Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, June 7, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'll call the
2 regularly scheduled business meeting of the
3 Tobyhanna Township Planning Commission for
4 Thursday, June 7, to order. The first thing we
5 have to address is appointment of a position of
6 secretary, since Glen Rieker has resigned. Bob
7 would be next in line to do it, in terms of
8 seniority. It's just a matter signing papers.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
10 MR. MILLER: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
12 second. Any further discussion? Any discussion
13 from the floor?
14 All those in favor, please say
15 aye.
16 MR. MILLER: Aye.
17 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 I'll also announce that the
21 Tobyhanna Township Board of Supervisors is
22 currently accepting resumes or letters of interest
23 to serve on the township planning commission for
24 the open position of Glen Rieker.
25 Is there any public comment in
3
1 general? Then we'll move on to our first item of
2 business which is Storage King Phase 3, preliminary
3 final and land development plan.
4 MR. MARV WALTON: Mike DeSandre
5 and Marv Walton, Niclaus Engineering.
6 We've received Bob McHale's
7 letter of May 31st. We don't disagree with anything
8 that's in the letter. His recommendation is that
9 it be approved subject to the township zoning
10 hearing board decision, the waivers, and our
11 satisfactory response to the above.
12 Just so you know, the zoning
13 hearing board did approve the variance with no
14 conditions. I have not received the written
15 decision yet, so I wasn't able to put the actual
16 verbatim decision on the plan, but we have no
17 problem doing that.
18 The owner did receive a copy of
19 it today, but, just so you're aware that the
20 decision was, "The applicant's request for a
21 variance, as set forth on the as-built site plan,
22 is granted." There were no conditions. So we'll
23 make sure that that language gets on the plan.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: I did notice one
25 thing. Did they resolve the lighting issue?
4
1 MR. MARV WALTON: Yes.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's been
3 resolved? And you're requesting two waivers on
4 this plan?
5 MR. MARV WALTON: That is
6 correct.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: For the
8 commission's review, it looks like waivers for
9 SALDO, Section 135.15.A.15 and SALDO Section
10 135.17, Subsections L and M.
11 You're also agreeable with the
12 deposit of the stormwater maintenance fund as
13 outlined in this letter?
14 MR. MARV WALTON: Yes. Maureen
15 from the township already emailed me a stormwater
16 agreement that the applicant needs to execute with
17 the board.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Commission have
19 any comments or questions?
20 I'll entertain a motion to
21 approve the Storage King amended land development
22 plan with a waiver to SALDO Section 135.15.A.15 and
23 SALDO Section 135.17 and submission of the
24 stormwater management agreement and funding of the
25 stormwater management agreement.
5
1 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
2 motion.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second to the
5 motion.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
7 second. Any further discussion? Any discussion
8 from the public? I'll call it.
9 All those in favor please say
10 aye.
11 MR. MILLER: Aye.
12 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
15 MR. MARV WALTON: Thank you very
16 much.
17 MR. De SANDRA: Thank you.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Michael's Carpet
19 final site plan. Anyone here representing
20 Michael's Carpet?
21 Bob, do you have any comment on
22 this?
23 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like
25 the applicant needs to request and receive certain
6
1 variances from the zoning hearing board.
2 MR. McHALE: That's correct.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Have they
4 scheduled a zoning hearing board hearing at this
5 time?
6 MR. McHALE: I don't know.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: They have
8 waivers. Have they requested waivers from us?
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like
10 they are requesting a waiver from SALDO Section
11 135.38.D, which states, all on-lot wells must be
12 100 feet from any existing or proposed septic
13 system.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that because
15 of the septic -- yes, the septic system was put
16 within 100 feet of the well?
17 MR. McHALE: Yes. It
18 complies -- the position of the well and septic
19 system currently complies with DEP regulations, but
20 this is out of the SALDO. Also the commission may
21 want to consider assigning an outside date for
22 completion of these improvements because it's been
23 going on for a while -- or recommendation of a
24 date.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is a
7
1 recommendation to table.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Any
3 recommendation would be conditional upon the
4 applicant requesting and receiving the variances
5 from the zoning hearing board as well as -- I
6 believe there is an access easement that needs to
7 be provided by the applicant to be reviewed by the
8 township.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
10 motion to recommend approval of the Michael's
11 Carpet revised land development plan, subject to a
12 request that the variances needed from the zoning
13 hearing board be approved; that an access easement
14 acceptable to the township solicitor be accepted;
15 and waiver to SALDO Section 135.38.D, pursuant to
16 the letter of Mr. McHale dated May 31st, 2007.
17 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, you wanted
20 an outside date on when this should be completed?
21 MR. McHALE: That's something
22 that could be recommended.
23 MR. MILLER: What would be a
24 fair --
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: 60 days?
8
1 MR. McHALE: It might take them
2 that long to get through the zoning hearing board.
3 Maybe another 60 beyond that.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: How about within
5 60 days of approval of decision of the zoning
6 board?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You could make a
8 recommendation that they request the variance
9 within 30 days or 15 days, and then after that --
10 MR. McHALE: After they get the
11 variances, they need to go to the board of
12 supervisors for final land development approval.
13 So it might be the 60 days after the board of
14 supervisors.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Sixty days after
16 the board of supervisors.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Or the zoning
18 hearing board decision.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Once they
20 approve, then 60 days to complete everything.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: So the condition
22 would be, one, conditional upon them applying for
23 the variances within a certain amount of time, I
24 think that's important; as well as completion of it
25 upon approval by not only the zoning hearing board
9
1 but also the supervisors.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: The motion
3 should be amended to allow the applicant 60 days to
4 apply to the zoning hearing board for the
5 variance -- I'm sorry, 30 days for the zoning
6 hearing board -- for application to the zoning
7 hearing board, and once the board of supervisors
8 approves the plan, they have 60 days to complete
9 the project.
10 Do you amend your motion to
11 that?
12 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion is
14 amended.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
17 second. Any discussion from the public? Anything
18 from the board?
19 All those in favor, please say
20 aye.
21 MR. MILLER: Aye.
22 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
23 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
25 Time waiver needs to be signed
10
1 by Michael's Carpet.
2 You'll take care of that through
3 Maureen?
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. It looks
5 like the time for Michael's Carpet for decision by
6 the township runs on August 1st of 2007. So what
7 we will do is -- well, the township has until
8 August. Yes, my office will take care of that, but
9 you've made the recommendation. The board of
10 supervisors will be meeting before that date.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. That
12 will be followed up by Patrick Armstrong.
13 Next on our agenda is Vrabec
14 development plan.
15 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Good
16 evening. I'm Justin Hoffman from Kiley Associates
17 and I'm here representing Keith and Joyce Vrabec
18 for their land development plan.
19 What they are proposing is a
20 1700 square foot doctor's office located on Route
21 115, just north of Blakeslee corners. What you
22 have before you is a land development plan showing
23 the proposed site improvements, building,
24 associated parking facilities, stormwater
25 management area, site lighting and vegetative
11
1 buffers to the rear of the property. There is a
2 residence currently in Greenwood Acres, to the
3 rear. We are proposing to supplement that buffer
4 with some additional landscaping, some Norway
5 Spruce trees, arborvitae behind the rear parking
6 lot.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Did you look at
8 possibly mounding that?
9 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: If we turn
10 to the grading plan we can look at what the
11 proposal -- the landscaping is proposed to be right
12 at the edge of the parking lot. There are about
13 four to five foot high trees. So the grade sort of
14 runs back. It does not slope up or down from that.
15 It runs level back to this property. And all of
16 the trees will be planted with a mulch bed around
17 them to promote growth. So they are not mounded up
18 any higher than the adjoining parking area.
19 MR. McHALE: These are photos
20 that you provided with the application.
21 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: I also
22 submitted this to show you sort of what the
23 existing site looks like in terms of the vegetation
24 out there. As you can see, they are all pretty
25 much mature hardwood trees and there is a 25-foot
12
1 buffer to the rear of the property, which will be
2 maintained, of the existing vegetation. We are
3 proposing to supplement that with the additional
4 landscaping along the edge of the parking lot.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: This grade
6 actually slopes up.
7 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: This
8 building -- the building was built on a slight pad
9 here coming out off of Redwood Lane. That's
10 correct, from here to the bottom, the grading they
11 did there on their site, that runs back level. As
12 I say, we are going to try to -- we are going to
13 maintain 25 foot of natural vegetation and then
14 supplement that with the landscaping plan.
15 We've had correspondence from
16 PennDOT. We had a few minor revisions that we've
17 taken care of. We've submitted them. We've also
18 had correspondents from the Monroe County
19 Conservation District. We addressed their comments
20 and resubmitted to them as well. We do not have --
21 not heard back from them with an approval letter
22 yet, but we will get those letters to you as soon
23 as they come.
24 As far as the township
25 engineer's review of this project, we've addressed
13
1 all the technical issues on the site and resolved
2 any commentary that he had, Bob had, with respect
3 to the project. The only outstanding comments at
4 this point really are signatures prior to
5 supervisors' approval and submitting the electronic
6 files of the project on a CD, in computer readable
7 media.
8 We are also requesting two
9 waivers for this project. One is SALDO Section
10 135.17.L, to show improvements within 500 feet of
11 the tract. The other is from Chapter 124.86.B.17,
12 and it's a waiver from showing the vertical
13 profiles of any stormwater swales. And we've
14 graded it out on the grading plan, so we felt it
15 wasn't necessary to provide that for this project.
16 MR. McHALE: I don't know if you
17 received a copy of that from Guardian? You all had
18 placed an additional firewall, as I recall, to work
19 within the water supply requirement that was being
20 required, based on the IFC. That's the letter.
21 You might want to read that into the record, if you
22 wish.
23 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Sure. This
24 is the letter from Guardian Inspections Services to
25 Tobyhanna Township. The reference is to Bill's
14
1 previous letter dated April 2nd, '07. "I'm in
2 receipt of an updated plan dated the 15th of May
3 2007 identifying a firewall dividing the proposed
4 structure in half. This basically reduces the
5 amount of fire protection, water required, reducing
6 the gallons required to a level which does not
7 exceed the mobile water supply carried by the
8 initial response agency. This eliminates the
9 requirements for the 3,739 gallons of fire
10 protection water to be provided on the site.
11 William Weber."
12 I'd be happy to answer any
13 questions that the board has.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does the
15 commission have any comments, questions?
16 Were you proposing any
17 landscaping out towards the front.
18 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Yes. There
19 was supplementary landscaping around the building
20 and around the parking area.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Along the front
22 of 115.
23 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Along the
24 front of 115, no we are not. We are proposing some
25 at the front of the parking lot there. Some
15
1 plantings around the building and along the edge of
2 the parking lot there. We don't want to get
3 anything too close to obstruct any sight distance
4 that's required or anything in the right-of-way of
5 PennDOT, which is 100 foot right of way along Route
6 115.
7 MR. McHALE: Why don't you open
8 that to Sheet 4. That shows the full extent of the
9 proposed landscaping.
10 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: This will
11 identify all the individual plantings and following
12 up with the landscaping theme.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
14 questions from the board?
15 Okay, Patrick's recommending two
16 motions in regard to this. The first would be
17 recommend approval of Vrabec preliminary final land
18 development plan with waivers -- recommend waivers
19 to SALDO Section 135.17.L and 124.86.B.17.
20 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
21 motion.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
23 Do I have a second to that motion?
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
16
1 second. Any further discussion?
2 All those in favor, please say
3 aye.
4 MR. MILLER: Aye.
5 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
8 Secondly, we'll recommend
9 approval of the land development plan conditioned
10 upon meeting the requirements of Mr. McHale's
11 letter dated June 1st, 2007. Do I have a motion to
12 that?
13 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
14 motion.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
16 Do I have a second to the motion?
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Ted seconded it.
19 All those in favor please say aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
24 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Thank you
25 gentlemen.
17
1 We also have on the agenda a
2 time extension. That was at the very end of new
3 business, for a time waiver. Do we need to stay
4 around for that?
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: You've signed
6 the agreement. You're agreeable to it?
7 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Yes.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: This commission
9 will recognize it tonight that you waive the time.
10 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Okay.
11 Thank you very much.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item, New
13 Ventures Park, Lot 13, preliminary and final land
14 development plan. At this point I'll turn the
15 meeting over to Joe Miller since I have a financial
16 interest in this project.
17 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: My
18 name is Chris McDermott, Reilly Associates. We are
19 the firm that prepared the land development plan
20 before you. On that plan, the SIDE Corporation is
21 proposing to develop Lot 13 of the New Ventures
22 Park industrial subdivision.
23 I can open my plan, if you want
24 plans open. I'll just present this very quickly.
25 This plan was originally submitted in March for
18
1 your April meeting. Your engineer has provided a
2 review. The plan has been tabled the last two
3 meetings while we responded to those comments. We
4 believe we've addressed most of those
5 satisfactorily. Bob did issue a letter dated June
6 7th, today, which has some minor items. But just
7 to present this plan, since I believe you've
8 initially seen it, I'll spend a minute or two on
9 the plan.
10 This is on Lot 13 in New
11 Ventures Park, which is an eight and a half acre
12 parcel. It's located at the end of Park Avenue.
13 That's just beyond where the police have their
14 facility, their office. So if you drive to the end
15 of the cul-de-sac, the eight and a half acre lot is
16 located in this area. We are proposing a 7,200
17 square foot building which will be utilized for
18 SIDE Corporation's construction business. The
19 building will be broken into an administration
20 portion and a portion of the building will be
21 utilized for vehicles and equipment storage.
22 The very rear portion of the
23 building was labeled Phase 2, and that is just for
24 an expansion. All the facilities and improvements
25 for that phase will be completed with the Phase 1
19
1 plan and just the completion of the building itself
2 would be necessary in the future.
3 We are proposing a paved area --
4 flip over one sheet. Between the building and the
5 southern property line there is a paved area. That
6 will include the 14 proposed parking spots as well
7 as an access area to the building and storage bins
8 for materials. This rear portion of the site will
9 be a gravel storage area.
10 Stormwater from the site will be
11 collected and routed through a water quality
12 detention basin. Subsequently, water from that
13 will be routed toward the Tobyhanna Creek via
14 internal stormwater facilities in New Ventures lot
15 subdivision. Those facilities were previously
16 approved. The facility will be served by central
17 sewage and proposed well.
18 As I mentioned before, Bob has
19 had a chance to review the plans. We've responded.
20 And he issued a letter dated today which had some
21 minor items on there. That would be the approval
22 of the E and S and NPDES application. We have
23 submitted these to the conservation district. We
24 are working through the approval process.
25 In regard to the stormwater
20
1 management plan, we need to provide -- I'm sorry,
2 in regard to the plan, we need to provide
3 electronic plans to the township. We'll be doing
4 that.
5 The stormwater maintenance
6 agreement has been forwarded to SIDE Corporation.
7 We'll be completing that for the supervisors. And
8 at the same time a deposit of $1,000 for the
9 stormwater management fund will be provided.
10 Fire lanes. Guardian Inspection
11 Services has provided their review of the facility
12 and indicate that it is in compliance. The fire
13 chief has not yet had a chance to issue or provide
14 any comments.
15 We are here tonight to ask for
16 your recommendation for approval subject to any
17 outstanding items in Bob's letter dated today.
18 MR. MILLER: Questions from the
19 board? Do I hear a motion to approve?
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
21 MR. BAXTER: Second.
22 MR. MILLER: Are you going to
23 state the --
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Subject to the
25 letter of Bob McHale, our township engineer, of
21
1 June 7th.
2 MR. MILLER: So we have a
3 motion. Do I hear a second?
4 MR. BAXTER: Second.
5 MR. MILLER: All in favor?
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
7 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
8 MR. MILLER: Aye.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: And I'll
10 abstain.
11 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
12 Thank you for your time.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you,
14 gentlemen. Thank you Joe.
15 We'll move on to open projects.
16 Dunkin Donuts land development plans. Anyone here
17 representing Dunkin Donuts? Have you heard
18 anything on the plan?
19 MR. McHALE: No.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think they
21 were here last month to give us an update on how it
22 was going.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we are
24 tabling it. I'll entertain a motion to table
25 Dunkin Donuts land development plan.
22
1 MR. MILLER: So moved.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
4 second. Any further discussion? All those in
5 favor, please say aye.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
7 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
8 MR. MILLER: Aye.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
10 Pinecrest Lake. Anyone here
11 representing Pinecrest Lake?
12 Bob, do you have anything on
13 this?
14 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Patrick?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: No. I think we
17 are still waiting for them to resubmit plans. No
18 action is required.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: No action
20 required.
21 Wee-Wons Day Care expansion.
22 Bob, have you heard anything?
23 MR. McHALE: Have not received
24 any revised plans.
25 MR. MILLER: They have gone
23
1 through the zoning hearing board.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: I do believe
3 they received special exception with some
4 conditions, but they have not submitted or
5 resubmitted any revised plans to the township.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have a waiver
7 filed.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I believe
9 it's a waiver for 60 days from the date they
10 resubmit revised plans.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We should
12 be okay. So we need to table this.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yep.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
15 motion to table the Wee Wons Day Care expansion
16 preliminary/final land development plan.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
19 MR. MILLER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
21 discussion?
22 All those in favor please say
23 aye.
24 MR. MILLER: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Locust Ridge Quarry contractors'
4 shop, preliminary land development plan. Anything
5 on this?
6 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
7 MR. MILLER: How about the time
8 waiver.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: We just received
10 an extension from Locust Ridge.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: They extended
12 it.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: They extended
14 it. The extension runs to August 10th, of 2007.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
16 motion to table Locust Ridge Quarry contractors'
17 shop, preliminary land development plan.
18 MR. MILLER: So moved.
19 MR. BAXTER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
21 discussion? All those in favor please say aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
25
1 Glorious Church land development
2 plan. Anything?
3 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Time is okay.
5 They gave us an indefinite time.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think there
7 was an indefinite time extension before we were
8 even appointed. I think it was 2006.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think you're
10 right.
11 MR. MILLER: We need to table.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need to
13 continue tabling.
14 MR. McHALE: Yes.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
16 motion to table the Glorious Church land
17 development plan.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
19 MR. BAXTER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
21 discussion? All those in favor please say aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
26
1 Glorious Church conditional use
2 application. The same thing.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I need a motion
5 to table.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
7 MR. BAXTER: Second.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
9 second. All those in favor please say aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
14 Pyramid Network Services. We
15 did get a request for a time waiver. They did
16 receive Mr. McHale's comments. So I'll entertain a
17 motion to table.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Let me make
19 sure. There is two -- this is their 2007 plan. So
20 this is not for this one. But we do have a time
21 extension from them that I received and that
22 extension runs through September 4th of 2007.
23 MR. McHALE: Their solicitor did
24 provide some additional information. I believe it
25 was on the 31st. And I sent an email back to him
27
1 in response to the information provided. We still
2 need more information.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: But we have a
4 time waiver in place. I'll entertain a motion to
5 table Pyramid Network Services final land
6 development plan.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
9 second. All those in favor please say aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
14 Glacial Till Company. We have
15 something.
16 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Good
17 evening. This matter was tabled at the last
18 meeting at our request. What we would like to do
19 this evening, if the board has no objections, is
20 see if we can't go through Bob McHale's list and
21 agree on some of these things. I believe some of
22 the plan notations have already been done and those
23 were submitted to the zoning hearing board in
24 connection with the special exception application,
25 and I'm wondering if maybe we just can't spend a
28
1 couple minutes going through the letter and see if
2 we can agree on what has to be done with the plan.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: You were before
4 the zoning hearing board on the special exception?
5 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Yes, we
6 were.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Did you receive
8 a decision from them?
9 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Not in
10 writing, but they did approve the special exception
11 without conditions.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: When you say Bob
13 McHale's letter, you're referring to the April 30th
14 of '07?
15 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Yes.
16 That's correct.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: You can begin.
18 MS. DONNA ALKER: I'm Donna
19 Alker with Achterman Associates. Many of these
20 things we are going to take care of. We understand
21 what Bob is looking for. Some of them we've
22 already made revisions on the plans for the special
23 exception application, but there are just a couple
24 items that I wanted to get some clarification on.
25 The first thing is on the third
29
1 page of the report, Item B. Bob, my question is,
2 that's just a note to the commission. Is there
3 anything we need to do in regards to this? The
4 overall property map indicates a 100 foot wide
5 surface mining buffer around the perimeter of the
6 property.
7 MR. McHALE: Just an
8 acknowledgment.
9 MS. DONNA ALKER: Okay. No. 3
10 on that same page, that has to do with special
11 exception. So I'm presuming we are past that. We
12 don't have to do anything more with that. Okay.
13 On the next page, Item G, at the
14 bottom, again you make -- is that just a note for
15 the planning commission or is there anything we
16 need to do in reference to the -- that has to do
17 with the sewage.
18 MR. McHALE: That's also just
19 identifying what you're proposing.
20 MS. DONNA ALKER: Okay.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Did you identify
22 yourself?
23 MS. DONNA ALKER: Donna Alker,
24 Achterman Associates.
25 Then I think the final one, this
30
1 is on Page 6, at the bottom, No. 4, it has to do
2 with landscaping, detailed landscaping plan. We
3 are not proposing any landscaping. We do have a
4 100 foot buffer and there is existing woods in that
5 perimeter buffer and those would be maintained.
6 But other than that there is no landscaping
7 proposed.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Isn't there an
9 entrance road off of the township road?
10 MS. DONNA ALKER: There is a
11 drive entrance.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Driveway.
13 MS. DONNA ALKER: Right. I was
14 looking through the ordinance to see what the
15 requirements were, but maybe I missed it. I didn't
16 see any --
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's a very
18 general comment about landscaping. It can be
19 required by the planning commission.
20 Are you doing a sign?
21 MS. DONNA ALKER: A sign? Are
22 we doing a sign that says Glacial --
23 A VOICE: The mining license,
24 that's it, and the name of the quarry right on the
25 trailer.
31
1 MR. McHALE: If I remember
2 correctly you all were showing fencing with slats
3 across the whole front of your proposed crusher
4 area and bituminous batch plant.
5 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes, along the
6 road.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Can landscaping
8 be put in front of that fence, just to soften the
9 appearance of the fence?
10 MS. DONNA ALKER: The symbol
11 with the straight lines and the large circles, that
12 is the proposed location of the fence. And it's
13 positioned where it is to give them as much
14 operating area as possible, right up against the
15 road right of way.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Can you point
17 out to me where the road right of way is?
18 MS. DONNA ALKER: It's a dark
19 dashed, double dashed line.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: I see.
21 Is there a swale along that
22 road?
23 MS. DONNA ALKER: No.
24 MR. McHALE: With the activities
25 and the amount of dust these trucks kick up, I
32
1 think we had some discussion about that at one of
2 our prior meetings. That's where I think the
3 fencing came into play with the slats in between
4 the chain-linked area to kind of screen that area
5 down behind in the operation.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments?
7 MR. BAXTER: I would think if
8 the fence has slats, it accomplishes that as much
9 as practical.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: It is an
11 industrial area. Anything else?
12 MS. DONNA ALKER: I don't think
13 so. Let me just make sure.
14 No. Everything else we are
15 going to address and get revised plans in time for
16 the next meeting.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, are you
18 saying they need to supplement any of the buffer
19 areas?
20 MR. McHALE: No. I think the
21 100 foot buffer is to remain in natural state. I
22 believe that's how the plan has indicated it.
23 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes.
24 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: I believe
25 there were also one or two waivers requested,
33
1 Donna?
2 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes, there
3 were. One had to do with showing buildings and
4 improvements within 500 feet of the property, if I
5 recall.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: You submitted
7 those requests in writing?
8 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes, we did.
9 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Those are
10 part of the application.
11 MS. DONNA ALKER: There was also
12 a request for not to provide a profile, but we are
13 going to go ahead and provide that.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: What were the
15 two sections for waivers? Do you know those?
16 MS. DONNA ALKER: Bob has them
17 referenced in his letter here. We have Section
18 135.12.D.2 and --
19 MR. McHALE: 135.17.L and M.
20 MS. DONNA ALKER: Right. Those
21 are all related, right, Bob? Those are the three
22 that are kind of related with the improvements
23 within 500 feet, I believe.
24 MR. McHALE: Yes, that is
25 correct.
34
1 MS. DONNA ALKER: I think that
2 was it for the waivers then. And the profile we'll
3 provide.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: So the applicant
5 will submit the requested items per this letter,
6 Mr. McHale's letter that you're referring to?
7 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: I do have one
9 question about this special exception. So they did
10 it without conditions. There wasn't a condition
11 with respect to using two of the -- I thought I
12 remember last time there was two crusher plants,
13 and there was no conditions?
14 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: No
15 conditions, no.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: If you would
17 entertain a time extension this evening for the
18 land development.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: You have some
20 more issues to address here before we can recommend
21 approval.
22 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Yes. We
23 would plan on being back at your July meeting and
24 hopefully at that point we'll have everything
25 addressed and give that to Bob ahead of time. In
35
1 fact, I think Bill was going to try to get that to
2 Bob next week, I guess. You should have that next
3 week. We'll be looking for final next month.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Would you sign
5 the time extension for us?
6 I'll entertain a motion to table
7 the Glacial Till Company preliminary final land
8 development plan.
9 MR. MILLER: So moved.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
11 Second the motion?
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: All in favor
14 please say aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 Time extension is being signed
20 by Mr. Dirvonas on behalf of the applicant.
21 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Actually,
22 I'll have the applicant sign it.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
24 Mr. Dirvonas is not signing that.
25 We'll move on while you're doing
36
1 that.
2 Lands of Elaine Brockett.
3 Anyone here representing them? Bob have you heard
4 anything on this?
5 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: I have not heard
7 anything, but we are okay on time.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Oh, all right.
9 Time waiver is not needed until September 4th,
10 2007. I'll entertain a motion to table the Lands
11 of Elaine Brockett, final land development.
12 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
13 MR. MILLER: Second.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
15 second. All those in favor please say aye.
16 MR. MILLER: Aye.
17 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 Our favorite project, Shikhman
21 Medical Office Building.
22 MS. SARAH BUE MORRIS: I talked
23 to Bob already. I was going to request a waiver
24 tonight from having the reserve septic system. It
25 seems that the client has someone interested in
37
1 renting a certain amount of space and the architect
2 drew up plans with the second and third floor being
3 two feet bumped out on the building. But in order
4 to actually do that I need room for two more
5 parking spaces. Bob had said earlier today that
6 the Hoffman -- what I was going to ask for is a
7 waiver for the reserve system based on us hooking
8 up to the Hoffman system when it's finally approved
9 and constructed. But Bob said that Hoffman pulled
10 his appeal. I'll ask anyway for the waiver because
11 I'm here. I mean, we do know that eventually this
12 whole area is going to be sewered.
13 If anybody can come up with any
14 other idea on what I can possibly do to get two
15 more parking spaces, I'd appreciate it.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Maybe acquire
17 the land next to you.
18 This plan has been before us for
19 quite sometime, as you know. You have maximized
20 the site as best you can. I think from an
21 engineering perspective and a land development
22 perspective. I just don't know where you -- Bob
23 did mention to me this issue earlier. I have no
24 idea where you can go. We can't recommend waivers
25 to that because the soils out there are marginal,
38
1 as you know. When you did your testing, you know
2 you had quite a bit of challenge finding the area.
3 Yes, hopefully maybe at some point Tobyhanna
4 Township will be sewered, but when that will occur,
5 we don't know.
6 MS. SARAH BUE MORRIS: What
7 about getting a temporary waiver from requiring the
8 parking spaces based on providing them once we can
9 connect with the Pinecrest system?
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's a zoning
11 issue. That would have to go before the zoning
12 hearing board.
13 MS. SARAH BUE MORRIS: I thought
14 you'd say that.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're just
16 testing me tonight, aren't you?
17 MS. SARAH BUE MORRIS: Okay.
18 That's it.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Sorry, Sarah.
20 MS. SARAH BUE MORRIS: That's
21 okay. That's what I expected, but thanks.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have a time
23 waiver on this project, I think.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: We are okay with
25 time restriction.
39
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
2 motion to table the Shikhman Medical Office
3 building.
4 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
7 second. All those in favor please say aye.
8 MR. MILLER: Aye.
9 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
12 Austin James.
13 MS. SARAH BUE MORRIS: Just
14 table it. We are having trouble with the HOP
15 permit.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Are we okay with
17 time?
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, we are.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thanks, Sarah.
20 I'll entertain a motion to table
21 Austin James Associates preliminary final site
22 plan.
23 MR. MILLER: So moved.
24 MR. BAXTER: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
40
1 second. All those in favor please say aye.
2 MR. MILLER: Aye.
3 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
6 Creek View Estates.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: There are two
8 Creek View Estates on your agenda tonight. The
9 first one is in regards to the previous minor
10 subdivision that was applied for back in August
11 2006. And since then, I think May 16th of 2007,
12 there has been a new application for a subdivision
13 plan approval and I believe I sent a letter out to
14 the original applicant's attorney and engineer this
15 past week. Did you receive those?
16 MR. JOEL WIENER: Yes, we have.
17 I'm Joel Wiener, W-i-e-n-e-r.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: And I assume
19 because you filed a new application everyone is
20 okay -- the original applicants are okay with their
21 plan?
22 MR. JOEL WIENER: Well, actually
23 the original applicants were Ciccone, (phonetic)
24 Sowerski (phonetic) and MACS. The desire is for
25 that plan to be acted upon. I understand the plans
41
1 are basically the same thing, but the desire is to
2 have the plans acted upon because it is a very --
3 we'll go into argument about the plan in a minute,
4 but in terms of where we are, I don't know if you
5 had more questions.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: No. The
7 original plan wasn't under MAC Services.
8 MR. JOEL WIENER: If you look at
9 the signature, it is with MAC -- the two of them
10 are listed -- in fact, one of the comments is about
11 the owner must sign. And the signature block shows
12 MAC, MAC Services as the signatory for the plan
13 approval. The request was made on behalf of all.
14 MR. McHALE: What was on the
15 application form?
16 MR. JOEL WIENER: I don't have
17 the application form. I know that the application
18 came in that the original status of the land was
19 that the owners, after that minor subdivision,
20 would still be MACS and that even after Lot 1, it
21 was to be MACS and Ciccone Sowerski in a joint
22 venture.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Regardless, you
24 did file a new application with a new plan on May
25 16th, 2007. Am I right?
42
1 MR. JOEL WIENER: MACS has filed
2 a new plan basically because of concerns that were
3 raised by this board.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: In doing that,
5 by law, the previous plan is no longer valid. So
6 that's -- I sent you a letter --
7 MR. JOEL WIENER: I guess the
8 question is, at this point, a plan has been
9 submitted. My understanding is that plan has
10 been -- there is a letter back on that plan
11 recommending that it not be accepted. So basically
12 then there is no other plan currently before this
13 planning commission. The problem I have is the
14 letter said that the original plan was going to
15 be -- there was going to be a resolution of the
16 other plan this evening, I believe, was your letter
17 to me.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, if it
19 wasn't going to be withdrawn, it was going to be
20 acted upon.
21 MR. JOEL WIENER: We'll act on
22 that and move to the second plan. That's fine.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's the point
24 of this discussion. We need to clear everything
25 up. It's a very messy history.
43
1 MR. JOEL WIENER: It's been a
2 whole messy history --
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: You had a PRD.
4 The original applicant withdrew the PRD.
5 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Excuse me.
6 It's not a messy -- we are all very intelligent
7 here. We can all read through exactly what
8 happened. If you're having difficulty with it,
9 let's take the time to let you catch up to it.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think Mr.
11 Wiener and I have just come to -- what needs to be
12 done is the previous plan needs to be -- I mean
13 it's no longer valid because you filed a new plan
14 for the same property. The MPC is clear. You can
15 only have one subdivision or land development plan
16 for one given property at a time.
17 MR. JOEL WIENER: The concern we
18 have is that if that plan has not been accepted as
19 of this point, then I only have the old plan
20 currently sitting there. Unfortunately, in terms
21 of your procedures, I understand that you must
22 accept -- that you take the position that the plan
23 must be accepted to move forward. The new plan, I
24 have not seen the review letter, but I was told the
25 review letter came out. I spoke with Charlie about
44
1 it, that the review letter came out recommending
2 the plan not be accepted for submittal based upon
3 what appears to be a lot of hypotheticals.
4 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Let me put
5 it in layman's terms, language. Okay?
6 The reason the second plan was
7 submitted was because you made us feel like the
8 first plan was not legitimate and we were not
9 co-applicants. I find it very difficult for the
10 owner of the property who's looking to subdivide
11 that property, who will ultimately become the owner
12 after it's been subdivided, not to be the
13 co-applicant. But having said that, our concern
14 was that you would find a way to act on it and say
15 we are not the co-applicants, that we are not the
16 applicant, even though we own the property, and
17 after it's subdivided we are going to continue to
18 own a part of that property. But having said that,
19 we said, okay, because when we come to the meeting
20 tonight they say you're not the applicant, so
21 therefore you can't withdraw, you can't move ahead,
22 you can't do anything, so we are going to act on
23 this as far as we are concerned, that's you, we are
24 going to dismiss that and say it doesn't exist.
25 Well, then thank God at least we have another one
45
1 so we can continue, after a year and a half,
2 spending $180,000 in all kinds of fees and things,
3 that we can get to the next step.
4 The last time I was here you
5 asked me for a 90 day extension. I didn't think it
6 was deserving of a 90 day extension for a minor
7 subdivision, but I said okay, let him get familiar
8 with it. Give you the 90 day extension. Then we
9 get a letter 30 days later and say we are not the
10 applicants. So when you talk about why there is a
11 second application, it's because we don't really
12 know where we stand on the first one.
13 As far as the second one is
14 concerned, it has not been accepted. So if your
15 argument is going to be there is two plans, there
16 really is only one, the one that you have to act
17 upon now.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: You filed a
19 second application for the same property in May.
20 That is the pending plan right now. The previous
21 plan needs to be taken -- either withdrawn, and it
22 doesn't sound like you're going to do that, or a
23 recommendation for denial, based upon there was a
24 review letter back in September --
25 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: I can
46
1 answer that question for you right now. I can tell
2 you right now whether we are going to withdraw the
3 first one or whether we are going to withdraw the
4 second one. Are we going to agree that because we
5 were the owner of the property when that first one
6 was submitted and because of the fact it's a minor
7 subdivision and because of the fact that we were
8 going to retain ownership to that property after it
9 was subdivided, that we, as the owners, are
10 co-applicants to that first application? Because
11 if the answer is yes, I'd be very happy to withdraw
12 the second one because that was put there for
13 protection.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: The second one
15 you are the applicant, it's my understanding, Mr.
16 Berardi.
17 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: We are
18 also the applicant on the first one.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's not my
20 understanding.
21 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: It may not
22 be you understanding.
23 MR. JOEL WIENER: Mr. Berardi,
24 one second.
25 Mr. Armstrong, perhaps the
47
1 desire is to have the minor subdivision plan move
2 forward. Let me express what our concern is and
3 perhaps the board may wish to determine how it
4 would proceed and I would offer two different
5 alternatives, both of which would get to the same
6 place.
7 Number one, this is, in terms of
8 what we have actually in front of us, this property
9 is 136 acres. It fronts on Route 115. It
10 presently is divided into two zoning classes. By
11 reason of whatever the zoning code was set up, it
12 drew a line through the property, with 25 acres
13 lying in -- being put into the business section and
14 110 acres in the residential section. Now, the
15 desire of the subdivision is solely to create two
16 lots. Those lot lines, not being created by any
17 natural feature or other reason that a developer
18 would create it, but matching the township's zoning
19 line. All we want to do at this point, and the
20 sole request of this is not to develop, not to do
21 anything else, and the big problem gets into that
22 all these review letters get into what's the
23 ulterior plan. The ulterior plan, whatever it
24 ultimately is, and none of us unfortunately have
25 enough impression to know what it's going to be,
48
1 whatever it is, has to come back to this board.
2 What we do know is these men
3 have 10 EDUs available to them, one for each 10
4 lots, according to the easement agreement. What we
5 are asking is to give a two-lot subdivision. Lot
6 one being the commercial and Lot 2 being the
7 residential. Not to develop -- nothing else is
8 being given. Nothing else is being expected. It
9 has an existing gravel driveway that serves these
10 two lots, the entire 136 acres right now and the
11 house that sits there that belongs to a third
12 person. All we are here for is to just divide the
13 two, so that the commercial lot is its own tax
14 parcel and the residential lot is its own tax
15 parcel. So now the actual land lots will match the
16 zoning code.
17 Now, if we can go tonight and
18 have a recommendation on lot -- on the second plan,
19 submit the May plan, then we can go ahead and
20 withdraw the first plan. The May plan can go on
21 its way because the comments of the May plan get
22 into what are you going to do. How are you going
23 to run your highway occupancy permit. This thing
24 exists. It is not going to change by the
25 subdivision tonight. Any subdivision that's done
49
1 of this, is solely to go have it match zoning. Any
2 development that's going to come, whatever the
3 future is going to be, if they are ultimately going
4 to use the nine EDUs in some way shape or form,
5 that is going to come back as its own development
6 plan. If this board needs any clarification, put a
7 note on the plan that says this plan may not --
8 there may be no further development until this
9 comes before the planning commission. We can live
10 with all that. All we want to do is have our tax
11 parcel, our lot parcel match your zoning code. And
12 I'm more than willing to proceed. If we can come
13 out with a recommendation tonight, we'd be willing
14 to proceed under the second plan, if that's the
15 board's preference. So we don't have to go through
16 the issues and history of the first plan. But the
17 goal is, it's so simple, we want to move forward
18 and everybody is trying to make it a hell of a lot
19 difficult than it is.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: And I agree.
21 What we need to do is, this board -- you need to
22 withdraw -- you got my letter. It wasn't
23 withdrawn. So this board needs to make a
24 recommendation to deny that previous plan because
25 your current plan is the plan you just filed.
50
1 That's fine. There is not a problem with that.
2 It's like you said, it's a subdivision plan. It's
3 before this commission now, the May 7, 2007 plan.
4 MR. JOEL WIENER: Lt's call it
5 the May plan. It's easier.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: The May 2007
7 plan. I don't think that's an issue. Just to
8 clean it up, the previous plan needs to be
9 withdrawn, which you didn't do. So it's going to
10 be a recommendation for denial tonight. The
11 previous plan, not the new plan, the new plan that
12 you just filed, it's before the commission tonight.
13 You have a review letter from the township engineer
14 and we can go through that. That's fine.
15 MR. JOEL WIENER: If you would
16 like, and with the board's indulgence, we can
17 perhaps pass the old plan and go work on the new
18 plan and then come back.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: No.
20 MR. JOEL WIENER: I was going to
21 ask if you wanted to deal with the new plan and if
22 that's satisfactorily resolved, there may be a
23 withdrawal of the old plan and solve that issue.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: You can't have
25 two plans at the same time. This commission needs
51
1 to make a recommendation on the September 2006 plan
2 tonight, for denial, based on the fact they filed a
3 new plan for the same property, a subdivision. And
4 that's not a problem. We can move forward after we
5 clean that up.
6 MR. JOEL WIENER: Fine. Okay.
7 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: I'm not
8 sure.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're not the
10 applicant for that first plan. Okay?
11 I'm sorry, but you continue to
12 say you are, but you're not. There has been no
13 assignment of any rights to you on that first plan.
14 Nothing.
15 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Our
16 contractual rights in the contract gave us rights
17 to all of the engineering, all of the procedures.
18 I'm talking about our contract to sell a part of
19 the property.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm looking at
21 the original application dated August 17th, 2006
22 Creek View Estates Minor Subdivision, Robert
23 Ciccone and John Sowerski. That's it. Those are
24 the applicants. You are not the applicant, number
25 one. Number two, you continue to discuss about how
52
1 the fact that this plan has been waiting around for
2 a year and a half. I might be new to this
3 township, but I know that it was on your request, a
4 number of requests, month after month, to have the
5 prior PRD that was withdrawn and the prior
6 subdivision to be tabled, continued. You were
7 granted many extensions.
8 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Do you
9 know why? Now that you said that, do you want to
10 know why? Because of the situation with the sewer.
11 Because when we were going -- when we went into
12 contract, when we bought that property and went
13 into contract, the person in charge of the sewer
14 here, told us there was enough EDUs to develop that
15 property, when in fact it wasn't. When in fact,
16 that person, from what I understand, has now been
17 let go because she didn't know what the hell she
18 was doing. So when we talk about extensions, let's
19 talk about details behind the extensions and the
20 reason for it.
21 We had a guy who was interested
22 in buying the property and then he was told after
23 he spent $150,000 --
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is a public
25 meeting.
53
1 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: I'm not
2 finished.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Wiener, I
4 would expect you to control your client. This is a
5 public meeting. We need to --
6 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: I don't
7 like your answers. You tell me about extensions --
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: The answers are
9 for the benefit of this board.
10 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Then let
11 me explain it to the board.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think you've
13 explained it very well through your attorney. I
14 think the board understands.
15 Does the board have any
16 questions?
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: None.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: We have the
19 original application here, as it was read, it's
20 Ciccone and Sowerski, the signatures I see. I
21 think our solicitor has stated the facts very well.
22 And I think even the applicant's solicitor agreed.
23 So I'll entertain a motion for action on the Creek
24 View Estates preliminary final minor subdivision.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Let's get this
54
1 right. Project number --
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: 206020, review
3 letter dated October 2nd, 2006.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: What is the
5 motion?
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
7 motion. What's the pleasure of the board?
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is the
9 prior plan.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Denied.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: A motion to deny
12 the Creek View Estates preliminary minor
13 subdivision plan. Do I have a second to the
14 motion?
15 MR. BAXTER: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
17 discussion? All those in favor please say aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Now, let's move
23 on to the current plan that was just filed by the
24 applicant, Mr. Berardi, in May 2007.
25 MR. JOEL WIENER: The purpose of
55
1 this plan, gentlemen, again, is just to follow the
2 zoning code, not to propose any usage of the
3 property. There are available EDUs that were
4 allocated to this tract -- to the tracts, that
5 would allow the subdivision of this without any --
6 allow one EDU per each of the lots.
7 In terms of it, the uses are
8 unknown at the present time. There is not a master
9 plan that is currently sitting in any one's head at
10 the moment. The desire is solely to have the lot
11 lines match the subdivision lines; it's to have the
12 property not changing its use and its scope or
13 anything else at the present time. There would be,
14 upon the subdivision, an easement granted over Lot
15 1 in favor of Lot 2 to provide access to Route 115
16 and also to connect to the sewer line existing
17 along Route 115 frontage. Beyond that point, that
18 would be done so that there is a formal recognition
19 of roadway of what's there. And in terms of it,
20 the plan itself is, as I say, it's there for
21 division of the land, not for any other purposes at
22 this time.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: So let's go
24 through Mr. McHale's letter dated June 4th, 2007.
25 MR. JOEL WIENER: Excuse me a
56
1 moment.
2 The driveway access -- we are
3 not proposing any new driveway being installed.
4 There is currently an existing driveway that's been
5 serving the property for a number of years.
6 MR. McHALE: Do you have a
7 PennDOT permit?
8 MR. JOEL WIENER: At this point
9 we've not been able to locate a PennDOT permit,
10 but, again, the use is going to remain the exact
11 same. At such time as there would be a proposed
12 development of this tract, then we would be
13 addressing PennDOT permit for that. At this time,
14 though, the tract currently is accessed in and
15 through the gravel driveway and that's what the
16 intended procedure would be. And, again, the
17 minimum -- there is a note here about the driveway
18 not classed as a minimum use driveway. We would
19 contend that it is a minimum use driveway because
20 it's the same as did exist. There is a notation
21 here about the neighbors. Apparently, somehow,
22 they have gotten usage. It may be well worth it.
23 Again, if there is nothing -- I believe there is
24 probably something in their deed because the board
25 probably would not have granted them the ability to
57
1 be landlocked. So that would be something that
2 would be identified.
3 Again, the comment that the
4 existing highway occupancy permit or alignment with
5 the other driveway, we do not believe that it would
6 be proper in this situation because we are not
7 proposing any new use, and as a result, we'd just
8 be using the same access for the exact same purpose
9 the land use currently is.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: But highway
11 occupancy permit -- go ahead Bob.
12 MR. McHALE: The proposed access
13 to Lot 2 is indicated to begin approximately in the
14 center of that lot, come across Lot 1, then align
15 with an existing 9 foot wide easement that services
16 these two lots. On the previous minor subdivision,
17 that was concurrently submitted or pretty close to
18 it, it was supposed to be working with the original
19 PRD, was to have this access point come down and
20 align with Ferncrest Drive or Ferncrest Road so
21 that in the future it aligned with the township
22 road. And the traffic study that was prepared at
23 that time, as I recall, had a traffic signal that
24 would be required with the proposed commercial
25 development and the 276 units that were proposed in
58
1 the residential area.
2 This is inappropriate to show an
3 easement to come across and tie in at that point.
4 We don't even know what the terms of the agreement
5 is between these folks that are out here in the
6 center of the property and people that own 150
7 acres.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Under the
9 subdivision ordinance, which is what we are
10 reviewing this as, they have to show some access to
11 Lot 2.
12 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: We have
13 it.
14 MR. McHALE: There needs to be
15 access to Lot 2.
16 MR. JOEL WIENER: There is an
17 access to Lot 2 that comes along a --
18 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: There is
19 two accesses.
20 MR. JOEL WIENER: There is an
21 access over a roadway -- there is a roadway that
22 comes in on the north side of the property that is
23 coming through the abutting area. And, currently,
24 the existing driveway takes you back to this area.
25 There is an existing driveway right now that's
59
1 coming right across through the out parcel and
2 takes you up to the edge of -- up to the point
3 where Lot 2 starts. So we do have access there.
4 Again, we are not asking to go change the use of
5 this property.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Oh, okay.
7 MR. JOEL WIENER: So, we submit
8 to you that there is access obviously from the road
9 next to the Orlando residence.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does that road
11 end or is that a paper road?
12 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: It's a
13 driveway.
14 MR. GAY: There is houses on
15 that.
16 MR. JOEL WIENER: Looking at the
17 plan, the development, it looks like there better
18 be a road because there is four houses that only
19 front into that area.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: How wide is
21 that?
22 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: This is a
23 copy of the older subdivision. This is our
24 property and that would be the access point there.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: But it is a road
60
1 there.
2 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: It doesn't
3 go all the way to the property line. These lots
4 feed off of it. But when -- I mean, it maybe needs
5 some improvement into that area, but it is still a
6 right of way that can be used.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that township
8 or private?
9 MR. JOEL WIENER: We've been
10 trying to figure that one out.
11 MR. McHALE: I don't believe
12 it's a township road.
13 MR. JOEL WIENER: At this point
14 we are not sure. Again, what we are submitting is
15 that we do at least the access road over -- where
16 the access over our driveway exists. Again, we are
17 not part of the plotted roads, but we are trying to
18 determine whether it's public or private. I'm
19 advised that it does have signs up on the roadway
20 and I don't know whether that's indicative of a
21 township road.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, then,
23 since you presented this as an access point to this
24 lot, we need to know that you have a right to use
25 that road. So you can submit us information
61
1 showing you have a right to use that road.
2 MR. JOEL WIENER: In any event,
3 we do submit though that we have the right of this
4 driveway as it exists and serves all 136 acres
5 today. I think that's an important part for the
6 board to consider.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So when we get a
8 copy of the PennDOT Highway Occupancy --
9 MR. JOEL WIENER: Sir, I
10 appreciate that, but we don't have a PennDOT -- we
11 have an existing driveway that's a minimum use
12 driveway. It's not going to change from minimum
13 use driveway and we -- at this point, there is no
14 known PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit.
15 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: It's been
16 there for 50 years.
17 MR. JOEL WIENER: As long as the
18 use is not changing, there is no reason to require
19 a new highway occupancy --
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: I didn't say a
21 new one.
22 MR. JOEL WIENER: But if there
23 isn't one --
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We
25 contacted PennDOT at least three times in the
62
1 previous submission, and they have not been able to
2 find any documentation of that driveway for a
3 permit.
4 MR. McHALE: So then the
5 existing driveway serves one large tract and in
6 addition two residential tracts, is that correct?
7 MR. JOEL WIENER: Yes. I'm not
8 sure what the ownership of it is.
9 MR. BAXTER: Is that deeded
10 access to those people? Do you know if it's
11 referenced in their deed?
12 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: I don't
13 know if it's referenced in their deed, but it is
14 referenced in the old deed.
15 MR. GAY: They have an easement.
16 MR. JOEL WIENER: Again, this
17 driveway is serving all of this. And, again, one
18 thing Mr. McHale mentioned was about the old
19 development, what was going to be done and
20 everything else. That's not what we are here for.
21 That's wholly irrelevant to what we are looking
22 for. If that's the goal ever again, that's a
23 separate matter to come back to this board. And
24 when that was going through with all the alignment,
25 it got into what that ultimate plan was. And,
63
1 again, I can't stress enough, whatever development
2 occurs, any part of this ground must come back to
3 this board. We are not asking for any usage on
4 that.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay, but
6 underneath the subdivision ordinance, you have to
7 demonstrate access to your property, whether or not
8 you're building anything in the future or not.
9 MR. JOEL WIENER: And we
10 currently have access to this property. It's
11 currently being used.
12 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: How do you
13 demonstrate it?
14 MR. JOEL WIENER: You've been on
15 your property.
16 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Of course.
17 So do the people who live there.
18 MR. JOEL WIENER: They have
19 routinely accessed -- you accessed the 136 acres.
20 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: That's the
21 way I drive in when I go back there.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Is there an
23 easement, driveway easement?
24 MR. JOEL WIENER: Technically,
25 at this time, it's the applicant's land, is what we
64
1 are talking -- in other words, the applicant owns
2 the roadway, everything except this little square
3 in the middle. This driveway is the applicant's
4 driveway. They own the land.
5 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: It's an
6 easement in our deed to provide them.
7 MR. JOEL WIENER: It's an
8 easement against their land not in favor of their
9 land. So the applicant owns everything around
10 except these two little boxes here. So it's these
11 two landlocked parcels that have the privilege of
12 using our driveway.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Then
14 Mr. McHale's letter that we've referenced asks to
15 see a copy of that deed. I'm sure you can provide
16 that.
17 MR. JOEL WIENER: That's no
18 problem. Be happy to provide a copy of the deed.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Which deed?
20 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We'll
21 provide you a copy of our deed. It does reference
22 allowing the 2 lots to use that driveway. We can
23 get you another copy.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: A copy of the
25 deed for Patricia M. Bird, Robert J., Florence M.,
65
1 Dean M. and Doris M. Colello.
2 MR. JOEL WIENER: For the
3 reference, the Colello deed is Deed Book Volume
4 1750 Pate 1435. The Bird deed is Deed Book Volume
5 1556, Page 1098. And the subject tract is Deed
6 Book Volume 2223, Page 1234. All are referenced on
7 the plan. And, again, Mr. Berardi, the Bird tract
8 and the Colello tract use this driveway with your
9 consent?
10 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Yes.
11 MR. JOEL WIENER: They come an
12 go over Route 115?
13 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Yes.
14 MR. JOEL WIENER: Do they come
15 and go off of Route 115?
16 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Yes.
17 MR. JOEL WIENER: Do you come
18 and go left turn/right turn onto 115?
19 MR. BERARDI: Yes.
20 MR. BAXTER: According to the
21 deed which they have provided, the easement exists
22 and it references deed to the Birds and states that
23 that easement is also set forth in that deed. So
24 according to this it's in both.
25 MR. McHALE: SALDO Section
66
1 135.18.B.23, it indicates that all final plans
2 shall include any other federal or state permits
3 that are required for development. This includes
4 but is not limited to state -- let's see -- erosion
5 and sedimentation plan approval from Monroe County,
6 PennDOT permit and DEP permit.
7 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: We are not
8 developing.
9 MR. McHALE: What he's asking us
10 to do is create a commercial lot, without
11 commercial access.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
13 MR. McHALE: And the problem
14 that we could get into with PennDOT is that PennDOT
15 could say, no, we are not going to grant access
16 here. That's for the residences. We will only
17 grant access here at Ferncrest Road. The property
18 as it is now and the access that is, is existing.
19 There is nothing to do with it, but because they
20 are asking for a subdivision, we are creating these
21 2 parcels and they should be demonstrating proper
22 access. It doesn't mean they have to have a permit
23 in hand, but it does mean that during the course of
24 the project they would have submitted to PennDOT
25 with an application for access, and then PennDOT,
67
1 through the course of our review, usually sends
2 some review letters back and forth that shows that
3 they are in agreement with that location. The
4 PennDOT permit may come after the approval, but
5 that's the way it's set up.
6 MR. JOEL WIENER: The problem
7 with what you just heard, gentlemen, is when you go
8 to PennDOT, they will ask you what are you going to
9 be doing with the land. I'm not the one who did
10 the zoning codes. I don't know if any of you were
11 responsible for doing the zoning code, but somebody
12 decided stick a line right here and go commercial/
13 residential. They didn't move the road. Yes, they
14 have created this thing. They made two different
15 zoning classes on the same parcel.
16 MR. McHALE: The existing
17 property owner I'm sure would have been available
18 to attend any of those meetings and speak about
19 that.
20 MR. JOEL WIENER: You don't
21 know, do you?
22 MR. McHALE: I don't know,
23 but --
24 MR. JOEL WIENER: Excuse me.
25 Can I finish first and I'll let you.
68
1 MR. McHALE: Sure.
2 MR. JOEL WIENER: Again,
3 whatever happened, PennDOT says what are you going
4 to do with the plan. Well, we don't know what we
5 are going to do. But it's commercial. Why?
6 Because somebody decided in the comprehensive plan,
7 it should be commercial. Now, we agree, yes,
8 you've created the commercial parcel. You already
9 have it as a commercial parcel. It was created
10 long ago. We are not asking to use it as a
11 commercial parcel at the moment. Any use of it
12 that changes has to come in for planning approval
13 because it will be a change of use because you'll
14 tell me, look, you're not just sitting there
15 keeping it vacant ground anymore, you've got to
16 come in for land development approval. That's the
17 time that PennDOT has something really to look at,
18 because if this thing turns out to be a parking lot
19 for somebody, it could be right turn in, right turn
20 out, maybe enough for it. I don't know what it's
21 going to be that's going to be commercial. But
22 what does happen is this. There is an access road
23 that's there and the comment is for future
24 development. That was a key term that Mr. McHale
25 mentioned. Future development. We don't know what
69
1 the development is going to be.
2 Again, if we go to the waiver,
3 we go with the note that says that future use of
4 this parcel, other than its present use, shall
5 require appropriate PennDOT permit. Absolutely
6 reasonable. Absolutely agreed.
7 What should it line up to?
8 Well, you heard before, there is a possibility of
9 230 odd units. A traffic study having the street
10 line up to the other road traffic light. Okay.
11 You know what? It may not work. It could be one
12 house, two houses, eight houses. There is 10 EDUs
13 available. Maybe there will be nine and a
14 commercial. Maybe there won't be any of them. I
15 don't know what it's going to be. Some guy can hit
16 the lottery tomorrow morning and put one big house
17 there and be happy with this. But that's all going
18 to have to come back before this board and make a
19 decision.
20 So when development comes about,
21 yes, permits are required for development. We
22 aren't at that stage yet. We are jut trying to
23 have this lot match your zoning code.
24 MR. McHALE: By creating the
25 residential lot behind, that lot has to have proper
70
1 access.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
3 MR. McHALE: The access they are
4 showing currently includes a commercial tract that
5 they are proposing as well, and to show