Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
---
In Re: Special Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Monday, May 7, 2007, beginning at 10:30 a.m.
---
PRESENT: JOHN E. KERRICK, Chairperson
HEIDI A. PICKARD, Vice-Chairperson
ANNE SINCAVAGE, Board Member
EMANUEL KAPELSOHN, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ROBERT McHALE, P.E., Township Engineer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. KERRICK: Call to order the
2 special meeting, May 7, 2007, for Lake Naomi
3 Community, Pinecrest Development, and any
4 businesses that may come before the board.
5 Lake Naomi, you have the floor.
6 MR. TERRY MARTIN: Thank you.
7 (TERRY MARTIN was duly sworn.)
8 MR. TERRY MARTIN: Good morning.
9 We've submitted a revised, final land development
10 plan for the community center. These are plans
11 that reflect the things that we discussed at your
12 work session several weeks ago.
13 The major changes in the plans
14 were to the driveway configurations. If you recall
15 on the initial approved plans, we had 24-feet wide
16 driveways covering all the access points to the
17 parking lots within the project. Since that time,
18 some of the driveways had been reduced down to the
19 minimum allowed by the municipality, being 15-feet
20 wide.
21 In conjunction with that, we
22 have shown signs within the project, which would
23 delineate that that's a one-way traffic pattern for
24 those drives. Those would be the drives serving
25 the parking area to the east of the building, and
3
1 the two parking areas to the north of the building
2 that's under construction. And the one remaining
3 driveway, which goes back and dead-ends to the
4 parking for the multipurpose field, remains a
5 two-way traffic pattern. And the main driveway
6 that comes in is a two-way traffic pattern. They
7 still hold the 24 feet, which was initially
8 approved in the initial plans.
9 The other change, which is
10 somewhat significant, was the landscape plan. They
11 have actually added trees along the buffer. If you
12 recall on this Sheet 5, there's a landscape buffer
13 to the south of the project. It is parallel with
14 the driveway coming in. And then to the south of
15 the main parking area, there is a landscape buffer
16 that was placed there. We actually raised it
17 slightly to ensure that the screening is adequate
18 from the residential properties to the south. And
19 they have added, I believe, 37 trees to the initial
20 approval along that berm for just some extra
21 screening.
22 There was some deletions, there
23 was some added white pines also to the parking area
24 which is adjacent to 423. And the landscaping
25 along the building has been deleted, which is going
4
1 to be a future project for the club. That's the
2 area that, if you recall, we discussed that they
3 are going to actually bring turf in and lay turf
4 down there, sod, to stabilize all along the
5 building.
6 The only other change that is
7 somewhat significant was, if you recall, in your
8 ordinance we had to have the site stabilized, 70
9 percent stabilization. There is no way that we
10 could achieve that given the time that we have to
11 do this site work. So I met with the conservation
12 district. They allowed us to go ahead and make a
13 change to the final configuration of the stormwater
14 management detention basin with a silt fence around
15 that outlet structure. And we'll also keep the
16 silt bags within the catch basin until the site is
17 stabilized.
18 As soon as the site is
19 stabilized or final measures have been taken for
20 the final stabilization, the conservation district
21 is going to come up, do an inspection and submit a
22 letter to the township, basically closing out the
23 project at this stage. They will do a later
24 inspection once the site is 70 percent stabilized.
25 But we will have hopefully something from the
5
1 conservation district which would allow the
2 supervisors to go ahead and issue a certificate of
3 occupancy.
4 The other major change to the
5 plan was requested under Guardian Inspection, fire
6 access to the building. The International Fire
7 Code has a requirement for this type of building --
8 I believe it's anything over 35 feet in height --
9 that we provide access to the building so that it
10 can be reached within 150 feet from the main
11 firefighting apparatus. So that entire travel lane
12 or path has to have a stable base of 26 feet in
13 width.
14 Since we narrowed it down to the
15 15 feet in some locations, being the service drive
16 to the west of the building and the access to the
17 north of the building, we had to add an 11-foot
18 stone shoulder. In the rear of the building we did
19 that on one side, being the side to the west of the
20 existing pavement. And on the drive to the north,
21 we added 5 and a half feet to each side of the
22 proposed driveway, to bring that width to 26 feet.
23 We submitted that to Guardian. They approved the
24 configuration and they feel that it meets the
25 requirements of the IFC at this point.
6
1 Phasing. The last thing which
2 was different than the originally approved plan,
3 we're phasing some of the improvements to the
4 project. You will see on the first and second
5 sheet that you have, they are constructing just one
6 platform tennis, one basketball court and one sand
7 volleyball court at this point. Those three
8 things, they're the three additional ones that will
9 be built in the future. That's anticipated to be
10 within the next five years, four to five years.
11 The other thing is the walking
12 path, the hiking trail that we illustrate on the
13 plan. That will also be part of Phase 2. There is
14 a note on both the land development plan and the
15 geometry and utility plans. That's set forth,
16 those improvements that will be constructed at a
17 later date. Also we spoke about the historical
18 building which is to be placed on the site. That
19 would be part of Phase 2 construction, which is
20 illustrated on the land development plan.
21 I believe that covers everything
22 that's, I think, been changed since the original
23 plans were approved.
24 MR. KERRICK: What's the board's
25 pleasure?
7
1 MS. PICKARD: I make a motion
2 that we approve the revised land development plan
3 for the Lake Naomi's Club proposed community
4 center, indicated as Project 2004-018, referencing
5 Bob's May 4th letter.
6 MS. SINCAVAGE: I'll second the
7 motion.
8 THE MAGISTRATE: Motion and
9 second on the floor. Any discussion from the
10 board? Questions or comments from the public on
11 the motion?
12 Call the vote. Anne?
13 MS. SINCAVAGE: I vote in favor.
14 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
15 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
16 MR. KERRICK: And I vote in
17 favor. Motion carried.
18 MR. TERRY MARTIN: Thank you for
19 your time. As soon as we are at the point where we
20 are ready for the final inspection, I'll notify the
21 township zoning officer and engineer, and hopefully
22 we'll move forward.
23 MR. KERRICK: We'll take a
24 recess until 11 a.m.
25 (The special meeting recessed at
8
1 10:35 a.m., and resumed at 11:00 a.m.)
2 MR. KERRICK: Our first order of
3 business, I'd like a motion from the board to
4 accept Mr. Berry's resignation, as he's moving out
5 of the community. And we will advertise, from this
6 date, the first two weeks, to accept applications.
7 And then we'll have two weeks to review. And in 30
8 days, hopefully, we can name one.
9 MS. PICKARD: I make a motion we
10 accept Mr. Berry's resignation.
11 MS. SINCAVAGE: Second the
12 motion.
13 MR. KERRICK: Any discussion?
14 Discussion from the public?
15 Call the vote. Anne?
16 MS. SINCAVAGE: I vote in favor.
17 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
18 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
19 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
20 Motion carried.
21 Next order of business,
22 Pinecrest Lake/Pinecrest Development Corp., final
23 plan, Phase 7.
24 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Before we
25 get into the substance of the matter, I think we
9
1 were operating under a misconception as to the
2 extension. Mr. Kapelsohn just told me that the
3 extension runs out Sunday. We didn't realize that
4 that was the case. We realize also that part of
5 the submission is not complete. We're still
6 waiting for the traffic study to come in and a
7 couple of other things. So we are willing to give
8 the township another extension.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: What's the
10 status of the traffic study, may I ask?
11 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I should
12 have a draft this week.
13 MR. KAPELSOHN: Are you saying
14 then, Mr. Anders, that you're not prepared to
15 present for this session because you don't yet have
16 the traffic study and would expect to have that?
17 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Correct.
18 There are still items missing from the submission
19 that we need to get to you folks. As I said, we
20 were under a misconception as to when the extension
21 ran out.
22 MR. KAPELSOHN: That being the
23 case, I would advise the board to enter into a
24 further extension. I do think you can discuss some
25 of the outstanding issues and perhaps make some
10
1 progress for them, hopefully, but I think you
2 should give the applicant a chance to complete the
3 traffic study if it was not the understanding that
4 this would be a final consideration today.
5 MR. KERRICK: I have a question.
6 Could I ask a question now or should I wait?
7 They have some issues that obviously have to --
8 some items have to be submitted to us. Do they
9 have to go back to the planning commission then?
10 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: No. The
11 planning commission was aware that the traffic
12 study was in progress.
13 MR. KERRICK: Oh, they were
14 aware of that?
15 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Yes.
16 MR. KERRICK: Okay. That's all
17 I have.
18 Bob, do you have anything you'd
19 like to discuss with us or talk about while you are
20 here?
21 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I don't
22 know if you want me to sign something or you have a
23 form?
24 MR. KAPELSOHN: We do. This
25 would be for a 90-day extension. The time
11
1 extension waiver would end on August 6th. Do you
2 think that's enough time to complete the study?
3 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: It should
4 be, yes.
5 MR. KAPELSOHN: For the record,
6 we have just received a waiver of procedural time
7 requirements, extending the time for a period of 90
8 days. It states, "This time extension waiver shall
9 end on the 6th day of August 2007." Signed by
10 Edward P. Carroll, Pinecrest Development, Phase 7.
11 While we're here, and I note
12 that your engineer is here as well, I guess my
13 suggestion was that -- I understand there are a
14 number of outstanding issues. Mr. Anders has
15 written to me a number of times. We've been back
16 and forth on it in correspondence. We spoke just a
17 few minutes out in the hall. I know our engineer
18 has submitted a review letter that points out
19 several things that we think are not yet satisfied.
20 I would hope that we can make some progress towards
21 those things by discussing them today while we are
22 here, rather than facing them for the first time at
23 a later meeting.
24 Bob, could you tell us what
25 things your review has indicated are still
12
1 outstanding issues?
2 MR. McHALE: Actually, I was
3 going to request that their engineer go ahead with
4 the letter and identify the items that are not
5 resolved, and present their position on that, and
6 see if there is any progress from the last time we
7 were at the planning commission.
8 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: My name is
9 Michael Gable with RKR Hess Associates. I'll just
10 go through Bob's letter, Item No. 1, applicant to
11 comply. I don't know exactly what these items are
12 on here. It's just coming out of the tentative
13 approval.
14 MR. McHALE: I think if you just
15 want to go over, Mike, the items unresolved.
16 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: The
17 conservation district approval, this project needs
18 to get the conservation district approval. It also
19 needs to get a NPDES permit over the top of that E
20 and S approval. Since about December, DEP has been
21 going through and making some sweeping changes to
22 regulations regarding stormwater management. That
23 has had a dramatic impact across the board on every
24 single project whether they have been approved at
25 the township level or not. Even projects that have
13
1 been approved, but not constructed to date, they
2 have to go through a renewal process. They have to
3 completely redesign everything to make it meet
4 their standards.
5 What we had done and hoping to
6 comply with those standards was provide
7 infiltration. And what our assumptions were, were
8 2 inches per hour on the infiltration system that
9 were scattered throughout the development. Those
10 infiltration systems, when we went out and did some
11 testing, did not have any infiltration whatsoever.
12 When we learned of that, we scheduled a meeting
13 with DEP and we went up and met with them in
14 Wilkes-Barre, discussed the project, discussed what
15 our site constraints are, and we came up with a
16 solution.
17 The solution we needed to come
18 up with was how to mitigate the impact from an
19 increased volume that you inherently have from
20 adding additional impervious area to the
21 stormwater. It can't get through the pavement and
22 into the ground. What we had discussed was the
23 fact that right now Pinecrest and Wild Pines Golf
24 Course maintain this irrigation pond with some
25 pumps that are installed right off the edge of the
14
1 pond.
2 What we are looking to do is to
3 take the stormwater from Pinecrest Lake and
4 redirect it into the irrigation pond. And the
5 irrigation pond will reuse that water to spray
6 irrigate the golf course in place of pulling clean
7 cool groundwater out of the ground, which is a very
8 good thing to do for the environment, maintain
9 stream flow and a lot of other things.
10 And what we'll do is have
11 individual very small systems at pretty much every
12 building, just filter strips and some kind of
13 mounding to control stormwater throughout the area
14 of Phase 7, clean the water and control the peak
15 flows onsite on a microbasis. And on a microbasis,
16 we'll let the additional volume of stormwater come
17 through the wetlands into the systems through
18 Pinecrest Lake. When it gets there, there are
19 pumps that we install to transfer that additional
20 volume from the lake to the irrigation pond, to be
21 used and reused.
22 That's one of the big items that
23 we are pushing hard for at the state level, to make
24 sure we can reuse as much of the stormwater as we
25 can. The basic concept is if you think back to the
15
1 turn of the century, every home would have a
2 55-gallon drum sitting at the downspout. They take
3 that water and use it to irrigate their system.
4 This is the same concept, but just on a much larger
5 scale.
6 We are in the process now of
7 regenerating those plans. And hopefully in about a
8 month's time we'll have them submitted to the
9 conservation district and the state simultaneously.
10 One of their changes is to review E and S and
11 stormwater management plans at the same time. So,
12 hopefully, by within 60 to 90 days or so we should
13 have the approval from the conservation district
14 well underway. And the NPDES approval, nobody
15 knows what's going to happen. To my knowledge, no
16 plans have been approved under the new regulations
17 for the NPDES permit.
18 MR. KAPELSOHN: Just for the
19 record, is this Bob McHale's letter of April 3rd,
20 2007, that you're moving through?
21 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I believe
22 so.
23 Okay. Item No. 6, regarding
24 communitywide standards for the roadway system,
25 under Item No. 6, Sub 1, and it's stating that the
16
1 road standards cannot exceed 10 percent based upon
2 on AASHTO. I had gone back and pulled the
3 application for tentative approval from the
4 project. And this is a table that represents the
5 design standards that we are going to utilize based
6 on information and design criteria out of AASHTO.
7 But if you look, local roads do provide up to 14
8 percent. And we'd also have roads at the other
9 side, I believe, in excess of 10 percent as it is
10 today.
11 MR. McHALE: Could I supplement?
12 MR. KAPELSOHN: Would you,
13 please?
14 MR. McHALE: The tentative plan
15 approval, and I'm not sure that that actual table
16 got into the reapproval that actually was done a
17 few years ago, but there were drawings that were
18 provided as exhibits. And these drawings actually
19 provided profiles of each proposed roadway that was
20 in the tentative plan. This is kind of an overview
21 here of at least a portion of 7, 8, 9, 10 and other
22 portions of Pinecrest. And this is the actual
23 configuration of the road network that was being
24 proposed.
25 Along with that, I was provided
17
1 a set of documents that were showing the actual
2 grade of the proposed road. These are the plans
3 and profiles, sections of each of those. And for
4 the particular roads that are proposed in
5 section -- Phase 7, Road A in particular, is
6 denoted on this drawing as being a maximum of 10
7 percent. The IFC also indicates a maximum 10
8 percent. And the current AASHTO standards
9 indicate, for local roads, 10 percent max.
10 MR. KAPELSOHN: Could I ask a
11 question? Mr. McHale, my brief review of these
12 drawings and of those graphs or charts last week
13 indicated that while there were some segments of
14 road in the approved -- tentatively approved plans
15 that were as high as 14 percent grade, the result
16 now is that sections of road are being proposed for
17 a 14 percent grade that are both significantly
18 longer in length than what was that steep before
19 and in more critical locations, in terms of things
20 like emergency vehicles' use of the road and so
21 forth, is that correct?
22 MR. McHALE: That is correct.
23 There is two roads that were X and Z, that was on
24 the original tentative approval. Road X is here.
25 Road Z is here. This was a short segment of maybe
18
1 125 feet with a few homes. Road X also had a short
2 segment of 14 percent. This area of the
3 development also has other access off of Lake Shore
4 Drive that is less than 10 percent to get access
5 in. So from the fire protection stand point, even
6 if that piece was 14, there would be other road
7 sections that would provide access, that would be
8 10 percent.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: And what is --
10 you said this section. Would you state for the
11 record what is that section you're referring to?
12 MR. McHALE: It's an area that
13 has Roads X, Y and Z, and looks like -- I'm sorry,
14 X, Y and W, and U also on the tentative plan.
15 The other item to note as well
16 is that the configuration of Road A, which is shown
17 at 14 percent, is not the same configuration as
18 shown in the tentative plan. If the engineer were
19 to show and design in the horizontal control that
20 configuration that's on the tentative plan, he
21 could probably achieve that 10 percent that's shown
22 on the tentative plan as well.
23 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: I don't
24 know about the design criteria. But as far as the
25 flow of emergency vehicles, that's going to be
19
1 addressed in the traffic study by Benchmark.
2 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: And just to
3 add to Bob's comment in regards Road A, the reason
4 why Road A comes into this configuration is there
5 is a couple of wetland patches that we had found on
6 both sides of the road. We are snaking between
7 those. That's what had driven the configuration of
8 that road.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: Let me ask a
10 question of Mr. McHale again. My understanding is
11 that in addition to the safety, both for emergency
12 vehicles and the public using the road at a 14
13 percent grade when they're iced over or whatever,
14 isn't there also an issue about the impervious
15 paving being at such a steep grade in terms of
16 stormwater management?
17 MR. McHALE: Yes. That's
18 another issue that Mr. Gable will get to. We
19 discussed that briefly at the planning commission
20 meeting. This particular road they were proposing
21 as pervious pavement. And the concept as it was
22 proposed didn't look like it was going to provide
23 what they were anticipating in the original design.
24 I think Mr. Carroll had agreed that some other
25 measures would be taken to correct that.
20
1 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I can
2 address that. The pervious road that was initially
3 proposed was not proposed to be an infiltration
4 system. It was proposed simply to reduce the
5 impervious nature of the pavement. However, now
6 that we found that the soils are poor out there,
7 I would not recommend utilizing pervious pavement
8 because you will wind up in a lot of areas having
9 water stand under the pavement, freeze during the
10 wintertime and cause a lot of frost heaving. We
11 are going to remove the proposed pervious pavement
12 as part of the revised stormwater management
13 system.
14 Item No. 2, stopping sight
15 distance, we can provide those. That's not a
16 problem. Road sight clearance, we can take a look
17 at the clearance and confirm that we have that.
18 What we'll do is go through and clear some
19 overgrowth from the sides of the road, but where
20 it's along the wetlands system, we can't go down
21 and actually cut out trees and growth. We can just
22 cut the top of them off to provide for onsite
23 clearance.
24 Then there is discussion that
25 fire apparatus and emergency vehicles turning
21
1 maneuvers riding around the looped cul-de-sacs.
2 The looped cul-de-sacs right now are provided with
3 a center infiltration system or now it will be
4 converted over to a traditional rain garden. The
5 purpose of a rain garden is to control stormwater
6 runoff and clean it before it's discharged into the
7 wetlands system. The existing road should not have
8 a problem having a WV 40, I believe, to go and turn
9 and make an entire maneuver, which is basically the
10 size of a traditional fire truck.
11 What I think we can do to
12 satisfy the fire department in that regard is go up
13 to another road similar to what we are proposing
14 here in Pinecrest, set up a couple of cones at the
15 same size, and let the fire department drive
16 through it and see how it feels for them to drive
17 through that area, and see what size would be
18 appropriate for them from a comfort standpoint.
19 MR. McHALE: I think while we're
20 on the looped cul-de-sacs portion of it, we should
21 address that several of the homes that were
22 proposed, their driveways may only be about 25
23 feet, 30 feet in length at max. Once they park a
24 car or vehicle or two in the driveway, and if they
25 wanted to invite guests, the only place for them to
22
1 park really is in the roadway. If you had a car or
2 two parked along the cul-de-sac perimeter, it
3 doesn't appear likely that you would be able to get
4 the fire apparatus around there. So, it's just
5 another issue that needs to be looked at of
6 concern.
7 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: You put up
8 no parking signs.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: Well, for us
10 non-engineers, as I understood the cul-de-sacs
11 before, there was a center circle and then I don't
12 know if it was stone or what it was. But when you
13 say rain garden, what does that denote?
14 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: A rain
15 garden basically is a depressed area. You do some
16 undertreatment under, whether it be stone or sand
17 or some other type of filter media. And you allow
18 the stormwater to come on top of it, which will be
19 covered in topsoil and plantings, with plants that
20 have high nitrogen and phosphate uptake to clean
21 the water. The water will seep down through the
22 roof system into that filter media, what we call
23 it, and discharge out into the wetlands.
24 MR. KAPELSOHN: But it is
25 something -- in other words, I do correctly
23
1 understand it's not something that vehicles will
2 drive over?
3 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: No, it's not
4 that.
5 MR. KAPELSOHN: Okay.
6 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: And Bob had
7 mentioned before the two parking spaces. This
8 development is only required to have two parking
9 spaces per unit, which is indicated on the plans.
10 Overflow parking. If someone would have guests,
11 they will have to park down at one of the community
12 facilities and shuttle people back and forth.
13 But I don't know in any of the other areas of the
14 development that that has ever been a problem.
15 MR. McHALE: I think most of the
16 other areas, Mike, that I'm aware of in some of the
17 more recent final approvals that were granted, the
18 cul-de-sacs done are paved, just completely paved.
19 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Right.
20 If someone parks alongside of the road on those
21 cul-de-sacs, whether it's paved across the center
22 or not, you will still not have a fire truck turn
23 around. It's the center area that we are talking
24 about, where a fire truck will come around on the
25 outside radius and won't have to drive across the
24
1 center.
2 MR. McHALE: With your rain
3 garden concept, you cut out the inside turning
4 radius portion of it. So, it's something that
5 needs to be looked at, that is a concern. If there
6 was no rain garden in the center, then the truck
7 would be able to maneuver and --
8 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: They can
9 drive in it, Bob.
10 MR. McHALE: In your rain
11 garden?
12 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Gravel.
13 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Like I said
14 before, I think the best thing to do is go out to
15 one of the areas that are completely paved, set up
16 cones to represent what we are proposing, and have
17 the fire department drive a truck through it.
18 MR. McHALE: If the rain garden
19 will be set up in such a way that you design it
20 where it did have stone, as Brandon Carroll was
21 indicating, to where the trucks could drive over
22 it, and it didn't have the plants and vegetation
23 throughout that -- well, just for infiltration
24 purposes, that might work. It's something to think
25 about.
25
1 MR. KAPELSOHN: Again, as a
2 non-engineer, when I hear stones and plantings,
3 I also assume it's not going to be plowed in the
4 wintertime. And not only might it not be plowed,
5 it might become a repository for snow and ice to be
6 pushed there from the rest of the roadways
7 Is that not the case? Do I not
8 understand that right?
9 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: That is
10 definitely the case. And along the interior and
11 exterior portions of what's proposed now, there
12 will be some shoulder improvements to give a little
13 extra room.
14 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Could I
15 make a comment? I live on one of the cul-de-sacs
16 in Pinecrest. And the fire company comes there
17 weekly and goes around. I live on one that has a
18 little garden thing in it. And the fire company
19 comes there weekly and fills up their tanker truck.
20 I don't know exactly what you're thinking.
21 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: It's
22 something I guess, Ed, we can work together with
23 the fire department, get them out there and take a
24 look the different --
25 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: They're
26
1 already doing it, is what I'm talking about.
2 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: We are
3 basically saying is the center circle of that
4 cul-de-sac, the fire truck doesn't actually drive
5 across. It will come out into the side lane and go
6 around. And if it tries to drive across the center
7 of the cul-de-sac, it won't be able to make a turn
8 whatsoever, whether it's paved or it's a 17-foot
9 depression.
10 MR. McHALE: Do you have
11 AutoTurn or some program that you could demonstrate
12 to show us that?
13 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I can just
14 drop a AASHTO turning template on there. But I
15 think the more important thing, from the fire
16 department's perspective, is to actually drive a
17 truck across it. Like you said, a non-engineer's
18 standpoint, the fire department aren't engineers as
19 well. They know what they can physically do versus
20 what the turning template tells them they can do.
21 Escrow agreement and financial
22 security, once we finalize the stormwater
23 management system, that will be backed into the
24 cost estimates for the project and be developed
25 into the bonding and incorporated into the
27
1 developer's agreement.
2 There is something new that
3 hasn't been asked for in the past per NFPA 291,
4 Chapter 5, marking hydrants for flow rates.
5 I guess we can provide them. But who is going to
6 be maintaining those flow rates on the hydrants and
7 what have you? The water company is not obligated
8 to do it under the PUC. So I don't know if they
9 are even going to want to do it. If they put a flow
10 rate on it, they will take a liability for that
11 flow rate. Flow rates, when you do a test, a flow
12 rate at the test time is not going to be reflective
13 of the flow rate at the end of fire flow. So I
14 don't know exactly what you're looking for in that
15 regard.
16 MR. KAPELSOHN: What about the
17 hydrants spacing issue that's in the top paragraph
18 under Item 10?
19 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: We'll comply
20 with that. That's fine.
21 MR. KAPELSOHN: You will?
22 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Yes.
23 I believe we actually revised the plans already.
24 I don't recall which review we had moved those
25 around. That's not a problem. We can comply. I
28
1 guess the real question I would have is the spacing
2 of the hydrants or the markings of the hydrants.
3 Plow markers are probably a good idea.
4 MR. McHALE: Excuse me, Mike.
5 On the markings, is that something maybe the fire
6 chief and Aqua PA could discuss?
7 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I don't
8 really think that was an issue for Pinecrest
9 Development, Corp. It's Aqua PA's water system.
10 MR. McHALE: But it is part of
11 what they requested. It's something I'm asking.
12 The three of you should discuss it.
13 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Okay. Plow
14 markers, that can be shown on the detail. I agree
15 with that. You can see them and when they get
16 snowed in they know where -- the 5-inch Storz
17 connections should be provided at each hydrant. Is
18 that consistent with the hydrants that are
19 currently installed in Pinecrest? I don't know the
20 answer. I don't want to put hydrants in that are
21 different than what's already been installed.
22 MR. McHALE: I believe on some
23 of the more recent phases the fire chief had asked
24 for that.
25 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Okay.
29
1 I thought they were all 5 and a quarter inch
2 connections.
3 MR. McHALE: Why don't you call
4 Troy Counterman and talk directly with him?
5 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I just don't
6 want to have different hydrants.
7 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Don't they
8 want them all the same?
9 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Yes, they
10 should all be the same. For maintenance and all
11 the fire departments having the right connection
12 when they show up to a hydrant, they should know
13 what to expect. If you have one different to
14 another, it will slow them down.
15 MR. McHALE: I think this
16 connection, as I understand it, the fire chief
17 actually assists them in making the connections
18 faster.
19 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: That's fine.
20 As long as we get some consistency. It doesn't
21 really matter one way or the other. I just need to
22 have direction, logical. That's all.
23 Site Observation Statement, Item
24 12, you want me to change the note that it's not
25 the contractor making that statement?
30
1 MR. McHALE: Yes. We just don't
2 want the site observer to be the contractor.
3 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Numbers 15
4 and 16, each phase that's come in, we discussed the
5 contact with PennDOT. We've never had luck getting
6 a presubmission meeting with PennDOT to discuss the
7 project and the scope of traffic study. So that
8 was not done. We are in the process of preparing
9 the traffic impact study, which will be submitted
10 to the township, hopefully, within the next week or
11 two. I'm not sure what the status is of that third
12 party firm putting that together, Benchmark
13 Engineering.
14 Number 18, as I said before, we
15 are going to be completely revising the stormwater
16 management. So there's no sense in getting into
17 detail with some of these comments. I'll go
18 through them on the ones that would still be
19 appropriate for what we are going to do. I
20 apologize for going through these now. Just a
21 second.
22 Number 10, Bob, horizontal and
23 vertical profiles of all open channels, including
24 hydraulic capacity, are you actually looking for a
25 profile of every single swale or are you looking
31
1 for some detail?
2 MR. McHALE: No. The last
3 sentence there, Mike, it says waiver of vertical
4 profiles may be requested in writing. And that's
5 because you're providing the grading contours and
6 you're providing horizontal alignment on the
7 drawings. So there really is no need for the
8 vertical profiles unless you want to provide those.
9 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: It's a labor
10 intensive task. So I would request a waiver from
11 that item if we could.
12 MR. KAPELSOHN: Mr. McHale, do
13 we need it in writing, as it says?
14 MR. McHALE: Yes, indicating in
15 writing.
16 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Number 11,
17 requesting a 15-foot wide access easement around
18 all stormwater management facilities. All the
19 stormwater management facilities are located on the
20 lands of Pinecrest Trust. So by it's very nature
21 of being on the trust land, it has its own easement
22 to itself. And I think a blanket easement could be
23 created on behalf of the township, if it hasn't
24 already, to go in and maintain the stormwater
25 management features if the trust fails to do it.
32
1 Putting an easement together for
2 all the stormwater management would be confusing at
3 best for everyone and to even try to prepare it for
4 you to try to read it. So I think it would be
5 appropriate in this case just to have a blanket
6 easement to cover all these access issues
7 altogether.
8 MR. McHALE: I don't see a
9 problem with that.
10 MR. KAPELSOHN: I would think it
11 would be part of the stormwater management
12 agreement that we usually use. I'm not sure
13 whether a little additional language is required,
14 but we can look at that, Bob.
15 Bob, if you or the owner's
16 counsel would remind me of that when it comes time
17 for that issue, to make sure it's included.
18 MR. McHALE: Okay.
19 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Number 12,
20 this is somewhat redundant with the NPDES process.
21 I don't know if you want to incorporate saying
22 we're applying by complying with the NPDES process,
23 because they will require the same as the NPDES
24 approval goes through. And after you're done with
25 construction, you've got to file for notice of
33
1 termination. And in order to do that notice of
2 termination, you have to have everything done.
3 MR. McHALE: Item No. 12, Mike?
4 Is that what you're saying?
5 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Yes.
6 MR. McHALE: That I believe is
7 just somebody stating that any revisions that might
8 occur to the drainage plan just need to be
9 reviewed.
10 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Do you want
11 to put it in the developer's agreement?
12 MR. McHALE: I think you can put
13 it right on the drawings.
14 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Okay. And
15 does that go on the site plan or on the grading and
16 stormwater management plans?
17 MR. McHALE: It can go on the
18 overall drainage. I think you have a post
19 construction stormwater --
20 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Are you sure
21 you don't want it on the site plan? Put it on both
22 places?
23 MR. McHALE: Yes.
24 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Expected
25 time schedule to be provided --
34
1 MR. McHALE: Excuse me.
2 According to the Act 167, I believe stormwater
3 management plans need to be recorded also.
4 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Really?
5 Since when?
6 MR. McHALE: Within Act 167.
7 Have you not been recording them?
8 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I've never
9 recorded the stormwater management plans. I hope
10 the county's got a lot of filing space, because it
11 will be a lot.
12 The expected timeline for
13 construction, Ed, we'll have to work together.
14 He wants a timeline for construction, saying what
15 phase will be completed when on the construction.
16 We'll have to work together, similar to what the
17 conservation district is looking for.
18 E and S plan, including all
19 reviews and approvals, we discussed that
20 previously. Operational maintenance plan, that's
21 something that is new to this project. It hasn't
22 been prepared in the past. I don't know. The
23 stormwater management agreement that was put
24 together, is some of that covered already, Bob?
25 MR. McHALE: Yes, some of the
35
1 notes would just go on the drawing.
2 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Could you
3 fax me a copy of the agreement?
4 MR. McHALE: We'll be able to
5 coordinate all that.
6 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Okay.
7 Stormwater management and BMPs, that's the
8 stormwater management be reported, which we'll get
9 an updated copy. It should be self-explanatory to
10 him.
11 Maintenance and agreements, the
12 escrow fund for stormwater maintenance, when we
13 have these very small treatment systems, how are we
14 going to handle that? This is different than a
15 traditional basin, which is the size of this room,
16 where everyone discharges to. Each homeowner,
17 maybe two or three, will discharge to a common,
18 very small system, maybe a third of the size of
19 this room, to control the stormwater. It's not the
20 same thing. Before, you were putting in a number
21 of 3,000 --
22 MR. McHALE: Once you get to
23 that point, Mike, and you have your final design,
24 then we can work through something.
25 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: As part of
36
1 the maintenance agreement, we'll incorporate the
2 requirements of what we talked about before. Who
3 prepares that maintenance agreement, Bob?
4 MR. McHALE: It's a standard
5 agreement that Mr. Kapelsohn --
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: The township has
7 it. And it's got it on -- what's the word I'm
8 looking for? It's a .pdf file so that it can't be
9 altered. I think that's right. And, you know, the
10 blanks need to be filled in, but it saves us having
11 to re-review it completely each time. But it may
12 be that there's some modification that's
13 appropriate here, but I'll leave that up to you and
14 Mr. McHale to discuss.
15 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: The traffic
16 impact study, we've already talked about that. My
17 understanding -- Ed, you correct me if I'm wrong --
18 as a developer, you install water and sewer, and
19 then dedicate it to Aqua? Is that how that works?
20 This refers to the final plan notes, specifically
21 who will construct the water and sewer extensions.
22 In this case, the developer constructs it and then
23 once it's constructed and accepted by the utility,
24 the utility takes it over. And I guess you're
25 looking for a note on the plan saying who
37
1 constructs what, Bob?
2 MR. McHALE: Please, and to the
3 extent of what is going to be constructed.
4 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Let's see.
5 Permits from DEP, labor and industry, PennDOT and
6 the conservation district. As previously
7 mentioned, the only approvals we need at this
8 point, we just added a new one with something in
9 this plan, I'll explain that in a moment. We don't
10 need labor and industry approval because there is
11 nothing commercial involved. They don't review
12 individual homes themselves. DEP, we need the
13 approvals of the NPDES permit, which is a major
14 modification of the existing permit that Pinecrest
15 already has in place. And the conservation
16 district, of course, the E and S plan to go along
17 with the major modification permit with NPDES.
18 Communitywide standards, this
19 needs some discussion, I believe. Right now we are
20 proposing -- Pinecrest Drive, as it comes through,
21 we are proposing a 20-foot wide cartway with 4-feet
22 shoulders on either side, with the exception of the
23 neck down points, where each wetland is crossing.
24 I don't know how much detail was discussed at the
25 previous meeting, but there is a bunch of culverts
38
1 that cross under the existing road, which is
2 Pinecrest Drive, that have wetlands on either side.
3 In order to extend it to the
4 full 28 feet required under the community
5 standards, we would need to impact somewhere around
6 half an acre of wetland. We initially came in
7 proposing to have a one-way road that would reduce
8 those road widths down to allow a single lane of
9 traffic to go through without having any wetland
10 impact whatsoever. After some discussion, it was
11 decided that we could, in lieu of doing a one-way
12 road with reduced widths at the wetlands crossing
13 points, we could have just neck down points at each
14 individual crossing.
15 To that end, what we had done
16 was prepare a table, which, Bob, I believe we faxed
17 it to him, that told him of the neck down points,
18 where they're located at, and what the width will
19 be. I believe there is one section of the one-way
20 road that will remain Road M from here to here,
21 because there is significant wetlands through here.
22 I believe it's only 14 -- 12 or 14-foot wide.
23 MR. McHALE: These are just a
24 portion of the most recent submittals. What's
25 highlighted, you can further your discussion on it,
39
1 but it's part of the neck down portions, so you can
2 see the extent.
3 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: The majority
4 of the neck downs are mostly reduced shoulder
5 widths, not necessarily reduced cart-path width.
6 There is a table. I don't know if they are made on
7 the plans we have now.
8 MR. McHALE: Let me show you.
9 There's actually three drawings that encompass all
10 of the roads.
11 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Right.
12 And this is a minor road that has limited traffic.
13 It will only be serving in a future phase. Right
14 now, it's proposing only to service these units in
15 Phase 7. In the future, it will serve Phase 10,
16 with traffic on the exiting ramp, I believe, and
17 the entrance coming in this direction.
18 MR. KAPELSOHN: Did I
19 misunderstand? Isn't one of the roads or the road
20 that's proposed to be neck down a collector road?
21 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Yes.
22 MR. KAPELSOHN: Is that
23 consistent with what you just said was a minor
24 road, only certain houses?
25 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I was going
40
1 through it on an overall scale to see the different
2 areas. And here is the connector road on Pinecrest
3 Drive. We do not have the ability to expand those
4 roads to meet collector standards because of the
5 fact that we had to do a significant wetlands
6 portion through here. So what we had done, was
7 directed as much of the traffic along the existing
8 road, which is Pinecrest Drive, so we could have as
9 much road width as we could possibly get.
10 And as you can see, Bob had
11 shown in the orange through here and here on this
12 sheet where the neck down portions would be. There
13 is another point, a point through here, through
14 here, through here, and these little tiny points.
15 And this, of course, would go into Phases 8 and 9,
16 in this direction. We are only talking about here.
17 And the reason why we had done
18 this section of the road is we wanted to do future
19 planning. We want to see exactly what this thing
20 looks like. We laid the roads in, designed them,
21 and had them shown for you, so we could have that
22 part of the approval, which is more complicated,
23 taken care of now before we get into those other
24 future dates.
25 MR. McHALE: One item that we
41
1 had discussed also was that we need to know on this
2 final Phase 7 exactly what portions of the roads
3 would be constructed. Because at this point, they
4 are showing all the roads and work. There is no
5 turn around in the cul-de-sac at the end -- a
6 temporary cul-de-sac, a temporary turnaround.
7 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: While we are
8 discussing that, what we are planning on doing, is
9 we've got to find a place for it somewhere. We
10 still have some wetland. What we'll do is we'll
11 put a bold out for temporary turnaround until the
12 roads are improved. And those will be shown on the
13 next set of revisions as part of the stormwater
14 management. And, likewise, we will work likely
15 right about here to put a bold turnaround. So that
16 way, any traffic that comes here can turn around.
17 This road that extends across and comes over to the
18 Wild Pines section of the project is going to
19 remain open in it's current state as a dirt road.
20 So that way you have emergency vehicle access.
21 And this is the one-way road I
22 discussed. We can't open this up. It's only got
23 about 13 and a half feet from wetland to wetland on
24 this existing portion of the road. Sometime back
25 in the '20s and '30s, they filled in wetlands that
42
1 were in that point to construct this dirt road.
2 MR. McHALE: And that road that
3 Mike is pointing to, what road is that, M, or what
4 is the designation?
5 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I believe
6 it's M.
7 MR. McHALE: That portion of it
8 is shown as a, I believe, a dirt road on the
9 tentative approval, but it's not assigned and shown
10 to be the road itself or a road, minor or
11 collector, on the tentative plan.
12 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: And the
13 reason that that was driven that way -- I don't
14 remember the tentative -- do you have a tentative
15 plan for me?
16 MR. McHALE: Yes.
17 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: The
18 tentative plan did not show any connections through
19 the center of the project. It did, however, show a
20 connection that came -- this road would extend and
21 come down alongside the golf course. That road is
22 in poor repair now and has significant wetlands in
23 it and around it. There is just no way to
24 construct that road.
25 Likewise, the units that were
43
1 proposed over in that area can't be constructed
2 either due to flooding. I don't know if it's
3 wetlands per se in that area, but it does have a
4 very high water table. It's flooded for a good
5 portion of the year. And then the site will come
6 through with a couple of small neck downs to each
7 point. And like I said, the majority of neck downs
8 are reduced shoulders.
9 And what we are all proposing to
10 do in each location is to open up the shoulder of
11 the road before, on either side, on the right-hand
12 side, to allow traffic to pull over to the side if
13 there is oncoming emergency vehicles or what have
14 you. So there are provisions to allow for that.
15 And in an overview standpoint,
16 this is basically the road that we are talking
17 about through here. And that road will be the only
18 one I would see to be a collector road with regards
19 to the size and potential maybe one through here or
20 what have you, but we have not gotten up to that
21 phase yet.
22 MR. McHALE: You labeled that
23 Pinecrest Drive?
24 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Pinecrest
25 Drive. So we are going to comply with the 28-foot
44
1 road to the fullest extent possible. But
2 consistent with what the planning commission had
3 previously seen, we are going to neck it down at
4 the point, the maximum, with the amount of road we
5 can get.
6 One thing we are doing to get
7 as much space there is, we are going to drive sheet
8 pylons about 4 inches to 6 inches away from the
9 edge of the delineated wetland to get the maximum
10 amount of width we have. It will come up in some
11 areas as high as 18 inches to get the curb up. And
12 the road will be sitting through that. Basically
13 you will be creating a small little bridge at each
14 wetland point to maximize the road widths.
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: Bob, was there
16 an issue about whether something in writing was
17 lacking from the Corps of Engineers about whether
18 it would permit or not permit some modifications of
19 the wetlands?
20 MR. McHALE: In previous
21 discussions in meetings at the planning commission
22 it was mentioned that the Corps of Engineers or you
23 might even expound on that, Mike, they would not
24 allow you --
25 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: When we were
45
1 going through the process -- and I don't know that
2 we ever got it in writing or not. I had a couple
3 of correspondence from Wayne's office I can't seem
4 to find. When we are going through the process of
5 getting the joint permit approved through the Army
6 Corps of Engineers for Phases 1 and 2, which is the
7 Wild Pines area, they gave us a significant amount
8 of problem getting our permit approved.
9 And Wayne Pavich's (phonetic),
10 one comment he had made to us was, I want to see
11 all the impacts on the project. So we prepared a
12 plan. We showed them what the impacts would be.
13 And that's how I came up with that, just under an
14 acre of wetland disturbance. We didn't actually do
15 the design of all the roads, but just showed what
16 the impact would be.
17 He came back and said to us,
18 well, that's a lot of impact. And there was a lot
19 of back and forth. For a period of about two years
20 we were going through this back and forth process.
21 Finally, he said, I will approve this permit if you
22 get rid of all the impacts in this phase -- in
23 Phases 7 through 10.
24 And at that point I believe, Ed,
25 you had agreed to redesign the plan to mitigate
46
1 those impacts. And basically what he told us
2 was -- basically held a gun to our head and said
3 I'm not approving the project until you tell me I'm
4 not going to have any impacts over here. And that
5 was the course of the discussion.
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: Mr. McHale, is
7 there something that from our point of view we need
8 to see in writing or would want to see in writing?
9 MR. McHALE: I mean, I don't
10 know how -- we are going off of some verbal
11 discussion here. And we are asking for some kind
12 of deviation variance from not only the
13 communitywide standards, but the International Fire
14 Code. Whereas, there are other projects that are
15 going on in the township right now where people are
16 obtaining wetland mitigation permits and are
17 getting wetland crossings.
18 And I think for as important as
19 Pinecrest Drive is -- and I know with the color
20 drawings, it's a very good presentation here. But
21 this Pinecrest Drive is the interconnecting loop
22 that runs through the entire development, that
23 brings the folks from the golf course here over to
24 the folks in the lake area and amenities over here.
25 So it's really the tie-in connection. And to have
47
1 Pinecrest Drive restricted so much, it seems to me
2 like there should be something in writing from the
3 Corps rather than just some conversation.
4 MS. PICKARD: This agreement
5 then, was that after you had the tentative
6 approval?
7 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Yes,
8 probably only about two years ago. It was dragging
9 on for a very long time because DEP, again, and the
10 Army Corps of Engineers all changed the rules of
11 the game, and we had to go back. We redesigned a
12 couple of the crossings. Bob, you can recall that.
13 And it's just been -- the changes in regulations
14 and going back with this project have been
15 difficult to keep up with regulations and
16 incorporate what has already been constructed. I
17 mean, you have land sold, transferred. It's very
18 difficult. So it's been taking a very long time to
19 get this thing moving along.
20 MR. McHALE: It seems like with
21 the Corps of Engineers, they are going through
22 those three steps of avoidance, minimization, and
23 then mitigation. When they are at the point where
24 they are doing an alternative analysis, it would
25 appear appropriate that the township may even wish
48
1 to support the applicant and go to the Corps and
2 say Pinecrest Drive needs to have that minimum
3 width standard so that we are not necking down on a
4 collector road. It's some food for thought.
5 MR. KAPELSOHN: Mr. Gable, do I
6 correctly understand what you said, that you
7 indicate that you may have something in writing but
8 you're --
9 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I can't find
10 any correspondence.
11 MR. KAPELSOHN: -- you can't
12 find it?
13 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I don't
14 remember how it went. And Nate Oiler of our office
15 is handling the majority of that. And he can't
16 really -- he can't find anything. He can't even
17 recollect the exact conversation. We've been
18 dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers on a
19 number of projects. So, sometimes our memories go
20 back and forth on what we did, whether it was
21 verbal or -- it might have even been something that
22 Eddie had a conversation directly with Wayne Povich
23 about.
24 Do you remember?
25 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: No.
49
1 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Okay.
2 And to make it more complicated, Neil DeLucca from
3 Pinecrest Lake Homes was also involved in that.
4 So there's many, many parties. It's very
5 confusing.
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: In my interest
7 as solicitor, in attempting to avoid what will
8 otherwise probably become a major legal issue here,
9 can I expect that you and Mr. McHale will talk
10 about this further and possibly make some further
11 approach to the Corps of Engineers on your part, to
12 either get something in writing or see whether some
13 relaxation might be important? Because this sounds
14 like it's a particular location and situation where
15 life, safety and emergency vehicle access may trump
16 wetlands. I'd certainly like to find out if that's
17 the case from the Corps' point of view.
18 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: My
19 experience with dealing with the Army Corps, person
20 by person, day by day, they will change their mind
21 every single day.
22 MR. KAPELSOHN: Maybe this is
23 your lucky day.
24 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: And maybe
25 I'll get lucky. The best thing for us to do is Bob
50
1 and I get on a conference call with Wayne Povich
2 and say here's what we're doing, Wayne. What do
3 you want us to do? And let him tell us, tell us
4 again what he wants us to do.
5 MS. SINCAVAGE: I don't think
6 Wayne is still in that department. I think you
7 will deal with Missy.
8 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Missy --
9 well, Wayne, they share projects. Wayne might
10 still stay on this.
11 MS. SINCAVAGE: Because we had
12 the same situation. We had correspondence from
13 Wayne and --
14 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Right. Yes.
15 And I know Missy. I've known her from the Carbon
16 County Conservation. So whether it be Missy or
17 Wayne, hopefully it is Missy. She's easier to get
18 ahold of.
19 MS. SINCAVAGE: She's easier to
20 get ahold.
21 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: And then,
22 when you think about it, they are really a federal
23 agency. You got a whole other level of
24 (inaudible). It's tough for any of us to even get
25 in touch with them. So we'll have to play it by
51
1 ear. We'll call them and see what they say.
2 And from a planning standpoint,
3 whether it's 22 feet, 19 feet or 28 feet, it really
4 doesn't have an impact on the overall scheme of
5 things. So we can move ahead on all the other
6 issues. And we'll let that one sit on the back
7 burner until we get resolution through the Army
8 Corps, if that's okay with you.
9 MR. McHALE: I think it would be
10 appropriate to have a sit-down meeting with the
11 Corps and have the fire chief, Guardian, and one of
12 the supervisors or so.
13 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Bob, you
14 want to coordinate with all the people on your end
15 to get time schedules together?
16 MR. McHALE: Yes. I'll mail you
17 something.
18 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Great.
19 Number 2, Bob and I we discussed that as we were
20 going through. That's resolved here. That was
21 basically the turnaround, I believe, that we're
22 talking about?
23 MR. McHALE: Yes.
24 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: And this
25 issue, No. 3, Bob is simply stating that we need to
52
1 add signage at each one of the neck downs to tell
2 people to yield to oncoming traffic and caution
3 when they approach it. And I guess we are looking
4 for a hold harmless agreement, which is basically
5 what he's asking for. Assuming that the Army Corps
6 tells us no, we can't do it, we'll provide
7 something for you.
8 MR. McHALE: That's our intent,
9 Mike, would be to request that they put that in
10 writing if they're going to deny you with an
11 opportunity to mitigate some of those wetlands.
12 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: We'll see
13 what they will do.
14 Typical detail for one
15 directional access, this may go away all together.
16 On the new revised plans you have not gotten it
17 yet. We are having them printed. It does show a
18 typical detail for that.
19 Street lighting, we don't have a
20 problem providing street lighting at the
21 intersection. One question I have, Bob, there are
22 certain areas particularly through here. Do you
23 want to have street lighting? There is no units
24 there, no intersection, no anything.
25 MR. McHALE: This is just a part
53
1 of the communitywide standards.
2 MR. KERRICK: Can we get to the
3 big issues? I mean, I don't even know how this got
4 out of the planning commission and got before us,
5 but I'm really on a limited schedule here. We've
6 got two big issues. Let's hit those.
7 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: We're done.
8 That was our last comment.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: Well, you've got
10 wetland setbacks and you've got buffers.
11 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Why don't we
12 do the buffers first because that one is easier?
13 MR. KAPELSOHN: Okay.
14 MR. McHALE: The buffers, I
15 think you stated you would comply with that 50-foot
16 because it goes around the perimeter of the PRD.
17 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Right. The
18 50-foot buffer around the PRD, I think you were
19 questioning shall it remain in a natural state.
20 Now, does that mean to me I can do some grading
21 work as long as I restore it with planting to its
22 original state?
23 MR. McHALE: I think the area of
24 concern that Nate Oiler had indicated would not be
25 a problem to address, I think in these areas right
54
1 here. And these homes, there is plenty of
2 flexibility to adjust those and stay out of that
3 natural area. And if that's shown on the tentative
4 approval, Nate said that that wouldn't be a
5 problem.
6 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: If you look
7 at it in the plan view, it doesn't look like it's
8 easy to do. There is a water main that comes right
9 through here. There is steep slopes in here. And
10 there's some wetlands. So, I'll have to take a
11 look.
12 MR. McHALE: The 50-feet is only
13 around the perimeter of the PRD.
14 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Right.
15 I might have to -- I think I've got -- and this
16 unit falls into the same issue. I might have to
17 look -- I might have to put these units. I have
18 some space down through here and change the phasing
19 line just to make up for those units, if that's
20 acceptable.
21 But definitely we will wind up
22 losing two, maybe three units on Road A, and
23 potentially one unit on Road C to be able to
24 provide without doing any earth work in that
25 50-foot buffer. My intention was to do earth work
55
1 in the buffer and then restore it back to its
2 original state.
3 MS. PICKARD: Wasn't that line
4 already changed in the tentative approval?
5 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Yes. They
6 have all been changed to reflect a lot of
7 additional information we found. When the
8 tentative PRD approval was done, the detailed
9 information required at that time was significantly
10 different than what's required nowadays. When we
11 went out and did additional surveys, additional
12 wetland surveys, we found things that really drove
13 us to change how we looked at the project all
14 together and make it -- design it a little bit
15 better and be more friendly. That's what changed
16 the layout.
17 Now, we can get into the
18 wetlands item, the wetlands setback. And the
19 wetlands setback, I would basically say if we
20 implemented the 50-foot wetlands setback, we'll
21 probably lose at least 75 percent of this project.
22 I can wrap up my discussion on it.
23 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: And I
24 really don't want to get into it.
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: Could I ask him
56
1 a question before he sits down, because he's the
2 engineer?
3 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: Sure.
4 MR. KAPELSOHN: You say a
5 50-foot setback, but the initial approval was that
6 the owner could reduce that by 50 percent. So that
7 would allow a 25-foot setback in places. And could
8 you address that? Will that require scrapping 75
9 percent of the project?
10 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Probably
11 close to 50 percent. Right now, I'm probably about
12 12 feet throughout the development. That was more
13 to be able to construct the unit, not to have a
14 setback from the wetlands themselves. So, if you
15 go to 25 percent, as you can see --
16 MR. KAPELSOHN: In 25 feet, do
17 you mean?
18 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: The 25 feet,
19 you put that through here, all these corners have
20 to be moved and twisted around. So, you're going
21 to lose a significant amount of density. These two
22 units are gone completely. This unit might be
23 gone. These units through here are gone. This
24 entire cul-de-sac --
25 MR. McHALE: Until you actually
57
1 get on the plan and take a look at whether you
2 could reconfigure things to accommodate that
3 25-foot setback --
4 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I looked at
5 it in concept already. I know it. I looked at a
6 30-foot setback specifically. And I know a 30-foot
7 setback makes a lot of this area completely useless
8 for development. Even 25 feet through here, you
9 simply would not be able to fit any one of these
10 units in the corner. It just won't work. I can
11 create a plan and overlay it on top of here to show
12 in color what a 25-foot setback would look like
13 around that entire development for you, so you
14 could see the impact on the development -- not only
15 on this development. This development is not as
16 tight. You get over into some of these other
17 phases, there is a lot more problems.
18 Right through here, these two
19 units, this unit, this unit, this unit, this unit
20 here, and this one should be all right. So, you
21 can see it's just across the board you'll have
22 significant impact on the layout of the project.
23 MR. KAPELSOHN: So if I could
24 ask then, Attorney Anders, is the owner requesting
25 a change from what was approved, which was a
58
1 50-foot setback that could be reduced up to 50
2 percent, meaning a 25-foot setback, or are you
3 requesting that there be no setback requirement, or
4 what is the current status of things?
5 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: We haven't
6 discussed it. I'm still waiting. And I'm not
7 trying to be rude. I'm still waiting for a reply.
8 I know you told me orally in the corridor.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: I did.
10 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: But you
11 said, you know, your research differs from mine,
12 but I can't address that statement. I need to
13 address what the research is.
14 MR. KAPELSOHN: Not so much
15 research as looking at what was approved, at the
16 findings and conclusions and order taken together
17 at the time this project was tentatively approved.
18 And that was that the applicant said he would agree
19 to a 50-foot setback with a 50-percent reduction of
20 it, if it were necessary. I'm paraphrasing, but
21 the idea being that the smallest setback would be
22 25 feet.
23 Now, if I understand the legal
24 status of things, we're presented with plans for
25 approval that don't honor that 25-foot setback, and
59
1 we are being told, well, we can't, or it would make
2 us have far fewer homes, or something without any
3 formal request for any change in what was agreed
4 to. And I'll put that in writing if you wish.
5 MR. McHALE: If I can interject
6 one more item. It's already in the letter here,
7 but it indicates that on the tentative approved
8 plan, there are some homes that are actually
9 depicted in there that are less than the 25 feet.
10 And so I just wanted to highlight that, in fairness
11 to everyone, that there is language and then there
12 is a plan. So between all that, there should be
13 some balance.
14 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: If you
15 could put that in writing. You know my legal
16 position, that the order is the order, and findings
17 of facts are findings of facts. I can have
18 findings of facts which are diametrically opposed
19 to the order that's entered.
20 MR. KAPELSOHN: Right. And ours
21 is that it's one document, and that the order is
22 based on the findings and conclusions that preceded
23 it, which included the fact that the applicant was
24 agreeing to certain things. So then there was
25 perhaps no need to put certain things in an order
60
1 because the applicant had already agreed to do
2 them. I'll put it in writing.
3 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: And also
4 we have a situation where the last -- after the
5 approvals, there have been final plans submitted
6 and approved where that setback is not met.
7 MR. McHALE: That's incorrect.
8 Three of the final phases, they actually depict the
9 30-foot wetlands setback. And I denoted that as
10 Phase 2B, Phase 2, Section 3, and Phase 1C.
11 It's on the drawings.
12 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: Those are
13 different -- those aren't wetland setbacks per se.
14 It's a different issue entirely. Those setbacks
15 are building setbacks because those -- on the
16 individual lots. And that came about again from
17 the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of
18 Engineers stated to us, during our approval of the
19 JD, the jurisdictional determination of the
20 project, that they were concerned about individual
21 homeowners doing earth work in or around the
22 wetlands.
23 So what they had requested is
24 two things: One, that we shall have no wetlands on
25 individual parcels, which was done. Secondly, they
61
1 requested us to have a 30-foot building setback
2 from the property line where wetlands adjoin the
3 property. And that's where that came about. That
4 was only shown as building setbacks from the lot
5 line, and not a building setback from wetlands line
6 per se.
7 MR. MARSHALL ANDERS: And we
8 don't have that situation here, because these are
9 footprints. And the lands up to the footprints,
10 it's owned by the trust. So, people can't go into
11 the wetlands and construct anything.
12 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: That
13 basically summarizes the differences. It's two
14 entirely different issues.
15 MR. McHALE: Some of the
16 building footprints are actually shown on the
17 drawings. I believe this also mentioned it. It
18 would make it very difficult from a practical
19 standpoint for a contractor to actually construct
20 the foundation to the building without encroaching
21 into it. And one of the concerns was, with that
22 proximity, are we saying that they have to go to
23 extraordinary measures to avoid those; or if a
24 violation occurs, then we are party to, you know,
25 approving something that practically could not be
62
1 constructed.
2 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: From an
3 engineering standpoint, they can construct it.
4 And what we could do to further protect the
5 wetlands is provide construction fences along the
6 edge of the wetlands when the building is closer
7 than 50 feet to wetlands. We can put a
8 construction fence when building a unit and show
9 them basically a keep-out line. That way, they
10 will be able to truly mitigate the ability for the
11 contractor to get in and mess up the wetlands over
12 there.
13 MR. McHALE: But the current
14 drawing has nothing, correct?
15 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: From that
16 regard, no, but we can do that.
17 MR. KAPELSOHN: Maybe I'm not
18 understanding. And I hate to prolong this because
19 I know people have to get elsewhere, and I do too.
20 But if some of these footprints are shown, as I
21 understand them to be, within, in some cases, 8
22 feet of wetlands, my understanding is to put a
23 building foundation someplace, you've got to dig a
24 bigger hole than the building. You've got to get a
25 piece of equipment in there to dig the hole.
63
1 You've got to get a piece of equipment in there to
2 backfill the hole.
3 How are you going to do that
4 without -- I mean, the fence isn't going to solve
5 it. You're going to be in wetlands doing the
6 construction, aren't you?
7 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I've done
8 it before. I have a foundation within a minimum of
9 a foot of wetlands with no impact, with Monroe
10 County Conservation District's blessing on it.
11 You'd have to take more time and more money, but if
12 you're responsible, you can do it.
13 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: The same
14 concept when you're working -- for example, if you
15 saw construction of the building off of Main Street
16 in Stroudsburg, they constructed about 35 feet deep
17 on the property line. And what they did was, they
18 put sheet pylons 35 feet deep to hold back the
19 soil. And they kept pushing the pylons down and
20 digging on one side of it, and kept pushing and
21 pushing and pushing.
22 And, you know, it sounds like
23 extraordinary measures, but it can be done. And
24 the cost aspect of it, the developer is going to
25 have to take it into account as they are going
64
1 through it. That's something they'll have to do as
2 part of the development.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: Thank you.
4 MR. McHALE: If that type of
5 approach is going to be taken, then there should be
6 details and information on there to demonstrate
7 that it can be done and how it's going to be done,
8 because these plans that are approved are for
9 construction purposes.
10 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Isn't that
11 a building permit issue and not a PRD issue?
12 MR. McHALE: You don't
13 re-present these for review during the building
14 permit process?
15 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: We apply
16 and have to give a plot plan to build a house.
17 MR. McHALE: It's probably more
18 appropriate to address wetlands issues, because
19 it's part of the PRD, on these plans.
20 MR. MICHAEL GABLE: I can
21 provide typical detail about -- typical sequence to
22 show an acceptable method of doing work along the
23 edge of the wetlands while not disturbing the
24 wetlands.
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: I guess we are
65
1 at the end of the substantive issues. I just have
2 one. I know there has been an issue about payment
3 to the township for engineering fees. And I have
4 looked at Mr. Carroll's letter of April 24, 2007.
5 I wonder if there is any resolution of that because
6 this whole process is going to come to a screeching
7 halt pretty soon if the developer continues
8 refusing to pay the bills that the township is
9 submitting to it for Mr. McHale's review time.
10 So, I wonder if anything has occurred with that.
11 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I wasn't
12 refusing to pay the bills. I sent a letter
13 questioning the basis for the bills and also
14 questioning the amounts and asked for a response.
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: To me, looking
16 at this, the extrapolation that it would be a
17 building rate converting to $150,000 a year is not
18 correct. That's assuming no overhead, no benefits,
19 no employer contributions of withholdings and so
20 forth. And that all of Mr. McHale's time is spent
21 full time reviewing developers' bids rather than
22 doing a variety of work for the township.
23 But I just can't imagine that a
24 $2,045 bill for the amount of review that he's been
25 doing -- I know I have spent hours with Mr. McHale
66
1 on this project. You're not paying for my time.
2 The taxpayers are. But to say that the taxpayers
3 need to pay for his time rather than the owner pay
4 for his time, just does not seem reasonable.
5 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: Mr.
6 Kapelsohn, I'm only going on what has been done in
7 the past. All we've ever done in the past is pay
8 the fee for the township, whatever it is. And this
9 is the first time I ever got a bill like that. So,
10 I questioned what is the basis for it. I mean, I
11 see it in the MPC SALDO section, but I don't see it
12 in the PRD section. And I'm not fussing about the
13 money so much as it was kind of a surprise to me.
14 And that's why I asked the question.
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: I'm not sure
16 what the township has done in the past. But I know
17 at this point there is so much development going
18 on, they are trying to recoup what is in effect
19 just a portion of the cost of the township's
20 engineering reviews. So maybe some further
21 discussion can be had between yourself and
22 Mr. McHale or whatever, but it seems to me that the
23 bills looked reasonable. And it may be different
24 from what's been done in the past, in which case it
25 probably came as a surprise to you.
67
1 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: This
2 hasn't even been a resolution yet, has it? That's
3 up for next week.
4 MR. KAPELSOHN: That's going
5 forward. And that's to include legal fees and
6 other professional fees, as well as engineering
7 fees. But under the MPC, the municipalities have
8 always been able to charge -- or since the MPC
9 existed, have been able to charge the engineering
10 fees. And whether this township has been on top of
11 it or not, I don't know.
12 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I see that
13 in the SALDO section, Section 5, but I don't see it
14 in Section 7 at all.
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: So, you're
16 saying you don't think it applies?
17 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: I'm saying
18 -- I'm questioning whether it applies to PRD. Why
19 would it have been so different? Why is the PRD
20 section so different than the SALDO section?
21 MR. McHALE: I think one thing
22 that could simplify things is if the plans that
23 were submitted, if they complied 100 percent with
24 the provisions that are a part of what was agreed
25 in the tentative approval, the longer reviews would
68
1 not be there because everything would be in
2 conformance.
3 MR. EDWARD CARROLL: And I agree
4 with that, but what happens is you get into the
5 situation where the International Fire Code, for
6 instance, was passed after our approval. And it
7 says that once the tentative approval is given, you
8 can't change the rules, but everybody says we are
9 changing the rules. So, we have a different
10 interpretation of what we are supposed to do than
11 maybe what the township does.
12 MR. KAPELSOHN: We have a
13 different legal view of that.
14 M