exception that
23 the buffer must be left in it's natural state and
24 may not be paved or used for parking.
25 And what they've done is, those,
20
1 if you want to say the tennis court and the
2 existing parking were features that were already
3 there. So they're not proposing to pave and
4 they're not proposing to put anything in there,
5 they're just leaving what's already there.
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
7 MR. McHALE: There is another
8 section of the ordinance, 15555 which speaks to a
9 ten foot requirement for drive aisles and parking
10 spaces. And they have modified their plan to meet
11 that zoning requirement because that is something
12 that would have required a variance and there's no
13 interpretation --
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
15 MR. McHALE: -- way to interpret
16 it. It's pretty straight forward. You have to
17 have ten foot of separation from the property line
18 drive aisles and such.
19 MR. CHAD LELLO: And we've done
20 that.
21 MR. McHALE: And you've done
22 that. You actually modified your original
23 submittal to make that happen.
24 MR. CHAD LELLO: You're actually
25 looking at the latest plan. That's not the same
21
1 set --
2 MR. McHALE: Correct.
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: -- of plans
4 that you reviewed.
5 MR. McHALE: Right.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're not
7 proposing to extend -- I'm looking at you're not
8 proposing to extend that parking area where the
9 tennis court is?
10 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
11 Actually we're minimizing it. We're actually --
12 MR. McHALE: They're trimming it
13 back actually from --
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: Correct. If
15 you actually look at the existing -- the existing
16 edge pave is basically right here on the tennis
17 court. We're actually trimming it back to where
18 the darker line is.
19 MR. McHALE: To make the ten
20 foot requirement.
21 MR. CHAD LELLO: Correct.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: But you are
23 going to have to pave the parking lot.
24 MR. CHAD LELLO: Not necessary,
25 we'll just restripe it. It's already paved. It's
22
1 a hard surface. It hasn't been determined yet.
2 We're not proposing an overlay on this plan.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. The
4 radius in the one section that's right near the
5 corner of the cul-de-sac, you're not going to pave
6 that?
7 MR. CHAD LELLO: Excuse me.
8 Right here?
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
10 MR. CHAD LELLO: That pave is
11 being removed. The dark hash --
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, the radius
13 right there. The radius going around -- yes.
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: No, the --
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're just
16 going to cut the blacktop and leave what's there?
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's how we
18 have it in the plan right now, yes. So we're
19 actually removing a good part of the existing
20 paving that's within the cul-de-sac bulb and what's
21 within that buffer.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is the current
23 Arrowhead Lake Road, I believe it is, or Drive, is
24 that paved?
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: Arrowhead
23
1 Drive? Yes, it's paved up into the cul-de-sac and
2 the existing --
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: But the
4 cul-de-sac was never put in?
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: Well, it was
6 never -- there was never a bulb put in. Basically
7 the existing pave -- just follow the red line here,
8 the red dot, runs up along this line here through
9 this dark hash, so this is all the existing
10 pavement. Actually, if you can flip over to -- if
11 you can flip back in the drawings you'll see the
12 existing conditions plan which will show what's
13 there today or what was there previously. Go back
14 one more.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's as far
16 back --
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's all we
18 have, huh?
19 MR. McHALE: Go to the older set
20 of plans.
21 MR. CHAD LELLO: Here we go.
22 The existing pavement runs basically -- creates
23 like a hammer head, this area here. So we're
24 reducing the amount of pavement that's currently in
25 that area, you know, with the removal of the
24
1 pavement in this area here, that dark hash.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Pat, it's an
3 existing -- it's a recorded right of way. I'm
4 having a real problem with it, that they're
5 intruding, you know, within the buffer area. There
6 was pavement placed in the old right of way, but, I
7 mean, we're approving new plans, so we're going to
8 leave the nonconforming use, for lack of a better
9 word, to continue to exist?
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: The
11 nonconforming use on the access road?
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yeah. I mean,
13 the cul-de-sac -- it must be, obviously a
14 cul-de-sac is designed for safety at the end of the
15 road there, so you have a place to turn around,
16 that's the purpose of a cul-de-sac.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: But there's a
18 current access. They currently access that portion
19 of the property by that road.
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: All this
21 property here will still have access, what they do
22 today. We extended the -- we extended basically
23 from this piece of asphalt in here right to the
24 edge of this property line.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: And that's a
25
1 private road?
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: This is a
3 private road. All these roads in the development
4 are private, correct?
5 A VOICE: That's a dead end.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: And who is it --
7 Arrowhead Lakes Homeowner's Association --
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
9 These are not township roads.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: -- that
11 maintains those roads?
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
13 These are not township roads.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: What kind of
15 improve -- now the dark checkered area is what
16 you're going to rip up.
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: Removed.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: What are you
19 proposing, like grass landscaping?
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: Grass, yes.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just grass?
22 MR. McHALE: And trees.
23 Landscaping within that buffer area.
24 MR. CHAD LELLO: Oh, yeah,
25 that's right. Yeah, there'll be a row of trees and
26
1 shrubs around this bend here.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: And are you
3 repaving any portion of that private road up
4 through, what is that, Lake Shore Drive?
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: We're not
6 proposing that on this plan at this point in time.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: But all of those
8 lots to the left of Lake Shore Drive will continue
9 to have access off of that road?
10 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: But yet your
12 parking lot, your new parking lot there is in the
13 buffer area?
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: As well as your
16 driveway. The driveway is okay. I don't have a
17 problem with the driveway.
18 MR. CHAD LELLO: Part of that is
19 in the buffer area, but the original parking lot
20 was --
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Was already in
22 there.
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: Was completely
24 in the buffer area.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just because it
27
1 was wrong in the past doesn't mean that we can keep
2 being wrong in the future.
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: I understand
4 that. And here's the other reason --
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's what I'm
6 having a problem with.
7 MR. CHAD LELLO: Well, here's
8 the issue that we had to deal with in the site: We
9 have tried to minimize the amount of new impervious
10 area on the site and minimize the amount of
11 disturbances, site disturbances to keep this
12 project from entering into an NPDS permit. We
13 worked closely with the Monroe County Conservation
14 District with a couple of meetings, before we made
15 any submissions to the township and to them. We
16 also met with Mr. McHale and Ms. Haase about this
17 project. Met them a few times to try to craft this
18 thing to allow it to get in and meet as many new
19 ordinance requirements as possible without getting
20 into an NPDS permit.
21 If this project were to need an
22 NPDS permit, it would follow a lot more strict
23 guidelines and, to be honest with you, a good
24 chance that the site would be unbuildable, we would
25 not be able to build a new facility on the site.
28
1 So with the addition of another parking lot say in
2 this area in the back here, which would have been
3 logical for additional parking -- I mean, in the
4 original concept there was no parking proposed on
5 the tennis court. I mean there was a parking lot
6 proposed in the back, which would have increased
7 the amount of impervious area on the site
8 substantially, so we're really stuck in a bind to
9 try to keep the limited surface down to a minimum
10 than increase the imperviousness on the site to a
11 minimum. So we're asking for a little bit of
12 relief here in order to keep us from putting
13 additional parking in the back, increasing the
14 imperviousness of the site, you know, and pushing
15 us into possibly an NPDS permit which would
16 possibly keep this project from even becoming a
17 reality for the board.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I don't
19 understand your hardship yet. Not that that's our
20 issue here, that's going to be your issue at the
21 zoning hearing board. And we can make
22 recommendations to the zoning hearing board. So in
23 order for this board to make a recommendation that
24 we think that this is a good plan, I need to
25 understand why --
29
1 MR. CHAD LELLO: Well, here we
2 go. These five parking spaces here, if I don't
3 have these five parking spaces I do not meet the
4 parking requirements for the facility.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: But you have
6 area on the site that you can put parking.
7 MR. CHAD LELLO: I have area
8 that I can put parking on the site, additional
9 parking on the site, but that will create a
10 hardship for the project, the reality of the
11 project. It will create a hardship --
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why is that a
13 hardship?
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: Because the
15 NPDS permit, which will become an individual
16 permit, because this is high quality waters, to
17 make an individual permit, it will be under strict
18 review by not only Monroe County Conservation but
19 possibly PA DEP where they follow these guidelines
20 right to the T, there's no gray areas for them.
21 They're going to require us to do a -- they're
22 going to require us to do infiltration testing on
23 site and want us to minimize the amount of site
24 runoff by not releasing the difference between the
25 pre and the post development two year storm.
30
1 That volume -- we did, what? --
2 five test pits on this site for perk tests, found
3 out the soils will not work. We won't get
4 infiltration on the site. We go back to DEP into
5 the review of -- go back to DEP and the
6 Conservation District with testing that says we
7 can't get infiltration to work, obviously, we're
8 right next to the lake, the site only rises about
9 three or four feet above the lake, so, you know,
10 the soils on the site are typically wet, so I don't
11 believe we would be able to construct infiltration
12 facilities on the site that would meet the
13 requirements. It would make it very difficult to
14 get an NPDS permit, make this project very
15 difficult to make it a reality.
16 So all we're asking for is a
17 little bit of relief on this buffer area here. The
18 only thing that we're requesting relief on to make
19 this thing become a reality. And keep in mind,
20 these are private roadways that are owned and
21 maintained by the association. You know, there was
22 issues in the past that they had the parking lot in
23 the cul-de-sac area and we're doing all we can to
24 minimize that, but keep the five parking spaces
25 there.
31
1 So we're gratefully asking for
2 some relief on that.
3 MR. McHALE: I'm not sure that
4 there would be a formal relief, if you will,
5 granted, because that would actually be a variance,
6 but I think it's more in terms of an interpretation
7 of the ordinance given that there is some --
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: There is
9 conflicting statements in that ordinance, correct.
10 MR. McHALE: Yes. I mean, when
11 you look at the development amenity section, it
12 says a 20 foot buffer, but then the definition
13 says, you know, 15. And then it also speaks to
14 that the 20 foot in width should be provided
15 between any such use and any plotted lot of the
16 subdivision. And the right of ways are right of
17 ways, they may not be technically considered
18 plotted lots.
19 So in looking at a plotted lot,
20 I would look at -- if you use that pointer and go
21 to the west side of the development -- northwest
22 side, right, those four lots along Arrowhead, those
23 are all plotted lots, so you have a buffer of the
24 right of way, plus the buffer they're providing on
25 the development. Same thing with the southeast
32
1 corner side --
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: Right.
3 MR. McHALE: -- these are
4 plotted lots. So they're maintaining the 20 foot
5 buffer there and around the rest of the
6 development. So I'm just saying that it's not
7 really a formal relief that this board or the board
8 of supervisors wouldn't be granting in terms of a
9 variance, but just rather taking into account all
10 the different statements within the ordinance and
11 coming up with the best fit for the development.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: And that's
13 something you should be -- you've been talking
14 about this relief, relief, we can't grant you any
15 relief.
16 MR. CHAD LELLO: I understand
17 that.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just so you're
19 aware --
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: I know this is
21 the planning commission. I know we're going to
22 have a hearing on the 4th -- I believe the 4th,
23 with the board of supervisors, for the conditional
24 use, but I wanted to discuss this here also.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm assuming the
33
1 tennis courts are be removed and it's just going to
2 be used solely for parking area?
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone have any
5 comments on the buffer issues right now?
6 MRS. LAMBERTON: I do. If that
7 cul-de-sac was never developed, does that buffer
8 stay with that area? Like, see how the buffer goes
9 around and it's a cul-de-sac and there's obviously
10 current parking and pavement there, but that never
11 was developed into a cul-de-sac, obviously. I
12 mean, does that make it a valid outline to show the
13 valid buffer?
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: If that's the
15 recorded -- is that the recorded subdivision with
16 the cul-de-sac on it?
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: And it was just
19 the way it was paved was outside --
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's how it
21 was constructed, yes.
22 MRS. LAMBERTON: So they just
23 put the pavement there?
24 MR. CHAD LELLO: Uh-huh. As the
25 parking lot for the original lodge.
34
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, the way it
2 reads for the 20 foot buffer is, you know, between
3 any such use in any plotted lot subdivision.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. They
5 probably legally had to put in that -- in order to
6 get the plan approved for the original subdivision
7 of Arrowhead Lakes, they probably had to put in
8 that cul-de-sac. So they shoved it and they chose
9 to disregard the right of way.
10 MRS. LAMBERTON: Okay.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: So here we are
12 probably 40 years later, right?
13 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
14 MRS. LAMBERTON: Is that how
15 long ago it was?
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, at least
17 30. I think it was done in the early '70s, as I
18 recall, Arrowhead Lakes.
19 A VOICE: I think Arrowhead had
20 its 45th anniversary.
21 MRS. LAMBERTON: Well,
22 congratulations.
23 Is there any way you can extend
24 that new parking area and just get rid of --
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: This area here?
35
1 MRS. LAMBERTON: Yes.
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: No, we were up
3 against wetlands on this side here. Well, no,
4 actually, wetlands are further over. I take that
5 back. There's a --
6 MR. McHALE: Isn't that a wooded
7 area?
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: This is all a
9 wooded area, yes. The tree line runs along here.
10 And then again it gets back to the point of, like
11 you said, adding additional pavement, parking, that
12 puts us into more disturbance, you know, more
13 impervious that the Monroe County Conservation
14 District has been very helpful because we are over
15 the one acre of disturbance.
16 MR. McHALE: But there is no
17 point source discharge.
18 MR. CHAD LELLO: There is no
19 point source discharge.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: I don't
21 understand how you're getting away with that.
22 MR. CHAD LELLO: I understand
23 that.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, you better
25 explain it to me.
36
1 MR. CHAD LELLO: What's your
2 main question?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: How are you not
4 having a point source discharge from that rain
5 guard. I see rock coming out of that --
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: The way we're
7 getting around this is Monroe County Conservation
8 District basically stated to us that we can get
9 away from a point source discharge during
10 construction by not connecting all the pipes to
11 this rain guard till most -- till the site is all
12 stabilized and basically ready to go. So during
13 construction, the erosion control plan basically
14 has a perimeter silt fence around it as the main
15 erosion control device; which means there's going
16 to be no point source discharge, this rain guard
17 won't be releasing water until the site's fully
18 constructed and stabilized.
19 We set -- we ordered our
20 sequence of construction that way, took the lead of
21 the Monroe County Conversation. They agreed to it.
22 They've already reviewed the plans once. We did
23 received their comment letter yesterday. I believe
24 they had eight or nine comments on it. And I think
25 we can meet their process within another month or
37
1 so and have an erosion control permit for the site.
2 And just so you know, they did
3 hire -- they do have an on staff engineer now which
4 reviewed the plans also and agreed with it also.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Those properties
6 to the left of Lake Shore Drive, are they improved?
7 MR. CHAD LELLO: I believe only
8 -- there's only one of them improved?
9 A VOICE: Only one.
10 MR. CHAD LELLO: Which one?
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: This one here?
12 A VOICE: It's the one above, I
13 think.
14 MR. McHALE: That's along
15 Arrowhead. That's Arrowhead Drive, correct?
16 A VOICE: It's either this one
17 or that one that has that house and the other ones
18 are vacant.
19 MR. THEODORE BOREK: May I
20 speak?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Sure.
22 Absolutely.
23 MR. THEODORE BOREK: I think
24 that you might be viewing this as a public right of
25 way, but actually the owners -- the applicant's
38
1 property starts here. And I believe this gentleman
2 was alluding to that. The property starts here and
3 goes across. All this is under single ownership,
4 the roads and this. So we're not violating any
5 conventional public right of ways or setbacks or
6 anything like that. This is all private property.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I don't know if
8 I agree with that statement, sir, because the
9 recorded private roads within a development have
10 the right to be used by everyone in that
11 development.
12 MR. THEODORE BOREK: That's
13 correct. And they are owners of this property.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: And I understand
15 that.
16 MR. THEODORE BOREK: So they are
17 entitled from this line over to use this property.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: That may be true
19 -- what Mr. Sincavage is trying to say, even though
20 you may own the property from where the road is,
21 the road was still part of that approved
22 subdivision.
23 MR. THEODORE BOREK: That's
24 correct.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: So the buffer
39
1 still comes into play because it's arguably a plot
2 within the subdivision.
3 MR. THEODORE BOREK: Does the
4 buffer apply to private roads, in your ordinance?
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: It has nothing
6 to do with roads. The buffer is between the
7 proposed use, which is your development amenity,
8 and neighboring lots on that approved subdivision.
9 That's the way -- that's the way that the ordinance
10 reads and that's the way the buffer is applied.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, correct me
12 if I'm wrong, but I think always in the past the
13 buffer is applied to the right of way line. That
14 is a property, isn't that correct?
15 MR. McHALE: Well, the buffer
16 that's described in the development amenity is a
17 little different than the other buffers that we
18 normally see in like the SALDO.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Maybe
20 that's where I'm getting hung up.
21 MR. THEODORE BOREK: I think
22 that's the point I was trying to make.
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: The buffer is
24 listed under development amenity; isn't specific
25 where it should be measured from. The only --
40
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: And you've
2 talked to the zoning officer about this?
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, we have.
4 And the only definitive buffer
5 is the ten foot buffer, parking buffer, where
6 you're not allowed to have any parking lots,
7 parking spaces, drive aisles within ten foot of the
8 property line. And, like I said, Mr. McHale
9 pointed that out in his review letter and we did
10 change the plan to meet that requirement.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: So the current
12 plan that we are looking at does not show any
13 parking lot within the ten foot setback.
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: Well, yeah, the
15 current layout plan. Not this plan that you have
16 up, this is a condition use plan. We didn't revise
17 that plan yet. I don't think that's the plotted
18 revised plan.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: That one.
20 MR. McHALE: But you're removing
21 any pavement within ten feet of the right of way
22 line or the property line?
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, except for
24 the driveways.
25 MR. McHALE: Yes.
41
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Oh, all right.
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, we're
3 moving -- all pavement within ten foot of the right
4 of way lines will be removed. As you can see up in
5 this area here, this is ten feet from here to here.
6 When we did the revised plan, we pushed the -- drew
7 the parking lot a little bit closer to the
8 building. In this area here we just pushed the --
9 we basically restriped this lot, we pushed the
10 stripes up a little bit more. We actually lost
11 three parking spaces -- actually the last three
12 spaces in the tennis court area from the last
13 submission.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is some
15 interpretation because of the difference between --
16 well, between an amenity, which is in a private
17 development and a public property. My hang up is,
18 I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time, I
19 don't want someone else to come back in here before
20 this board and say, well, you gave them a variance
21 or use and you were okay with them, why are you
22 giving us a problem.
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: I understand.
24 I understand your point absolutely.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: But it sounds
42
1 like you've discussed this with the zoning officer.
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, we have.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: She's made an
4 interpretation as to what --
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: And now that
6 Mr. McHale has pointed it out, I can understand
7 that it is a difference between an amenity within a
8 private development and a lot that's not in a
9 development.
10 MRS. LAMBERTON: The buffer is
11 treated differently.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: The buffer is --
13 well, the wording is different in the ordinance,
14 okay? It says 20 feet from a property line -- from
15 a lot.
16 MRS. LAMBERTON: Which that's
17 what that gentleman was saying is that that is one
18 whole parcel from that person's property line
19 inclusive of that road and the entire parcel.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. Whereas
21 the buffer in the public sense, it says from the
22 right of way line. It's unclear. So that's where
23 --
24 MRS. LAMBERTON: Okay. I
25 understand that.
43
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: -- I'm kind of
2 okay with.
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: Okay. That's
4 great to hear.
5 MR. MILLER: I have a question.
6 Are all your property owners aware of what you're
7 doing?
8 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Yes.
9 Absolutely. And I assure you the people are well
10 involved. It is the people that designed this.
11 It's the people what we call an ad hoc committee
12 and that started out with 45, 50 people, Don? Don
13 is the liaison to that committee. So that's all
14 their input. It's all their excitement. It's
15 everything. And it's still going on, still going
16 on. But this final approval was by the people
17 first. It was an open meeting. This is what we
18 want to do. They took us to the square footage
19 that we have there. They are the ones that
20 required the weight rooms, the gyms for the ladies,
21 the sitting area, reading area and TV area. The
22 banquet hall is something that Arrowhead Lakes has
23 needed and wanted for a long time.
24 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
25 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: You're
44
1 welcome.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. I think
3 we're kind of -- are we over the buffer, kind of
4 over that or can we move on?
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: Okay. I'm
6 getting --
7 MR. McHALE: Before we get off
8 that, I think our chairmen wanted to talk a little
9 bit about we may want to go to the landscape plan
10 because you all had suggested some like little berm
11 -- a little bit of berming along that strip. There
12 is a fair amount of vegetation, being shrubs and
13 trees, in that area to try to protect the adjoining
14 property owners from headlights from the parking
15 area. There was also some existing fencing, I
16 think, along one or two of the lots where it's like
17 a stockade type fence or a wooden fence, and I
18 don't know if they had some issues with privacy in
19 the past, but in an effort to try to avoid any
20 conflicts, I think the planning commission was
21 looking for some kind of a slight berm, even if it
22 was a foot or two, whatever you can make work in
23 that front buffer area. And I don't know that you
24 have that on the plan. I think you just have
25 vegetation, is that correct?
45
1 MR. CHAD LELLO: Are you talking
2 about -- I'm looking at the plans up over here,
3 Bob. Are you talking about this in the front?
4 MR. McHALE: Yes. You weren't
5 planning at this point to berm those or are you?
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: We're not
7 planning to berm that because the roadway actually
8 is higher up in grade than the existing -- the
9 proposed parking lots. I believe there's maybe
10 like a three to four foot difference in elevation
11 between the elevation of the parking lot and the
12 roadway.
13 MR. McHALE: Why don't we go to
14 the grading plan and that might depict it a little
15 bit better.
16 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, there you
17 go. You have to be close enough to actually see
18 it.
19 Can you see these gray lines
20 here down a little bit, back down to here?
21 Perfect. The change in grade, for instance, if
22 you're in this tennis court, you've got about --
23 MR. McHALE: Those two foot
24 contours or one?
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: These are one
46
1 foot contours. So you've got one, two, three --
2 three and a half to four feet change in grade
3 between Lake Shore Drive and the tennis court. And
4 then in this parking lot over here you've got a
5 change in grade of roughly three feet or so. So
6 there's already bas -- there's already a berm
7 there, so you know -- for headlights, for, I
8 believe -- for instance, anyway, most people would
9 be parked in this parking lot, you know, head in.
10 Probably won't have a lot of headlight spillage out
11 to the roadway, but if you do, what will help,
12 number one, is -- the change in grade of the
13 roadway along with the proposed vegetation that's
14 being proposed along there should alleviate any
15 issues.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: What about along
17 the cul-de-sac road or Arrowhead Drive?
18 MR. CHAD LELLO: That is pretty
19 much at grade. Arrowhead Lake Drive is almost at
20 grade with this parking lot. As you head down the
21 road, the roadway drops in grade, basically meets
22 grade right here. So that's why we're proposing
23 along here a real tight row of arborvitaes and some
24 other shrubbery as you can see here.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Can you get a
47
1 berm in there? That's only to protect the
2 headlights from going over on the other side there.
3 You do seem to have enough room in there.
4 MR. CHAD LELLO: I think we have
5 enough room most of the way. I think where we're
6 getting a little bit tighter is right here.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, you're
8 already violating that right of way anyhow so --
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: Right.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: And the same
11 thing with that lower section there.
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: Which section?
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Where you have
14 the other landscaping that's already in the
15 cul-de-sac.
16 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yeah, there is
17 room to put it. There's room to put a berm in.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think we would
19 -- I think I'd like to see a berm just to get that
20 up a little bit, just so the headlights aren't
21 going over to those properties on the other side.
22 And that would help also preventing light going
23 across the lake.
24 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: No, I can
25 agree with you -- the one thing I'll guarantee,
48
1 those people, they want to be able to see the lake.
2 And the higher I go, the madder they're going to
3 get.
4 MR. McHALE: That berm is going
5 to be probably two, three feet at most. We're not
6 talking about a big --
7 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: I heard them
8 say four foot.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, no.
10 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: I don't see a
11 problem with that.
12 MR. McHALE: Because headlights
13 are only 24 inches or three feet off the ground.
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: You're talking
15 a berm two to three feet high and then you're going
16 to have trees on top of that berm.
17 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Right.
18 MR. CHAD LELLO: Arborvitaes are
19 pretty tall, unless you want some other type of
20 shrub.
21 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: I would say
22 if that's what you would wish we would do it. I
23 don't know what the true results of the people --
24 MRS. LAMBERTON: The people
25 across the street from the clubhouse parking are
49
1 going to be affected by the view, is that your
2 concern?
3 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: They are
4 already bragging, these lots across the street here
5 and so on, they're already bragging about the
6 beautiful view they're going to have of the
7 building and the lake.
8 MRS. LAMBERTON: The building,
9 yeah.
10 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: And of the
11 lake.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yeah, but
13 they're already -- as your engineer explained,
14 they're already higher, so they should be seeing
15 over the berm. I mean, it's got to be maybe six
16 foot and change by the time you get to that
17 building lot.
18 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: So they should
20 still be able to see over the plantings.
21 MR. CHAD LELLO: I would think
22 so.
23 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: I believe it.
24 You know, I could also -- I'm not sure, I think
25 those lots there, they're on an incline, Don,
50
1 aren't they?
2 A MALE VOICE: On this side of
3 the shore, yes.
4 MALE VOICE: On this side here
5 they're elevated above --
6 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: So with our
7 offset from the house requirement to build a home,
8 I don't think the headlights would hit the windows,
9 you know what I mean? Because it's a hill, a
10 building --
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. But you
12 still -- you have to put in screening according to
13 the ordinance.
14 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Oh, okay.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: So that's them.
16 But all we're are asking for is the berm along the
17 -- I'm not sure what direction this is. Yeah,
18 along there.
19 MR. CHAD LELLO: The west side.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: The west side.
21 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Oh, no
22 problem.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just there and
24 the area right there, correct.
25 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: I don't see
51
1 that as a problem.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: The area along
3 -- right? We're all in agreement?
4 MRS. LAMBERTON: Right, that's
5 fair.
6 MR. RINEHIMER: Right.
7 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Okay. Fine.
8 Yeah, that's --
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Now, the other
10 thing the township engineer just pointed out, could
11 we wrap the landscaping around that parking lot --
12 give me my pointer back -- right there. Landscape
13 this area like you have it here just so again
14 keeping the headlights off of that.
15 MR. McHALE: Up to a point where
16 you still maintain a clear sight triangle for your
17 exiting vehicles out of your parking areas and
18 which it looks like some of your arborvitae might
19 even be for that area where you have --
20 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: You're
21 talking here, sir?
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
23 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: The only
24 problem I can see is I don't want to have a safety
25 hazard where people coming out can't see if
52
1 anything's coming in.
2 MR. McHALE: That's why we're
3 saying that you need to keep open a clear sight
4 triangle for that. But if you shift those
5 arborvitae away from the curb enough to get that
6 clear sight triangle but then provide the berm as
7 the planning commission is requesting with the
8 landscaping that would be --
9 MR. CHAD LELLO: Sure. Anyway,
10 I guess I'll get into the next issues here that I
11 wanted to address. We did submit the plan with the
12 waiver letter. I believe we were originally
13 requesting three waivers, but we're going to have
14 to, based on the review of Mr. McHale, we're going
15 to have to expand upon that. We're going to
16 request four SALDO waivers and they're basically
17 the same thing; SALDO 135 Section 12, 135 Section
18 15(a), 135 Section 17(l), 135 Section 17(m),
19 basically a similar requirement for showing
20 streets, roads, buildings. They vary per SALDO
21 item, but the main point of it is all within 500
22 feet of the site. You know, we're going to request
23 a waiver because obviously, due to the nature of
24 the site, where it's located, we don't have survey
25 that, you know, depicts all that detail 500 feet
53
1 around the entire site.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: We don't have
3 any problem with that. Just revise this letter
4 because you already said 17(m) so make it --
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
6 I'll resub -- when we do our next submission we'll
7 have the correct letter and we'll put the request
8 on the plan also.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We don't
10 have a problem with that.
11 MR. CHAD LELLO: All right. So
12 it's four waivers basically the same thing. And
13 the fifth waiver would be a waiver on the
14 stormwater requirements.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Explain that to
16 us.
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: We submitted a
18 plan requesting a waiver -- I mean the stormwater
19 discharge requirement is for the two 10, 25 year
20 storm. To eliminate the need of having to
21 construct a large detention basin so close to the
22 lake -- you know, we went and did the calculations.
23 There was a small increase in runoff between the
24 pre and post development storms. Knowing that we'd
25 be increasing the runoff very minimally to the
54
1 lake, we felt that there would be no impact, any
2 impact to the lake.
3 And also the location -- where
4 we are in the drainage area here, when this side
5 releases its peak discharge into the lake, we're
6 right up against the lake, right at the bottom of
7 the drainage area, so our peak from the site will
8 pass before the actual peak gets to the lake from
9 the large drainage area that encompasses it. And I
10 believe in the letter from Mr. McHale, he agreed
11 with the request. And also I got a favorable
12 comment from the Monroe County Planning Commission
13 review in here also that basically agrees with the
14 request saying that it makes sense.
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: What section is
16 that?
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: Section
18 135.22(a).
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, you're okay
20 with this idea?
21 MR. McHALE: Yes, sir. What
22 they're doing in addition to the waiver request, is
23 that they're providing an element of water quality
24 that's not really in this portion of SALDO. This
25 is one of the areas of the township we have four
55
1 water sheds, three of them are under Act 167
2 ordinances and this one is not. So the way the
3 SALDO reads is a 25 year storm event for a ten
4 minute duration pre to post. If you take the
5 tennis court areas, the existing lodge and some of
6 these impervious areas that were already out
7 there -- what would you say, that's probably 30
8 percent, 40 percent of what you're proposing in
9 impervious area?
10 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
11 MR. McHALE: So your pre to post
12 then is only what was -- I mean the differential is
13 only going to be that remaining portion and what
14 would go to the lake. If we can go to the grading
15 plan, we'll show the rain garden. The one thing
16 that the new DEP -- the BMP manual, best management
17 practices manual, emphasizes as one component of
18 that is to take your roof runoff and try to get it
19 into a vegetated area, and that's what they've
20 done.
21 They had some leaders that were
22 connecting to the storm sewer system and I think
23 you've disconnected those, correct, for the most
24 part?
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: We're
56
1 attempting to.
2 MR. McHALE: They're going to
3 take as many downspouts and go into the grassed
4 areas as possible and then that rain garden, if you
5 will, if you want to point to where the discharge
6 is coming out of the parking area is kind of on the
7 lower end and then they'll have a rain garden,
8 vegetation in that rain garden, and then they don't
9 have a pipe discharge out of there, it's just
10 simply an overflow area. So we're going to get a
11 little bit better water quality. They're also
12 going to install snouts in their storm sewer system
13 in lieu of -- and the lake, I don't know how many
14 acre feet you have in that lake, but even if you
15 looked at pre to post, the impact, I don't even
16 know could be calculated to three decimal places.
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: It's very
18 minimal. The increase is very minimal.
19 And just a little bit more
20 information on the rain garden, what you're looking
21 at is basically a two foot depression, it's got a
22 one foot of permanent storage, so basically it will
23 hold one foot of water. An underdrain is going to
24 be installed to slowly drain it.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Where?
57
1 MR. CHAD LELLO: It'll be
2 installed in the bottom basin --
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Where is it
4 going to drain to?
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: Excuse me?
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Where is it
7 going to drain to?
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: It's going to
9 drain into the lake.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: You told me your
11 site is --
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: No, no, just an
13 under drain, a french drain.
14 MR. McHALE: And you had talked
15 at one point about not even putting the pipe in,
16 just wrapping geotextile fabric and --
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yeah. We
18 haven't gotten that far yet.
19 MR. McHALE: Right.
20 I didn't want to see you get
21 into a point source discharge, so you have to cover
22 that with the conservation district as well.
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, because we
24 believe that we're not going to get any
25 infiltration because of the proximity to the lake
58
1 and the wet conditions that are out there. But the
2 purpose of that is basically to slow the runoff
3 into the lake, allow it to slow down and get caught
4 up -- you know, because there's one foot of storage
5 there that will slow the water down, allow some
6 flowables to -- not flowables but I mean like silt
7 and sediment to settle up before it enters the
8 lake.
9 MR. McHALE: But you have snouts
10 in the storm sewer system to --
11 MR. CHAD LELLO: We also have
12 snouts -- yes.
13 MR. McHALE: Oil, water, debris
14 separator.
15 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
16 Oil, water, debris separated.
17 The other issue that came up in
18 the review that was a zoning issue was the building
19 height. On our zoning compliance summary we noted
20 that the maximum building height is 29 feet and we
21 proposed a roof elevation of 32 feet. I was called
22 on it obviously and after further investigation of
23 the zoning ordinance, working with the zoning
24 officer, determined that you could be above -- you
25 could propose a building height higher than 29 feet
59
1 as long as 50 percent of the roof is not above the
2 minimum -- the maximum building height. And I went
3 back to the architect and they calculated that only
4 14 percent of the roof is going to be above 29
5 feet.
6 MR. McHALE: Excuse me, how much
7 was that again?
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: 14 percent.
9 About 1700 square feet of the building roof is
10 going to be above 29 feet. And basically it's the
11 center -- it's going to be right in the center of
12 the building.
13 MR. McHALE: And I believe in
14 our electronic files there is architectural
15 drawings and I believe there may be a sheet A1.1
16 floor plan.
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yeah.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry, what
19 number, Bob?
20 MR. McHALE: A1.1.
21 A VOICE: I don't have that.
22 MR. CHAD LELLO: I'm not the
23 architect of this, so I have to -- north elevation.
24 Is that's the rear. The south elevation is
25 actually the front, the face of the building. But,
60
1 anyway, that's the backside. This is good enough.
2 The part of the building that obviously is going to
3 be above the 29 foot elevation is right down
4 center. This is looking basically right -- you're
5 looking basically from the rear of the building
6 towards the road. So this is the portion of the
7 building that's going be above 29 feet.
8 MR. McHALE: And you sent those
9 electronically. I think they were all -- there you
10 go. That's a good one that shows the area that
11 will exceed that.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Oh, okay.
13 MR. CHAD LELLO: There you go.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: The zoning
15 officer -- you've talked to the zoning officer
16 about this?
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes, we have.
18 MR. McHALE: Mr. Chairman, if
19 you scroll one more page -- go up to the menu
20 there, there we go. There is a line 29 foot
21 building height that goes through the top of the
22 roof there. There you go.
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: And they're the
24 same line there.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's a nice
61
1 building and it will be a nice addition.
2 MR. CHAD LELLO: Almost done
3 here. I'll just give you an update on the other
4 agencies' reviews.
5 We did receive comments from the
6 Monroe County Planning Commission yesterday. We
7 did discuss them with Mr. McHale. And I don't know
8 if you wanted to -- I mean, basically we were
9 planning on addressing the comments. There wasn't
10 a lot of comments. Most of them were statements.
11 Some of the comments were a repeat of what
12 Mr. McHale had. And we're not going to make a
13 formal -- we're not going to respond formally back
14 to the Monroe County Planning Commission.
15 What we'd like to do is just
16 address some of the comments that we feel that need
17 to be addressed or Mr. McHale feels that need to be
18 addressed or you. And we went over them and I
19 believe in our response back we'll basically state
20 what comments we feel that need to be addressed.
21 And Mr. McHale advised me to go over them with you
22 tonight.
23 MR. McHALE: Chad, do you want
24 to just highlight the items that --
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
62
1 MR. McHALE: -- we have not
2 covered in our review letter but that they may have
3 brought up?
4 MR. CHAD LELLO: Okay, yes. No.
5 6 of the first letter from the Monroe County
6 Planning Commission had to do with the traffic flow
7 through the parking lot using symbols and arrows on
8 the site plan has not been indicated --
9 They stated in Comment No. 6
10 that traffic flow through the parking lot using
11 signs and symbols on the site plan has not been
12 indicated. It is also recommended that an internal
13 pedestrian walkway system that connects the
14 community lodge and parking area be considered.
15 And we can certainly add some additional painted
16 flow arrows on the proposed paving and proposed
17 lots along with a crosswalk. Now, that's a comment
18 that wasn't raised by Mr. McHale.
19 No. 8, they raised the question
20 about emergency truck access plan. We did submit
21 plans to Bureau Veritas and the Tobyhanna Township
22 fire chief for review of the circulation for their
23 emergency vehicles. And we have not received any
24 comments back from any of the two folks.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, do you know
63
1 how they're going to handle fire suppression?
2 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Sir?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
4 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: We've already
5 met with the Thornhurst Fire Company and they are
6 going to put in a suction line with a -- into the
7 lake and attachments. These are going to be in
8 this grass area or on that side of the grass area
9 where they will attach their vehicles to, to take
10 the water from the lake to fight any fire that
11 might --
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: That'll have to
13 be approved by the building code officer.
14 MR. McHALE: Well, yes. They'll
15 provide comments regarding that. But also I think
16 recently some of it came about I think because of
17 the bridge situation over the Lehigh River. Chad,
18 I think we were discussing this in our
19 teleconference call that the Thornhurst Fire
20 Company can't really, because of the load
21 restriction, which I think is three tons over that
22 bridge, they cannot technically service the way
23 they need to, I guess, at this time point in time.
24 And there was discussion about
25 Tobyhanna Township Volunteer Fire Company being
64
1 response -- or responding to any calls initially.
2 That said, our fire chief with the Tobyhanna
3 Township Volunteer Fire Company will make comments
4 regarding dry hydrants because the dry hydrants in
5 the past have created some problems for their fire
6 equipment. They've drawn in some gravel and things
7 which destroyed $10,000 pumps. So that whole issue
8 needs to be ironed out, but, yes, that is the
9 possibility of putting a fire hydrant in the lake.
10 We'll leave it to the fire code officials and the
11 fire chief to provide review comments so that this
12 board can look at it as well before the next
13 meeting.
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: Excellent.
15 And then the other comment that
16 came up was No. 10. The existing well is not
17 indicated on any of the plans. It is shown on the
18 existing conditions plan. And what we need to also
19 show on the plan is the location of the proposed
20 well. And that's one of the comments I believe --
21 I don't believe we had a comment from the township
22 on that. So we're going to show the location of
23 the proposed water well. It wasn't existing --
24 MR. McHALE: You had shown the
25 existing well on your existing conditions plan and
65
1 we were assuming that you are going to utilize that
2 well.
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct,
4 but that's not the case.
5 MR. McHALE: Correct. So you're
6 going to show a proposed well and you're going to
7 show the proper abandonment of the existing well?
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
9 We'll add notes stating that.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: The county's
11 review letter indicates that you're -- are you
12 proposing ten more parking spaces than is required
13 by zoning?
14 MR. CHAD LELLO: At the time
15 that they reviewed the plan, we had additional
16 parking. We were proposing additional par -- the
17 parking -- first of all, the parking count that was
18 -- the required parking spaces are based on the
19 amount of folks that could be in the building. We
20 based it on 250 people at any event to necessitate
21 the need for the parking, plus we also added
22 additional parking for employees and service -- you
23 know, people that would be servicing the facility
24 for the larger events. So that's how we came to
25 that original one. We do not want to lose any
66
1 parking as well.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: So what is the
3 number that you came to that you're --
4 MR. CHAD LELLO: We're down to
5 66 parking spaces.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: And you're
7 proposing 70 --
8 MR. CHAD LELLO: I lost all my
9 notes here, I apologize.
10 MR. McHALE: 67 is shown on your
11 current plan there.
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: Okay. So we
13 actually -- what we did -- that makes sense because
14 we did lose three when we revised the parking
15 layout of the tennis court. So there's actually
16 two comment letters. There was one letter from the
17 planner and one letter from RKR Hess.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Could you go
19 back to the parking spots? We have a question up
20 there. You're required to have 66 spots --
21 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: -- according to
23 our ordinance. You're proposing 70. That plan
24 showed 70.
25 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
67
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's what you
2 told us earlier, right?
3 MR. CHAD LELLO: Uh-huh.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you have four
5 extra spots.
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So if you
8 eliminated that area there that goes into the
9 buffer area -- back to that again -- that parking
10 area on the side then, the west side, that's four,
11 that's five.
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: We're required
13 to have 66 parking spaces and --
14 MR. McHALE: With the handicap,
15 yes, you're showing 70.
16 MR. CHAD LELLO: We are showing
17 70, correct.
18 MRS. LAMBERTON: They wouldn't
19 even need a waiver.
20 MR. McHALE: I think the
21 planning commission at Monroe County was suggesting
22 that those additional spaces -- or maybe it was
23 their engineer -- be converted to landscaping.
24 A VOICE: That's right.
25 MR. McHALE: But I think given
68
1 the facility and, you know, the unknown as far as
2 having additional folks come into a banquet or
3 whatever, I think the township would prefer to have
4 the 70 spaces.
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: We also worked
6 with the zoning officer prior to making our
7 submission on determining what the parking
8 requirements should be for the site. And we
9 discussed about having enough parking for having
10 250 people in the facility plus additional parking
11 spaces for services for people that would have to
12 be on hand for those events.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Are you okay?
14 MRS. LAMBERTON: Uh-huh. I was
15 just --
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We're all
17 set.
18 MR. CHAD LELLO: Okay, great.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: We just wanted
20 to explore that a little bit further. Thank you.
21 MR. CHAD LELLO: The note to the
22 RKR Hess notes, there was I think Comment No. 4,
23 access to the facilities proposed for both Lake
24 Shore Drive and Arrowhead Drive. Ownership of road
25 should be indicated on the plans. And we should
69
1 add that information on the plans. That's not a
2 problem.
3 No. 6 from the RKR Hess letter
4 was water supplies proposed for an onsite well.
5 The proposed or existing well location should be
6 shown on the plans. We already discussed that,
7 that we would show the cap of the existing well
8 following DEP guidelines and showing a new location
9 of the well.
10 And that was it. All the other
11 comments were basically statements or were already
12 addressed with the comments from Mr. McHale.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: So that brings
14 us to sewer. We have a letter that says there is
15 no onsite sewer. You have to connect into the
16 treatment plant, I'm assuming?
17 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we need some
19 sort of letter from DEP that says you can connect
20 into the new sewer system or you have the capacity
21 to do that.
22 MR. CHAD LELLO: We need a
23 letter from DEP that states that.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: What did the
25 previous clubhouse do?
70
1 MR. CHAD LELLO: The previous
2 clubhouse had a holding tank, correct?
3 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: That's all
4 been removed.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aren't you going
6 to have to do -- are the sewer lines in this area?
7 MR. CHAD LELLO: There are sewer
8 lines in there. They're shown on the plan.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Oh, they are?
10 Okay. I didn't know they were in this area. Oh,
11 you did say that the line's going across the front
12 of the property.
13 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct,
14 yes.
15 Okay. I think we have that
16 covered.
17 We did receive a letter from the
18 Monroe County Conversation District. And I don't
19 think you want to go through that letter. There's
20 seven or eight comments. We'll address them
21 directly with the conversation district. And with
22 our next submission we'll submit a set of ENS plans
23 with the land development plans. We did submit to
24 the Tobyhanna Township Fire Department and Bureau
25 Veritas. And I have not received any comments from
71
1 those folks.
2 MR. McHALE: You may wish to
3 wait until you do receive those comments because
4 that cul-de-sac, and what I guess you would
5 consider like a hammerhead turn around area that
6 you're creating, they may want to comment on
7 radiuses, widths or something to that effect which
8 may need to adjust your proposed area that you're
9 going to demolish paving. So I would just wait
10 until you hear back. And they should respond
11 within the next week or two I would imagine.
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: What we're
13 going to do is just give them a call just to see
14 where it is right now. Let them know where we're
15 at. Because what we would like to do is -- what we
16 plan on doing now is, once we get comments from the
17 fire department, Bureau Veritas, we would like to
18 resubmit plans as soon as possible, do a
19 resubmission, the response letter to the comment
20 letter. So that will be on the agenda for the next
21 planning commission meeting. Hopefully we'll get
22 submitted within enough time that, you know, Bob
23 will have enough time to review the plans before
24 the next meeting so that we can come in here and
25 hopefully work out the remaining issues and try to
72
1 get some sort of approval.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, do you know
3 what the next cut-off date is?
4 MR. McHALE: It was the 13th.
5 He is aware of that.
6 MR. CHAD LELLO: I'm aware of
7 that.
8 MR. McHALE: We discussed that
9 he would try to get plans in next week and then
10 we'll do our best to work through that time issue.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Now, there's two
12 things for the commission; there's the land
13 development and then there's the conditional use.
14 My understanding as tonight -- it seems like the
15 applicant has a lot of things to tie up with
16 respect to land development, so I don't know if --
17 the commission is probably not going to make a
18 recommendation on a land development tonight.
19 However, the applicant has a hearing on February
20 1st before the board of supervisors for the
21 conditional use application, so your recommendation
22 or comments with respect to the conditional use
23 portion of the applicant's application should be
24 made tonight or provided to the board of
25 supervisors prior to that February 1st public
73
1 hearing.
2 And just for purposes of the
3 planning commission this evening, Section 155.101
4 under development amenities, there's a list of
5 elements that you can consider when, you know,
6 reviewing a conditional use application as this.
7 And I don't know if you wanted to go through it
8 step by step or just kind of -- one of them was
9 hashed out in detail and that's with respect to the
10 20 foot buffer strip. I think the commission had
11 an understanding with respect to that now.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's go over
13 those and --
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: The first one,
15 this is the community center, the lodge, is that
16 for purposes of Arrowhead Lakes residents only,
17 solely?
18 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Yes.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: It's not going
20 to be a commercial enterprise used for nonresidents
21 of Arrowhead Lake?
22 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: No. That
23 building is owned by all 3,600 people that own
24 properties in Arrowhead. It's not for commercial
25 use.
74
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So it's
2 going to be for the family and guests of the
3 tenants of the --
4 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Family and
5 guests.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Are there any
7 advertising signs being proposed relating to the
8 use?
9 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: No.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Nothing?
11 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: No.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Other than the
13 buffer, all the setback requirements are complied
14 with?
15 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: Yes.
16 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: It was a 20 foot
18 buffer that was under interpretation by the zoning
19 board, obviously.
20 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: The parking
22 facilities are complied with. Actually, you're
23 proposing four extra parking spaces.
24 MR. CHAD LELLO: That's correct.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Subsurface
75
1 disposal areas constructed to service this amenity
2 shall not encroach on any required parking area or
3 upon the buffer strip.
4 That's complied with?
5 MR. CHAD LELLO: Yes.
6 MR. McHALE: There won't be a
7 subsurface disposal area because they're going to
8 have to connect --
9 MR. CHAD LELLO: To the sewer
10 lines.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: And, again, no
12 commercial or for profit activities being conducted
13 at the proposed lodge?
14 MR. JOHN ADAMSON: No.
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Those
16 are, you know, the majority of the sustentative
17 issues with respect to the conditional use.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. So our
19 only recommendation to the board of supervisors is
20 that the mounds be placed along the western side
21 and the -- I'm not sure if that would be the
22 northwest, Chad? Around the cul-de-sac.
23 MR. CHAD LELLO: That would be
24 the northwest side, yes.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. That a
76
1 mound be placed in that area to augment the
2 existing land -- the proposed landscaping. That's
3 our only recommendation for a conditional use.
4 MR. McHALE: And I think as a
5 part of that berm, you all had mentioned about the
6 additional landscaping on the returns --
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
8 MR. McHALE: -- as long as it
9 didn't encroach into clear sight triangles.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Correct. Okay
11 that's our recommendation.
12 MR. CHAD LELLO: Excellent.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: And, obviously,
14 compliance with all other zoning regulations to the
15 township.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Obviously.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: So is that a
18 recommendation?
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. Do you
20 want a motion for that?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, it would
22 help. This is for the conditional use.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. This is
24 for the conditional use application. The planning
25 commission is recommending that a buffer be placed
77
1 along the north -- I'm sorry, the western and
2 northwestern edges of the parking lot and
3 cul-de-sac to augment the proposed landscaping.
4 And that all other zoning and land development
5 issues be complied with according to the township
6 regulations, and extend the landscaping around the
7 parking area as discussed.
8 Do I have a motion?
9 MRS. LAMBERTON: I make that
10 motion.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Have a motion.
12 Do I have a second to the
13 motion?
14 MS. RINEHIMER: I'll second.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
16 second.
17 All those in favor please say
18 aye.
19 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
23 And I'll entertain a motion to
24 table the preliminary final land development plan
25 for Arrowhead Lakes Community lodge.
78
1 MR. MILLER: So moved.
2 MRS. LAMBERTON: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
4 second.
5 All those in favor please say
6 aye.
7 MRS. LAMBERTON: Aye.
8 MR. MILLER: Aye.
9 MS. RINEHIMER: Aye.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
11 MR. CHAD LELLO: Thank you very
12 much.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do we have
14 anything else before the board tonight?
15 MRS. LAMBERTON: I don't --
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: We're adjourned
17 then.
18 (Hearing concluded at 8:13 p.m.)
19 ---
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 I hereby certify that the
8 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
9 accurately, in the notes taken by me at the hearing
10 in the above matter; and that the foregoing is a
11 true and correct transcript of the same.
12
13
14
15 JOSEPHINE HOLLMAN, C.R.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25