Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
Tobyhanna Township Government Center Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Monday, July 9, 2007 beginning at 7:15 p.m.
---
PRESENT: JOHN E. KERRICK, Chairperson
HEIDI A. PICKARD, Vice-Chairperson
ANNE SINCAVAGE, Board Member
JAMIE B. KEENER, Board Member
EMANUEL KAPELSOHN, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
________________________________________________________
PANKO REPORTING
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. KERRICK: I'd like to welcome
2 everyone here. I apologize that we're running a
3 little late.
4 Call the meeting to order with the
5 Pledge of Allegiance.
6 (Pledge of Allegiance was
7 recited.)
8 MR. KERRICK: First order of
9 business, motion to approve or table the minutes
10 from May 7, '07 special meeting and June 4, '07
11 special meeting.
12 MS. PICKARD: I'll make a motion
13 we table the May 7 and June 4, 2007 meeting
14 minutes.
15 MALE VOICE: Is the microphone on?
16 MR. KERRICK: Yes.
17 MS. SINCAVAGE: I'll second the
18 motion.
19 MR. KERRICK: Motion and second on
20 the floor.
21 Discussion or questions from the
22 board?
23 Questions or comments from the
24 public?
25 Call the vote.
3
1 Anne?
2 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
3 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
4 MR. KEENER: Vote in favor.
5 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
6 MR. LAMBERTON: Vote in favor.
7 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
8 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
9 MR. KERRICK: Motion carried.
10 Next on our agenda, consider the
11 treasurer's report dated July 9, 2007. Total
12 amount for board approval, $558,053.08.
13 MS. PICKARD: I make a motion we
14 approve the July 9, 2007 bill pack in the amount
15 of $558,053.08.
16 MR. LAMBERTON: I'll second the
17 motion.
18 MR. KERRICK: Motion and second.
19 Questions or comments from the
20 board?
21 MS. PICKARD: I'll just make the
22 comment that the third quarter Pocono Mountain
23 Regional Police Department bill was included,
24 that was $396,291.70.
25 MR. KERRICK: Thank you.
4
1 Questions or comments from the
2 public on the motion?
3 Call the vote.
4 Anne?
5 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
6 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
7 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
8 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
9 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
10 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
11 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
12 MR. KERRICK: Okay. Motion
13 carried.
14 Solicitor's report, do you have
15 anything for us?
16 MR. KAPELSOHN: Nothing at this
17 time.
18 MR. KERRICK: New business, Nature
19 Conservancy.
20 MS. PATTI O'KEEFE: Hi. My name
21 is Patti O'Keefe and I'm with the Nature
22 Conservancy and I just came tonight so that I
23 can invite the residents of Tobyhanna Township
24 to come to some of our programs. I have
25 brochures which I'll be leaving out in the
5
1 lobby.
2 And also we have -- our first
3 program coming up is survivor. We're going to
4 have somebody from the Northeast Pennsylvania
5 Search and Rescue come with a rescue dog and
6 she's gonna tell families and especially
7 children how to stay safe in the woods and also
8 have her dog go out and search for somebody; so
9 that should be fun.
10 And then we have the children's
11 program on Thursday mornings for children 7
12 through 12 years old. Each week we do a
13 different nature-oriented program and it's open
14 to children from -- of the -- from 7 to 12 years
15 old, and we go from 10 to 11:30 in the morning.
16 And so I just wanted to take some
17 time to tell you about our programs and hope
18 that you'll be able to come out and join us on
19 either a walk or an evening program.
20 Does anybody have any questions?
21 Okay. I'll leave the brochures
22 out front. Thank you very much.
23 MR. KERRICK: Thank you for your
24 time, we appreciate it.
25 MS. PATTIE O'KEEFE: Thank you.
6
1 MR. KERRICK: Next on our agenda,
2 Pinecrest Phase 1C, letter of credit reduction.
3 Mr. DeLuca, how are you?
4 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Good evening
5 members of the board. I'm okay. And you?
6 Before you tonight -- because I
7 think there's an inconsistency in the way the
8 last approval occurred, and I have -- I have a
9 solution to it hopefully. As you will recall,
10 Pinecrest has come before this board for each
11 and every infrastructure phase. We came before
12 this board last year for what's called Phase 1C.
13 In laymen's terms, it's the lot along the 4,
14 5th, and 6th hole of the Pinecrest Golf Course.
15 And as you may remember, in the
16 way Pinecrest Lake Homes has chosen to assure
17 the township that the infrastructure will
18 actually get done was, we had three allowable
19 possibilities: One was to get a bond, of
20 course, which you would be familiar with; two
21 would be to cash up the money ourselves, put it
22 in an escrow fund that the township controls;
23 and the third would be a letter of credit to be
24 drawn down as cash at the discretion of the
25 township engineers. And we've done all three in
7
1 our relationship with the township. This time
2 we chose a letter of credit.
3 The engineer's estimate of the
4 work to be done, which was made a part of your
5 minutes and approval and which Mr. McHale
6 approved, was 843,000. Mr. McHale determined
7 that he wanted ten percent contingency added to
8 that. So our letter of credit that our bank put
9 up at the time was $927,000. Our bank sent
10 language to the township and Mr. Kapelsohn made
11 some minor changes to it. Shame on me. I did
12 not see a provision Mr. Kapelsohn put in there,
13 and I understand why he did it, but I think it
14 was inappropriate for Pinecrest.
15 There was a provision in the
16 existing letter of credit language with the
17 township wherein the township required that
18 15 percent of the letter of credit amount stays
19 with the township until a period of
20 approximately 12 months after the work is
21 finished. I think I know why that's in there,
22 but I think it's inappropriate for Pinecrest.
23 It's in there obviously because
24 when a developer does work on roads that will be
25 dedicated by the township, the township needs to
8
1 be sure that that road will be -- will last for
2 at least a year and the township engineer will
3 have to see if there's any erosion or any work
4 was done inappropriately; so that's why that got
5 in there.
6 You may remember that all
7 Pinecrest roads are not now and never will be
8 public roads. They will never be dedicated to
9 the township and therefore will not be the
10 township's responsibility. They're my roads
11 until the last home is built. After which, by
12 the board's approval, the initial approval of
13 the PRD, those roads will become the permanent
14 ownership of the trust which is made a part of
15 every homeowner's deed.
16 I would ask at this time that the
17 town board be consistent with its past
18 approvals. When Mr. McHale approves our final
19 voucher -- requested voucher for payment -- by
20 the way, Mr. McHale approves every single
21 voucher for payment every step of the way. I
22 ask that the board be consistent. When we ask
23 for the last drawdown on the roadwork -- Mr.
24 McHale and I reviewed the property, Mr. McHale
25 wrote a detailed memo, I believe, to all the
9
1 supervisors, to the township attorney and to me
2 detailing what he believes are punch list items.
3 Mr. McHale then in consultation with the
4 project's independent engineer determines an
5 amount that he wants held back for that work.
6 The last time it was $30,000.
7 Most of that money is still with the township
8 'cause he has not yet been satisfied that that
9 punch list work has been done in a previous
10 infrastructure phase. That's fine with me.
11 That's the way that was operated.
12 This time, however, the township,
13 in effect, will be having $135,000 of my money
14 reserved for work that's gonna be somewhere well
15 below that. It's never happened before, I'm
16 sure it was a glitch in the legislation and it's
17 probably because that's the way the township
18 required it on a dedicated road. So, I ask that
19 the town board return to its previous approval
20 process.
21 I've been before you five other
22 times with five sets of infrastructure and each
23 time it was left to the township engineer as
24 part of the approval to determine an amount for
25 punch list. That amount I reserve with the
10
1 township and can only get released by approval
2 of the township engineer. I ask that the board
3 change that letter of credit provision so as not
4 to require me to keep 135,000 on board for
5 12 months but, in fact, require me to keep only
6 that amount that Mr. McHale deems as necessary
7 to complete any punch list items.
8 MR. KERRICK: May I ask, this
9 amount, as I understand it, doesn't just cover
10 roads but other infrastructure as well, doesn't
11 it?
12 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Yes.
13 MR. KERRICK: Okay. What other
14 kinds of like infrastructure is there that is
15 covered?
16 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Any storm water
17 maintenance -- management, yes.
18 MR. KERRICK: Right.
19 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: But all of
20 those -- what happens, sir, is every time we
21 request a payment, a drawdown schedule, Mr.
22 McHale comes out, physically inspects, and only
23 releases that amount that he thinks would be
24 necessary to do the work for. Whether it's a
25 road base, whether it's PP&L as lighting,
11
1 whether it's storm water management, whether
2 it's basin. It's a long detailed list. And he
3 checks off what he thinks is done and only
4 approves that amount.
5 This is the seventh -- this is now
6 the seventh drawdown we're going to be asking
7 Mr. McHale for, and then there'll be a final on
8 the eighth. And then he'll hold back money at
9 least for the top coat of roads that he owes us.
10 But he wanted to make sure the
11 grass grows on the swales. He wanted to make
12 sure that the retention basins are operating
13 according to the engineer's designs; so he holds
14 back whatever he thinks might be necessary to
15 ensure that they work properly or to correct
16 whatever deficiencies he sees. And it's always
17 been that way since I've been here for five
18 years.
19 MR. KERRICK: The punch list
20 concept, however, simply ensures that the work
21 has been completed --
22 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Right.
23 MR. KERRICK: -- to
24 specifications.
25 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Right.
12
1 MR. KERRICK: It doesn't, in
2 effect, warrant it for the 12-month period the
3 way this --
4 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: No, it
5 shouldn't. But my contention is, yes, that --
6 MR. KERRICK: But it shouldn't be
7 that way.
8 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: I believe it
9 shouldn't be, that is correct. That is why the
10 money is in there. The warranty, I believe,
11 should only be for the road that's going to be
12 dedicated to the township, to ensure that the
13 road works properly. This is a private road and
14 always will be. Right now I own the road. Why
15 should you -- why should I have money up for you
16 to warranty my road?
17 When the road is not mine anymore,
18 it will go to the trust. You would expect that
19 the trust is not going to accept the road from
20 me for the same reason you wouldn't, until that
21 road is 100 percent done.
22 I need you to understand that this
23 is consistent with the way this board has
24 operated with Pinecrest from the day it approved
25 the first PRD. And that's the way it's always
13
1 been done. There's never been any kind of
2 warranty. And I dare say they shouldn't be a
3 warranty on a private road.
4 MR. KERRICK: Mr. DeLuca, the road
5 aside, what if the storm water -- what if you
6 have a problem with your storm water basin or
7 retention basin, would the trust repair that?
8 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Yes. As a
9 matter of fact, you may remember we had a
10 problem with one of the homeowners who brought
11 it to the board. After we were approved, one of
12 the swales was not working properly and heavy
13 rain -- all along Pinecrest Drive. He was
14 getting rain and we and/or the trust had to
15 repair it. Well, I still own the road so I had
16 to repair it. The answer is, of course.
17 MR. KAPELSOHN: What financial
18 guarantee is there or other guarantee is there
19 that the trust will remain financially solvent
20 and viable to repair infrastructure like storm
21 water systems?
22 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: I don't know if
23 there is. I don't know -- and please don't take
24 this the wrong way, I don't think that's the
25 board's purview. The trust is licensed by the
14
1 State of Pennsylvania. They have certain
2 guarantees that they have to do and they have
3 certain moneys that they collect, that they have
4 to put in escrow for repairs. I don't know what
5 the entire situation is, but could there be a
6 situation? Well, you know what would happen?
7 All the members of the trust would get assessed
8 for that money. I absolutely believe that.
9 MR. KAPELSOHN: So in other
10 words if --
11 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: If it was a
12 catastrophic event --
13 MR. KAPELSOHN: -- ten months down
14 the road the storm water system failed and the
15 township had given back -- released the letter
16 of credit and the trust were no longer solvent
17 or no longer in existence, you know, in my
18 imagination the township would have to step in
19 and repair that storm water system because it's
20 going to be a public hazard and problem to the
21 township.
22 In your estimation all the
23 homeowners would have to chip in and fix it.
24 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: I couldn't
25 disagree with you more. Not in my estimation.
15
1 Sir, read the trust, read the trust document.
2 The document is clear.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: Explain it to me.
4 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: That is not your
5 land, it will never be your land. We own our
6 own -- we did own our water system, we installed
7 it with PP&L. We operate our own sewer system,
8 we operate all our roads, we take care of all
9 the maintenance; so yes, all of responsibilities
10 of those roads, the entire infrastructure,
11 everything in Pinecrest is the responsibility of
12 the trust or to the people who belong to the
13 trust.
14 Every member of that -- everybody
15 who buys a home gets a membership in the trust.
16 It is never your responsibility. It never was,
17 it never will be. That's the beauty of a trust.
18 You don't do anything in there. When there's a
19 road that -- if the road needs repair, you've
20 never been called. We've had loads of sewer
21 problems and water retention problems. You've
22 never been called.
23 MR. KAPELSOHN: No, I'm talking
24 about if the trusts were not viable, the trust
25 went broke.
16
1 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: The trust has to
2 be viable because each year the trust, by law,
3 presents a budget to the homeowners and that
4 budget is funded each year in the dues. And if
5 there's a catastrophic problem, the trust would
6 have to borrow money and each member would be
7 assessed the appropriate amount.
8 MS. PICKARD: Who is the trustee
9 for the -- for Pinecrest?
10 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Brendan Carol.
11 There are, as you may know, two
12 past phases of Pinecrest, they're covered under
13 the trust as well because they have roads that
14 are 10, 15 years old. Some roads are being
15 repaired on a regular basis, having nothing to
16 do with me because, you know, roads get old and
17 wear out. And part of the trust responsibility,
18 part of Brendan's responsibility, is to budget
19 every year for regular maintenance and that's
20 what's been happening.
21 MR. KAPELSOHN: Is the trustee
22 position a paid position?
23 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Yes.
24 MR. KAPELSOHN: I don't know if we
25 have a copy of the trust. I don't believe I've
17
1 seen it. Can we get a copy of the trust?
2 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Absolutely.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: Thanks. I would
4 suggest that the board, unless they have
5 questions, take this under advisement and let us
6 look at the trust, let us consider the issues
7 and get back to Mr. DeLuca about it.
8 MR. KEENER: The one question I
9 have raised to you is the empty seat provides
10 for the maintenance bond, is that -- is it
11 defined whether it's public improvements or
12 required improvements that might be required as
13 part of the plan approval? And I think that's
14 going to differentiate whether, you know, we
15 could hold the bond based on the ordinance,
16 based on the empty seat in the SALDO.
17 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Mr. Kapelsohn,
18 if I could propose another question, what would
19 happen if one of the other infrastructure
20 systems that you approved when I patched it up
21 failed? Phase 2B, which I did last year. You
22 have no money, other than some money for grass
23 growing in the swales, which Mr. McHale
24 appropriately held back. What would happen?
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: I don't know, but
18
1 I don't think -- I don't -- if I can answer your
2 question.
3 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Okay. I'm not
4 trying to trick you, it was kind of rhetorical.
5 I think you would feel comfortable --
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: But I want to
7 answer it. You may have intended it rhetorical,
8 but I intend to answer.
9 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Okay. Go ahead.
10 MR. KAPELSOHN: The fact that the
11 township may not be adequately protected for
12 something it did in the past doesn't
13 necessarily, in my mind, answer the question of
14 what we ought to do to protect ourselves at this
15 point in time. So I certainly understand your
16 points and, in fact, I've written them down.
17 And I intend to look at them, consider them and
18 talk to the board about them. But the fact that
19 the township may have done something in the
20 past, to me, does not control what it does right
21 now.
22 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Okay. Again,
23 from a developer's point of view, I've been
24 before the board a long time. PRD has been
25 approved by the board a long time, Pinecrest, a
19
1 really long time. And I think the board has a
2 responsibility to be consistent to its
3 developers as well, with all due respect, to Mr.
4 Kapelsohn and the board. To change the rules
5 after I've been with you for six years is
6 inappropriate and not giving me my due.
7 So I will certainly get you the
8 trust. I think you will see everything I said
9 tonight on record is 100 percent accurate. And
10 I think your willingness to protect the board is
11 just kind of misguided here. Sorry.
12 MR. KAPELSOHN: It's my job.
13 Protecting the township and its residents and
14 the board --
15 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: It's just that
16 the board has two separate rules. And I play by
17 the rules, I always have. You can ask Mr.
18 McHale. I think I have a fairly good reputation
19 with the board.
20 MR. KAPELSOHN: Yes, sir.
21 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: I've done
22 everything according to order and this is a
23 curve ball. And I don't like to have 135,000
24 up. I don't have that kind of money.
25 MR. KAPELSOHN: You agreed to this
20
1 agreement, didn't you?
2 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Yes, I did.
3 MR. KAPELSOHN: So what you're
4 saying now is the curve ball is something you
5 agreed to but now want to change. I could make
6 the same consistency argument that you're
7 making, but the fact is, many things were done
8 in the past by past boards, composed differently
9 than this board, things done that I might not
10 necessarily agree with, if my opinion was asked.
11 I'm obliged to give my opinion, my
12 recommendations and advice to the board. This
13 board is obliged to make its decisions based on
14 its current consistency and its best judgment
15 and in the best interest of the township. So
16 I'm not telling you what my decision is, I'm
17 saying I need to take a look at these things and
18 the board needs to take a look at these things.
19 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Okay.
20 MR. KERRICK: Thank you, Mr.
21 DeLuca. We'll take it under advisement.
22 MR. NEIL DeLUCA: Absolutely.
23 MR. KERRICK: While we're on
24 Pinecrest, we need to -- for 1C, the credit
25 reduction amount $75,982.
21
1 MR. KEENER: I'll make a motion we
2 approve the bond reduction Request No. 6 in the
3 amount of $75,982.
4 MS. PICKARD: I'll second the
5 motion.
6 MR. KERRICK: Motion and second on
7 the floor.
8 Questions or comments from the
9 board?
10 Anyone from the public wish to
11 comment?
12 Call the vote.
13 Anne?
14 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
15 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
16 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
17 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
18 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
19 MS. KERRICK: Heidi?
20 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
21 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
22 Motion carried.
23 Next on our agenda, S.I.D.E.
24 Corporation New Ventures Park Lot 13 land
25 development plan and storm water agreement.
22
1 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Hi.
2 My name is Chris McDermott, I'm with Riley
3 Associates. We've prepared the land development
4 plan which is before you. I believe this is the
5 first time that this plan has been before the
6 board. I don't know whether you've had a chance
7 to review the plan or would like me to go over
8 it, or whether Bob has brought you up to speed.
9 Tell me which you'd like. I can certainly give
10 you a brief overview of the plan.
11 This is a land development plan
12 which is proposed on Lot 13 in New Ventures
13 Park. You're familiar with Park Avenue. This
14 lot is located at the terminal end of the lot.
15 You can see the main entrance to New Ventures
16 Park. There's the on-ramp to Route 80. From
17 the first left-hand turn it goes out to a
18 cul-de-sac. The subject property is located at
19 the end. It's an eight and a half acre tract of
20 land.
21 S.I.D.E. Corp. is proposing to
22 develop Lot 13 for its corporate offices. The
23 development will include a 7,200 square foot
24 building which will be utilized for their
25 corporate administrations, that's an area of
23
1 about 1,200 square foot. And the remainder
2 6,000 square feet of the building will be for
3 equipment storage and vehicle storage.
4 And if you look at the rear most
5 portion of the building, as designated as Phase
6 2, that's 2,400 feet, that is included in the
7 6,000 square feet, that will be constructed
8 later as part of Phase 2; however, all the
9 improvements necessary for that building will be
10 constructed at this time.
11 Other improvements will be a paved
12 area in front and adjacent to the structure
13 which will provide seven parking spaces and a
14 paved area with a block bin which will be
15 utilized for material storage, gravels and
16 whatnot, utilized in their construction
17 business.
18 Further back in the lot there is a
19 gravel area which is approximately an acre and a
20 half. That will also be utilized for material
21 storage. Downslope of the gravel area you will
22 see a storm water quality basin. Storm water
23 from the paved area and from the gravel area
24 will be routed toward this basin.
25 The purpose of this basin is to
24
1 meet storm water quality regulations and the
2 MPDS requirement. This is located in a no
3 detention area. Storm water after it leaves the
4 basin will be routed to existing storm water
5 facilities down along the road and the stream's
6 edge subdivision and then consequently to the
7 Tobyhanna Creek.
8 The lot will be served by on-lot
9 well and connection to the central sewage
10 system, which is already located at the
11 terminals of the cul-de-sac. This plan has been
12 before your planning commission. At the last
13 planning commission meeting there was a
14 recommendation for approval.
15 There were some minor outstanding
16 items in Mr. McHale's letter dated June 7, which
17 have been resolved. The only outstanding issues
18 with the plan are the erosion and sediment
19 pollution control plan approval from the Monroe
20 County Conservation District and approval of the
21 MPDS permit from DEP. These are outside
22 agencies' approvals.
23 The storm water management
24 agreement has been completed by the applicant
25 and forwarded on to the township for their
25
1 review. I don't know whether your solicitor has
2 had a chance to review it and -- review that.
3 All items are taken care of, and I'm here
4 tonight asking for a conditional approval of
5 those conditions, being issuance of the E&S
6 approval and of the MPDS approval.
7 And I would ask that since in the
8 review process there may be some slight
9 modifications to the plan, especially as you go
10 through DEP's review, I would ask that any of
11 those modifications be reviewed by your engineer
12 administratively and be subject to his approval
13 and that could be part of the condition.
14 Do you have any other questions?
15 I'll be happy to answer them if I can.
16 MR. LAMBERTON: Have you heard
17 anything from the fire company?
18 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: The
19 plan has been reviewed by Guardian and approved,
20 your fire review with the agency that does the
21 review of the fire protection.
22 MR. KEENER: Does the firemen --
23 do you know their comments?
24 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT:
25 Actually, Mr. McHale brought that up and it was
26
1 a requirement to replace that.
2 MS. PICKARD: I make a motion we
3 approve the S.I.D.E. Corporation New Ventures
4 Park Lot 13 land development plan on our project
5 No. 2007-007, Review No. 3, conditioned upon Mr.
6 McHale's review letter of June 7 and those
7 conditions pertaining thereto.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 MR. LAMBERTON: I'll second the
10 motion.
11 MR. KERRICK: Sorry, I was
12 watching the wasp.
13 Questions or comments from the
14 board?
15 That was pretty good there, I
16 didn't see it.
17 Questions or comments from the
18 public on the motion?
19 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Did
20 that include the administrative review of Mr.
21 McHale?
22 MS. PICKARD: Yes. It was
23 conditional upon his Review No. 3 on June 7,
24 which includes the letter from the volunteer
25 fire company.
27
1 MR. KERRICK: Call the vote.
2 Anne?
3 MS. SINCAVAGE: I abstain.
4 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
5 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
6 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
7 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
8 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
9 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
10 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
11 Motion carried.
12 MR. CHRISTOPHER McDERMOTT: Thank
13 you.
14 MR. KERRICK: Next on our agenda,
15 Vrabec land development plan and storm water
16 agreement.
17 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: I'm Justin
18 Hoffman from Kiley Associates. And I'm going to
19 be presenting the development plan for Drs.
20 Keith and Joyce Vrabec. I'll give you a second
21 to open up the sheets.
22 So the plan that you have before
23 you tonight is for a site located on Route 115
24 about a little over -- under half a mile north
25 of Blakeslee Corners. And the Vrabecs are
28
1 proposing to improve the site with a small
2 commercial building. It's going to be used as a
3 physician's office for Dr. Vrabec's practice.
4 It's about 1800 square feet, it's going to be a
5 one-story structure.
6 The plan that you have in front of
7 you says the associated facility on the site,
8 which is the parking area, storm water
9 management area, site lighting and landscaping.
10 This site will access Route 115 through a
11 permitted low lying driveway. We do have the
12 permit we just obtained from PennDOT. And
13 unfortunately I didn't get a chance to get it to
14 the board prior to the meeting, but I have a
15 couple of copies I could just hand out for your
16 review.
17 We've also received an adequacy
18 letter from Monroe County Conservation District
19 concerning this whole plan. I do believe the
20 board has a copy of that. The site will be
21 served by an on-lot well towards the rear of the
22 building, which is located on the map, and tied
23 into the existing central sewer system,
24 Tobyhanna Township's sewer system, that's in
25 Route 115.
29
1 There are six parking spaces as
2 shown, required by the ordinance. Small storm
3 water quality basin near the front of the site
4 with annual -- to increase the storm water
5 runoff generated from the project, and it's in
6 compliance with the township's ordinances and
7 Tobyhanna Creek subwater shed.
8 There's some landscaping to the
9 rear of the site to buffer the existing
10 residences that are in Greenwood Acres, which is
11 the subdivision to the rear of the site.
12 Redwood Lane is a private road. There will be
13 no access to our project from Redwood Lane.
14 That's a road owned by the association and they
15 would not allow us to access the road.
16 There were a few outstanding
17 comments from the township engineer prior to the
18 last planning commission meeting. We did have a
19 recommendation for approval from the planning
20 commission at the last meeting subject to
21 addressing those comments, and we have addressed
22 those minor comments with the submission that
23 you have before you. We've also forwarded the
24 storm water maintenance agreement to the
25 township for their review along with the
30
1 thousand dollar fee.
2 So we'd be looking to gain a
3 conditional approval tonight based on really
4 essentially, just the plans with the appropriate
5 signatures and notarization seals on them. I'll
6 be happy to answer any questions if the board
7 has any.
8 MR. KEENER: The parking property
9 survey, did you do a property survey or is that
10 based on the --
11 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: We did the
12 survey prior to the land development.
13 MR. KEENER: From personal
14 situation, up the road there there's a
15 property -- a problem with the survey that was
16 done recently and I'm seeing a deviation from
17 the 2.4 feet from the corner of the property.
18 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Okay.
19 MR. KEENER: Do you have -- did
20 you do closure on the property itself?
21 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: The deed --
22 the corner subdivision in the current deed does
23 close, yes. There was -- as you notice, there's
24 a 2.4 foot offset on that existing pipe. We did
25 find other monumentation off Redwood Lane that
31
1 allowed us to determine this property line of
2 the right-of-way.
3 And actually if you'll notice the
4 property survey, we would have held that in --
5 we would have given our -- essentially our
6 project adds an extra 2.4 feet; so the solution
7 was to hold recorded information along the road
8 here, holding that, and then some other ones off
9 this map. That may be an original monumentation
10 that could have been moved. We're not really
11 sure, but that's how we determined the boundary
12 solutions to this particular project.
13 Just out of curiosity, which
14 property was it that --
15 MR. KEENER: It's up the road a
16 few hundred yards to the north, yes.
17 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: This way?
18 MR. KEENER: Yes.
19 MR. LAMBERTON: Is this an empty
20 lot at present?
21 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: That's
22 correct.
23 MS. SINCAVAGE: I make a motion we
24 approve the Vrabec land development plan project
25 No. 2007-009. Waivers agreement of SALDO
32
1 Section 135-17(L) and Chapter 124-86B(17) and
2 the engineering review letter dated June 1 of
3 2007.
4 MS. PICKARD: I'll second the
5 motion.
6 MR. KERRICK: Motion and second on
7 the floor.
8 Questions or comments from the
9 board?
10 Questions or comments from the
11 public on the motion?
12 Call the vote.
13 Anne?
14 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
15 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
16 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
17 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
18 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
19 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
20 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
21 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
22 Motion carried.
23 MR. JUSTIN HOFFMAN: Thank you
24 very much.
25 MR. KERRICK: Next on our agenda,
33
1 McCardle land development storm water agreement.
2 MR. CHUCK NICLAUS: Good
3 afternoon. Chuck Niclaus from Niclaus
4 Engineering, Mike DeSandre.
5 MR. MICHAEL DeSANDRE: Hi.
6 MR. CHUCK NICLAUS: This is
7 actually a new land development plan, but it's
8 for the revision to an old land development plan
9 which is mostly built out. The changes for this
10 land development plan include: One, there was a
11 phasing schedule on the old land developing plan
12 and to construct the last building. We're
13 outside of that phase, so this reestablishes a
14 new phase which is the last storage building
15 shown on it.
16 The second goal of this plan is to
17 rectify a setback issue. The right-of-way was
18 incorrectly shown on the last land development
19 plan, putting the front setback, the existing
20 building in the front setback. A variance was
21 received from the zoning hearing board for that,
22 as well as a one foot side yard setback on one
23 of the storage buildings.
24 And the third object of the land
25 development plan was, it was all storage
34
1 buildings before and even though it was meant to
2 have an office, one of the storage buildings,
3 the one up in front, wasn't specifically called
4 out as an office and that is specifically called
5 out as that use, and the appropriate ADA parking
6 spaces supplied with that.
7 We have met the township
8 engineer's requirements. I don't believe
9 there's any outstanding issues. There is a
10 modification request, it's for the physical
11 features 500 feet away from the project. It was
12 a similar modification request that was granted
13 for the first plan. And that's pretty much it.
14 It's located on Route 115 on the left. As
15 you're leaving Blakeslee Corners you're going
16 north on 115, it would be on the left.
17 MR. LAMBERTON: There's a
18 reference here to the zoning hearing board.
19 MR. CHUCK NICLAUS: Correct. We
20 put that into the note, I believe 22 Sub-2. And
21 if you look at the last page, we actually took
22 the entire decision of the zoning hearing board
23 and scanned that onto the last page so the
24 entire record is shown.
25 MS. PICKARD: I have a note here
35
1 about the storm water management agreement and
2 deposit.
3 Was that from the first project?
4 MR. MICHAEL DESANDRE: Yes, ma'am.
5 MR. CHUCK NICLAUS: We had
6 executed --
7 MR. KEENER: What's the shelter in
8 the back of the property?
9 MR. CHUCK NICLAUS: That was
10 there.
11 MR. KERRICK: Any questions? Do I
12 entertain a motion? Anyone?
13 MS. PICKARD: I make a motion we
14 approve the Storage King McCardle/DeSandre
15 amended development plan Project 2007-004 with
16 SALDO waiver, SALDO sections 135-15A(15),
17 135-17(L) and (M), and to the satisfactory
18 execution of the storm water management
19 agreement and deposit.
20 MS. SINCAVAGE: I'll second the
21 motion.
22 MR. KERRICK: Motion and second on
23 the floor.
24 Any questions or comments?
25 Jamie, do you have a question?
36
1 MR. KEENER: No.
2 MR. KERRICK: Questions or
3 comments from the public on the motion?
4 Call the vote.
5 Anne?
6 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
7 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
8 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
9 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
10 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
11 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
12 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
13 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
14 Motion carried.
15 Thank you for your time,
16 gentlemen.
17 MR. CHUCK NICLAUS: Thank you.
18 MR. KERRICK: Anyone here
19 represent Creek View?
20 If you want -- I can make a
21 brief -- well, you can make it in your motion.
22 There was a land development plan
23 submitted to us --
24 MS. PICKARD: Minor subdivision.
25 MR. KERRICK: -- minor subdivision
37
1 entitled Creek View Estates Minor Subdivision.
2 And now it has new owners basically and they
3 want to continue on, but we have to deny this
4 plan so they can continue on.
5 MS. PICKARD: I'll make a motion
6 that we deny Project No. 2006-020 pursuant to
7 the engineer's review letter dated October 2,
8 2006 and the June 7, 2007 meeting.
9 MR. KERRICK: Motion. Do we have
10 a second?
11 MR. LAMBERTON: I'll second the
12 motion.
13 MR. KERRICK: Questions or
14 comments from the board?
15 From the public?
16 Call the vote.
17 Anne?
18 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
19 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
20 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
21 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
22 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
23 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
24 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
25 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
38
1 Motion carried.
2 Next on our agenda, Robert
3 Gallagher, waiver request for land development.
4 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Good
5 evening. Before I get started, I just
6 personally would like to thank your zoning
7 officer for her assistance and professionalism
8 in helping me and telling me how to prepare for
9 the evening. Thank you, Phyllis.
10 MS. HAASE: You're welcome.
11 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Does
12 everybody have a letter with them?
13 It's pretty well cut and dry, what
14 we're trying to do here. We're trying to
15 designate a smoking area. You know, smoking has
16 been so controversial over the years and it
17 seems to be getting more and more all the time
18 to the point now that it's economically
19 affecting us at the restaurant.
20 We can't keep everybody happy. So
21 we're telling our smoking friends that we still
22 love them but will have to go outside of the
23 building and smoke. So what we're doing is
24 we're taking approximately 600 square feet where
25 trees and shrubbery and so forth and so on,
39
1 right off the bar area, putting it right next to
2 the door there and putting (inaudible) slab,
3 approximately 600 square feet, and making that a
4 designated smoking area and only a designated
5 smoking area.
6 We talked to Guardian, they stated
7 that we didn't need a permit for this. They
8 gave us the go-ahead. I talked to Phyllis.
9 Phyllis said we had to do a land development
10 plan. And you all know a land development plan
11 is very costly and very time consuming, and
12 we're kind of behind the time already with this
13 designated smoking area. So I'm here tonight to
14 ask you for the waiver of that land development
15 plan.
16 I know many years ago I was on the
17 planning commission and we had recommended that
18 we change that square footage from 200 square
19 feet to a thousand square feet, and to the best
20 of my knowledge that was changed. Now,
21 somewhere along the road here we've gone
22 backwards. But again, I think you understand
23 the cost involved in doing such a -- you know,
24 encountering the land development plan and so
25 forth and so on.
40
1 So that's why we're here. We ask
2 you to waive that. If there's any questions,
3 I'll be glad to answer them. We do have a
4 little plot plan there that locates basically
5 where it is -- not basically, where it is.
6 There's the X. So it falls within the setbacks
7 and so forth and so on.
8 MR. LAMBERTON: How many parking
9 places have you removed?
10 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: None.
11 MR. LAMBERTON: None?
12 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: This --
13 actually, the trees extend a little bit further
14 here. And as you can see, there's a clear view
15 from this side. This is Robin's Lane here, this
16 is a clear view. So we don't impair any visual
17 left or right.
18 MS. SINCAVAGE: Do you plan on
19 having tables out there?
20 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: We'll
21 probably put a couple tables out there, a couple
22 chairs, only for the fact that they'll take
23 their beer with them occasionally and sit out
24 there. We want to make them feel like citizens;
25 so we may put a couple of tables, but we won't
41
1 be serving out there. There will be maybe 12
2 seats at best, sit down, have your cigarette.
3 They may take a beer out there, they may carry a
4 beer out there.
5 MR. KERRICK: What's the board's
6 pleasure?
7 Any questions?
8 MR. LAMBERTON: I'd like to
9 quantify this 200 square foot.
10 Is this part of our ordinance or
11 is it not?
12 MR. KAPELSOHN: 200 or 600?
13 MR. KERRICK: He's asking for 600.
14 MS. PICKARD: And we've had this
15 discussion. I don't know what question -- what
16 you missed about raising it and it is 200,
17 whether you talked about it and it never got
18 done.
19 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Well, we
20 recommended it to the supervisors. And I
21 thought it would have gotten -- I'm going back a
22 lot of years now so --
23 MS. PICKARD: We're talking about
24 changing it, that's been our discussion, but
25 it's going to take some time. Is there any way
42
1 that you can, you know, hold off and do --
2 because we have people right now that we are
3 making go through the land development process
4 right now in similar situations. So that puts
5 us in a little bit of a bind.
6 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Well, it
7 puts me in a bind as well. So that's -- I mean,
8 we have to -- you have to kind of look at things
9 in common sense sometimes, you know.
10 MR. KERRICK: Phyllis, do you have
11 any comments?
12 MS. HAASE: No, sir.
13 MS. PICKARD: The other -- when we
14 talked about this at a work session, if we did
15 raise that level, it would still need to go
16 through all the requirements that were done
17 through Phyllis and Bob. It just would not need
18 to go to the PC.
19 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Well, I
20 think in the past the waivers have been granted.
21 Now, I'm going back again, when I was on the
22 board. Do you know if that was ever taken up to
23 the thousand square feet?
24 MS. HAASE: That I can't answer.
25 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: You don't
43
1 have that record?
2 MS. HAASE: If the board did
3 increase the square footage, and I would say
4 that you would still have to meet requirements,
5 just not go through the process.
6 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Yeah, I
7 understand.
8 MR. KERRICK: What's the board's
9 pleasure?
10 Questions? Comments?
11 MR. KEENER: Just a couple of
12 comments. You're adding 600 square feet of
13 patio.
14 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Yeah.
15 MR. KEENER: Have you looked at
16 the required parking spaces that you would need
17 based on what you have now plus the additional
18 600 square feet?
19 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: We, of
20 course, we're up at a hundred and some cars now,
21 which is well over what the zoning ordinance is.
22 MR. KEENER: But again, I think
23 that's something that's going to be required for
24 you to prove or to show, that those spaces are
25 available.
44
1 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Probably in
2 the land development plan, yeah. I think
3 John -- Phyllis actually went out and looked at
4 the site, I believe. We've been there for
5 33 years. We've never had a problem in the past
6 33 years.
7 MR. KERRICK: I think what you
8 just stated before is, if you don't have to go
9 through the planning commission, you still have
10 to go through the required spaces; so you still
11 have to have a drawing of some sort to prove to
12 Bob McHale, the engineer, or Phyllis that you
13 meet those requirements, even though you don't
14 have to go to the PC and the board of
15 supervisors.
16 MS. PICKARD: What were some of
17 those requirements that's --
18 MS. HAASE: Would be parking,
19 lighting, storm water. I can give Mr. Gallagher
20 a copy of that section of the ordinance.
21 There's quite a few requirements. It's exactly
22 the same that an applicant would have to go
23 through when they're presenting plans to the
24 planning commission. That is the only
25 exception. If it was 200 square foot or less
45
1 and that applicant would come to my office, they
2 would still have to meet all the requirements,
3 they just wouldn't go through the process. The
4 difference is the gentleman's asking for
5 600 square feet instead of 2.
6 MS. SINCAVAGE: Phyllis, how many
7 situations has this happened to recently to
8 people that have come in and said I want to do
9 300 square feet, do I have to still go through
10 the land development process?
11 MS. HAASE: I can offhand think of
12 three in the last year.
13 MS. SINCAVAGE: So if we do this,
14 how many will be knocking down our door
15 tomorrow?
16 MS. HAASE: The only thing -- sure
17 it makes sense, but we're going to get ourselves
18 in trouble setting precedence for this
19 situation.
20 MS. PICKARD: Like I said, it's
21 our intention to raise it ASAP and that's -- I
22 think that's what we were all looking towards
23 after our work session.
24 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: When you
25 say ASAP, what's your --
46
1 MS. PICKARD: Send it off to the
2 county, we have to advertise.
3 MR. KERRICK: We actually have --
4 I'm sorry.
5 MS. PICKARD: Go ahead.
6 MR. KERRICK: We actually have a
7 draft that Manny and Bob worked on. I don't
8 know if you reviewed it awhile back when we were
9 going to raise it from 200. I didn't recall it,
10 Manny just reminded me.
11 MR. KAPELSOHN: We drafted
12 something called a -- I think a minor land
13 development provision that would allow things
14 such as this without going through the whole
15 land development process. I forget if it was
16 simply by presentation to the township engineer
17 and zoning officer or whether it was
18 presentation directly to the board without going
19 to the zoning board first; but this was a year
20 and a half, two years ago that we came up with
21 the draft of this, but it never went anywhere.
22 MR. KERRICK: So I think what Mr.
23 Gallagher's asking, if we were to start on it
24 today, what's our timetable, two months, three
25 months, until it goes through the process?
47
1 MR. KAPELSOHN: Probably two
2 months if we move fast because you'd have to
3 send it to the county first --
4 MS. PICKARD: County and PC, we
5 can do those simultaneously.
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: Right. So I think
7 we wouldn't get it done by the August meeting
8 but you could get it done perhaps by the
9 September meeting.
10 MR. KERRICK: Well, if we already
11 have one drafted, why don't we send it to the PC
12 and look at it again and then send it out for
13 some review? I know that's not what you want --
14 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: No, no --
15 MR. KERRICK: -- but it appears
16 that's the best that you're going to get.
17 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Yeah, you
18 know, because summer's here and -- or actually
19 people walk out of the building, they'll smoke
20 and they'll walk right out. We have extremes
21 one side and the other side, so economically
22 this hurts. So maybe I'll just put a grass
23 patio out there until we approve.
24 MR. KEENER: That's what they're
25 doing now.
48
1 MR. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Yeah, but I
2 thought I'll do it the right way.
3 All right, thanks.
4 MR. KERRICK: Thank you, Mr.
5 Gallagher.
6 Next on our agenda, Keswick Pointe
7 PRD.
8 Is Mr. Hannig here today?
9 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Mr. Hannig is
10 here today, what's left of him. I have as one
11 of my to-dos a check for $260. I don't know who
12 collects the money but --
13 MR. KERRICK: None us of us here
14 but we'll make sure it gets to the right spot.
15 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: -- who would
16 be kind enough to see that Bob McHale gets a
17 copy of that check.
18 The check I just tendered is for
19 $260 which is the final installment. I had
20 already deposited $20,000 as our fair share
21 contribution for design effects down the road
22 potentially for Route 115 and 940 by virtue of
23 the impact of the quantifying of our project on
24 that intersection. That's one of the to-dos on
25 our list.
49
1 Tonight we're before you, and I
2 just want to give you an update, and an update
3 may have been interrupted by furloughs, but I
4 understand that until this morning DEP and
5 PennDOT were working on our approvals; so I have
6 no idea as to what to tell you now but PennDOT
7 we did receive back some comments.
8 This is the secondary view and
9 that was issued, I believe, on July 6 and I know
10 that the township engineer's got copies, and I
11 think all of you may have received yours by now.
12 Some of those comments have already been
13 answered in a resubmittal, but I haven't sorted
14 through which may be the new comments.
15 With regard to DEP on the water
16 permitting side for central water system, we had
17 comments come back several weeks ago; one of the
18 major things was our business plan for water
19 system which we had tendered to them and we went
20 back in for resubmittal. We have not had
21 further comments from the DEP in the last few
22 weeks. We think that may be good news, so we're
23 moving forward with that.
24 With regard to DEP and the MPDS
25 permit we have just received and are responding
50
1 to soil analysis of some 20 test pits we did
2 throughout the project for permeability, and
3 this is one of the BMPs that was kind of floated
4 out while we were in the midst of our approval
5 process, that everybody had to kind of back up
6 and redo. And most of the folks that are in
7 this business know how that's affecting all the
8 plans when you're 99 percent of the finish line.
9 So that is in the works right now.
10 Again, our engineering firm is
11 going to submit it probably within seven to ten
12 days of today, and it's only put off that long
13 because they're supposed to go to, I guess,
14 (inaudible) that they're having for the
15 engineering firm's relative to the BMPs -- DEP,
16 which may be deferred if they're all on furlough
17 this week. So maybe that will get submitted
18 sooner but nobody will open the mail.
19 I make light of this. I guess
20 it's a pretty important thing for all of us, we
21 just don't realize how many lives it's going to
22 touch.
23 To that end, all of our permits
24 are working. We have a few other miscellaneous
25 things that we continue to clean up and revise.
51
1 The $260 that I said we tendered tonight, that
2 rounded it up to the 20,260 that's required for
3 that intersection contribution. We had tendered
4 and purchased our EDUs for $680,000. That was,
5 of course, sent to the township and received.
6 There's a question as to adding to
7 some of our notations with PennDOT relative to
8 some paint line changing in the impact on 115
9 and 940, and I believe this is in the westbound
10 turning lane entering into that intersection
11 which would -- the paving is already there, so
12 it's really repainting to put the cuing area up
13 from 115 to 165 and that was the comment that
14 the Bob had made.
15 Upon a closer inspection, we think
16 it may already be 165 and may have been in error
17 that we reported that it was 115; but either way
18 we'll make it to 165 that is required, but there
19 seems to be a question relative to that.
20 With regard to the developer's
21 agreement, I did receive a copy of that and I've
22 made some comments and sent them back to Mr.
23 Kapelsohn and along to Bob McHale. And I think
24 that, for the most part, all of those items that
25 I read and reviewed we had no particular problem
52
1 with; one or two little words in there that I
2 thought would help the cause, you know, an as or
3 is there that would change the meaning
4 substantially.
5 But we've agreed to revisit our
6 traffic counts at about a 50 percent build-out
7 just to see if we were on track. And I have no
8 problem with that; but as you can see, in the
9 language it was to determine when a traffic
10 signal may be required, as opposed to if and
11 when a traffic signal may be required.
12 Our studies now indicate that one
13 is not warranted and we tend to think that our
14 numbers were conservative; therefore the further
15 we go into our development we think we'll gain
16 over that conservatism, but if we don't we're
17 prepared to deal with it. And Bob has agreed
18 that approximately 50 percent build-out would be
19 the appropriate time to revisit and see if we're
20 on track and do a traffic count and see if our
21 projections were correct.
22 With regard to any of the other
23 items in the agreement -- if you just give me a
24 second here, I'll pull it out. We have also
25 tendered estimates, I should say refreshed
53
1 estimates, for all the work to be done in each
2 of the various sections. We've also tendered
3 estimates for the PennDOT work to be done on
4 115.
5 Relative to other comments on the
6 developer's agreement, was just a question about
7 some of the maintenance fees in there; but from
8 what I understand, from looking at other fee
9 structures that I've since seen and heard, I
10 understand the gravity of those amounts so
11 that's not important at this time. I think I
12 know what those are.
13 There was a question, my notes
14 was that it was the $260 and in this agreement
15 it looks like it was 320. So, I mean, I know
16 we're within a few bucks of that guarantee, but
17 I just want to make sure that we have an
18 accurate number there. If it's required I think
19 I can manage to find another $50 somewhere or
20 whatever it is.
21 MR. KAPELSOHN: $60.
22 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: $60.
23 MR. KAPELSOHN: You can do that
24 too.
25 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Well, let's
54
1 not press our luck here. The one question I did
2 have relative to understanding -- and maybe
3 someone would be kind enough to send me a copy
4 of Ordinance 382, which, I don't believe, is
5 available online -- or is it? Are all your
6 ordinances online like 382?
7 MR. KERRICK: Mm-hmm.
8 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Well, I guess
9 I was trying to understand what the assessment
10 fee was versus the EDU. Is that something
11 that's easily explainable or should I read the
12 ordinance?
13 MR. KAPELSOHN: The assessment fee
14 is different from EDUs. Let me take a crack at
15 explaining this and if someone else wants to
16 jump in go ahead.
17 When the sewer system was first
18 put in, landowners along it were each charged an
19 assessment fee, which is a portion of the cost
20 involved. That assessment fee is separate from
21 the EDUs which need to be purchased at the time
22 that you're going to actually be using the sewer
23 system and separate from the tapping fee; is
24 that correct?
25 MR. KERRICK: Correct.
55
1 MR. KAPELSOHN: So there are three
2 separate fees. Now, if somebody had, for
3 instance, an undeveloped piece of property, they
4 wouldn't be paying a tapping fee until they
5 actually tapped in. If someone were building a
6 business on that piece of property, they may
7 need to purchase more than one EDU or a multiple
8 dwelling or something like that.
9 So the assessment is an initial
10 charge that people pay and the EDUs were
11 purchased as-needed and a tapping fee for
12 tapping in; so they're three separate charges.
13 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Well, there's
14 a user fee.
15 MR. KAPELSOHN: There's a tapping
16 fee --
17 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: The tapping
18 fee is synonymous with an EDU. Per your
19 ordinance they're synonymous. The tapping fee
20 is the EDU, according to your ordinance anyway,
21 that's what it said in there. And I was trying
22 to understand the assessment because it almost
23 seemed like we had two pockets in the same pair
24 of pants.
25 But, you know, I was just trying
56
1 to understand if there was a differential
2 between the two because it seems like you're
3 paying twice for the capital contribution. I'm
4 just trying to understand it better. Maybe if I
5 read the ordinance --
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: Let me take a look
7 at it and see.
8 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: I read the
9 one about the tapping fee, but the other one
10 wasn't -- in the ordinance that I read referred
11 me to that ordinance, but I couldn't find it
12 online.
13 That was the only question I had
14 relative to the entire developer's agreement
15 which -- the only other question I had, I guess,
16 was relative to blasting, and I brought the
17 issue up about we may be doing some minor
18 blasting like a rock and a trench. And there
19 was a paragraph in here requiring us ten days
20 ahead of time or within so many days to
21 advertise in the Pocono Record, which seemed a
22 little bit, you know, onerous, especially if it
23 wasn't anywhere near adjoining property or, you
24 know, any type of a blast that would put anyone
25 at risk.
57
1 The notice to adjoining people,
2 within so many feet and all, that I have no
3 problem with; but just advertising in the
4 newspaper for routine type things seemed a bit
5 onerous. We're not going to do a quarry here.
6 MR. KAPELSOHN: We still need to
7 finalize a lot of small details in the
8 developer's agreement, so I think that's
9 something that we can discuss.
10 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: That's pretty
11 much the whole thing. Out of a 30-some page
12 document, which I understand is a draft, we
13 pretty much are all done.
14 With that, that concludes my
15 comments. I'm hoping that we're close enough
16 that, subject to a list that I think that I
17 reviewed with Bob on occasion -- and I think Mr.
18 Kapelsohn kind of knows where we are on the road
19 map. And we understand that there's a number of
20 outside issues that need to be addressed
21 including signing this agreement and delivering
22 letters of credit. But the closer we get to
23 distilling this, the easier it will be for me to
24 deliver the letters of credit and other things
25 that have to be taken care of so --
58
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 (Brief recess was taken.)
3 MR. KERRICK: Mr. Hannig, I think
4 we're at the point we're looking to do a
5 conditional approval on the PRD. If Manny has
6 some language in here for a motion, we'll give
7 him a shot at it and see what you think.
8 MR. KAPELSOHN: I would just
9 comment first that we have, as Mr. Hannig points
10 out, worked through the language of the
11 developer's agreement, which is a very lengthy
12 document. Township engineer Bob McHale has
13 worked extensively on it, I worked on it, we've
14 all gone back and forth with comments back and
15 forth. The few things that remain to be
16 clarified in terms of language are minor things
17 and are formalities.
18 Similarly with the declaration of
19 protective covenants and easements, I've
20 reviewed it, we've got a few little words here
21 and there that Mr. Hannig has suggested be
22 changed, but these are formalities.
23 I had a few questions or concerns
24 about the agreement that Mr. Hannig provided,
25 that is between his company and S.I.D.E.
59
1 Corporation for maintenance of Maple Road, but
2 the township engineer and I both think that
3 these things can -- the concern can easily be
4 resolved in the developer's agreement itself.
5 And similarly the township
6 engineer sent out an e-mail. A copy I have is
7 dated today's date of 5:15 p.m. to Phyllis Haase
8 and others, listing certain outstanding items.
9 And the engineer and I both went over this list
10 in detail several times this afternoon. We
11 agree that these are in the nature of
12 formalities rather than substantive issues that
13 are unresolved.
14 That being the case, I would
15 suggest that the board consider a resolution
16 more or less in this language. And you may have
17 additional conditions you want to add, but
18 here's what I've jotted down, based on all of
19 these things collectively.
20 Resolve that the application for
21 approval of the Keswick Pointe PRD Phase 1 be
22 approved subject to the following conditions:
23 One, that the developers' receipt of the
24 outstanding PennDOT DEP water and MPDES permits;
25 two, the developer providing the appropriate
60
1 letters of credit as required by the township;
2 three, the developer satisfying the items listed
3 in the township engineer's e-mail of today's
4 date; four, the execution of a developer's
5 agreement in a form acceptable to the township
6 solicitor; five, the satisfaction of any
7 remaining administrative details and
8 requirements; and anything else that the board
9 may wish to add to that.
10 But I believe that language would
11 encompass all of the things that we discussed
12 and that the township engineer has raised and
13 all of these things are in the nature of
14 formalities. I think a conditional approval can
15 easily be granted with those conditions.
16 MR. KERRICK: Give it a resolution
17 number. It would be 2007-015.
18 MS. PICKARD: I'll make a motion
19 we approve Resolution 2007-015.
20 MR. KERRICK: Motion on the floor.
21 Do we have a second?
22 MR. LAMBERTON: I'll second the
23 motion.
24 MR. KERRICK: Questions or
25 comments from the board? Anne, Jamie, anyone?
61
1 Anyone from the public, comments?
2 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I was
3 wondering if, have you seen the paper lately?
4 MR. LAMBERTON: Is this in
5 reference to this?
6 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Yeah, this is
7 in reference to this. I mean, why we're so
8 intent on putting 300 and -- how many houses in
9 here?
10 MR. KERRICK: I'm not sure off the
11 top of my head.
12 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: 170.
13 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I thought it
14 was 300 and --
15 MR. KERRICK: No, 170.
16 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I'm pretty
17 sure it was 300 when I was attending the
18 meeting. Anyway, according to this, there are
19 right now, in Tobyhanna Township, 376 unsold
20 houses they're trying to sell. And the number
21 sold was 28 last year. And you tell me why
22 we're so intent on putting more houses in.
23 MR. KERRICK: That would be up to
24 Mr. Hannig, if that's what he chooses to do.
25 MS. PICKARD: It's a risk whether
62
1 he sells or not.
2 MR. KERRICK: That's his risk, not
3 our risk.
4 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I mean --
5 MR. KERRICK: Do you care to
6 comment, Mr. Hannig?
7 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: We have our
8 work cut out for us.
9 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Are these
10 going to be subprime mortgages or --
11 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: No, we don't
12 do subprime mortgages.
13 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, who
14 does?
15 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: I don't know.
16 I don't refer people to --
17 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I mean, I
18 live right next door to where the paper said
19 they were expecting -- about 1300 they expected
20 in Monroe County this year. Subprime mortgages
21 going to collapse. Who's getting stuck with
22 that bill? Do you have any idea?
23 MR. KERRICK: The bill for what?
24 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: For the
25 collapsed mortgages.
63
1 MR. KERRICK: I can't answer that
2 and that has nothing to do with Keswick Pointe,
3 Mr. Sopack. If you want to address that, I'll
4 give you a place down in the agenda, a little
5 further down.
6 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, yeah, I
7 would like to address that.
8 MR. KERRICK: Okay.
9 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: I can tell
10 you, if it makes you feel any better, I've been
11 in business for the last 40 years.
12 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Yeah.
13 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: I'm a realtor
14 and a builder and developer and I've never had
15 anyone who was our customer ever default,
16 because I don't sell something to somebody that
17 they can't afford. That's the bottom line.
18 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: And have you
19 seen the paper where we had a nice killing in
20 our neighborhood here?
21 MR. KERRICK: Mr. Sopack, we will
22 get to that.
23 Any other questions or comments?
24 MS. SABRINA SIMMS: Just wondering
25 where this was going. I heard him talk about
64
1 940 and 115.
2 MR. KERRICK: It's 115 south.
3 It's now called Water Street, by the sewer plant
4 would be the entrance and it continues up to Old
5 Farm Estates.
6 MS. SABRINA SIMMS: I see the
7 trucks there. Okay. Thank you.
8 MR. KERRICK: Any other questions?
9 Mr. Schurr?
10 MR. FREDERICK SCHURR: Fred
11 Schurr, Camelot. I'd like to know if these
12 hundred and seventy units, are they going to be
13 individually hooked up to the sewer?
14 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Yes.
15 MR. FREDERICK SCHURR: They are?
16 And they're paying the full price?
17 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: They -- I
18 just testified earlier this evening we've
19 already paid.
20 MR. KERRICK: Any other questions?
21 Call the vote.
22 Anne?
23 MS. SINCAVAGE: I abstain.
24 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
25 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
65
1 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
2 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
3 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
4 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
5 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
6 Motion carried.
7 MS. PICKARD: We're going to miss
8 you.
9 MR. KERRICK: Are you going to
10 stop by and visit once in a while?
11 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: I appreciate
12 your vote of confidence. And more importantly I
13 do want to comment that considering our 30 page
14 developer's agreement that was drafted by the
15 township, it pretty much nailed everything and
16 commemorated all of our discussions for quite a
17 lengthy period of time; but it was well done
18 and, you know, didn't make me feel like I was
19 bamboozled or, you know -- it was right on the
20 money and I want to comment and thank both Bob
21 and Mr. Kapelsohn for having taken the time to
22 commemorate that so well. It's not often the
23 development agreements are that benevolent.
24 MR. KAPELSOHN: I'd like to
25 comment that Bob McHale did the lion's share of
66
1 that work and it's a very substantial piece of
2 work which will be usable not only for Keswick
3 Pointe but as a model, a template developer's
4 agreement.
5 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: It's a fair
6 one for developers and it asks exactly what you
7 need to ask. It's very specific and I didn't
8 have any questions after reading it. So I
9 figured it ought to be pretty good if I don't
10 have any questions, except for those little
11 ones. So thank you.
12 MR. KERRICK: Thank you.
13 Next on our agenda, the motion to
14 appoint Jamie Keener to our code enforcement
15 program.
16 MS. PICKARD: So moved.
17 MR. LAMBERTON: Second.
18 MR. KERRICK: Questions or
19 comments from the board?
20 Questions or comments from the
21 public on the motion?
22 Anne?
23 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in the favor.
24 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
25 MR. KEENER: I'll abstain.
67
1 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
2 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
3 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
4 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
5 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
6 Motion carried.
7 Next on our agenda, Pocono
8 Mountain Regional Police Commission. We have a
9 motion to appoint Anne Sincavage.
10 MS. PICKARD: So moved.
11 MR. LAMBERTON: Second.
12 MR. KERRICK: Any questions or
13 comments from the public on the motion?
14 Call the vote.
15 Anne?
16 MS. SINCAVAGE: I abstain.
17 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
18 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
19 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
20 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
21 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
22 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
23 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
24 Motion carried.
25 Next on our agenda, it's a little
68
1 bit out of order, but I didn't realize that we
2 needed a resolution. Resolution 2007-014,
3 Firehouse Road speed limit reducing from
4 35 miles per hour to 25.
5 MS. PICKARD: Make a motion we
6 approve Resolution No. 2007-014.
7 MS. SINCAVAGE: I'll second the
8 motion.
9 MR. KERRICK: Motion and second.
10 Questions or comments from the
11 public?
12 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Who's gonna
13 enforce that 25 miles?
14 MR. KERRICK: Who?
15 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Who.
16 MR. KERRICK: Pocono Mountain
17 Regional Police.
18 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, why
19 aren't they enforcing it on my street?
20 MR. KERRICK: I can't answer that,
21 sir.
22 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: They're not
23 enforcing it on my street. Why do you want to
24 bother putting some more up? We got a regular
25 raceway coming up and down from the firehouse
69
1 all the way down to the Salvation Army.
2 MR. KERRICK: The last time you
3 spoke with me you said everything was fine.
4 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I did? Well,
5 it's not. We're right back to the speedway
6 again. I'm wondering if we're gonna get any
7 police over there to enforce it.
8 MR. KERRICK: I'll pass it along
9 to our police chief and see what he can do.
10 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I would
11 appreciate that, if you could do something about
12 it.
13 MR. KERRICK: I will, tomorrow
14 evening.
15 Any other questions or comments?
16 Call the vote.
17 Anne?
18 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
19 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
20 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
21 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
22 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
23 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
24 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
25 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
70
1 Motion carried.
2 Next on our agenda, personnel
3 policy.
4 MS. PICKARD: We had gotten
5 changes from our --
6 MR. KERRICK: Labor attorney --
7 MS. PICKARD: -- labor attorney,
8 thank you -- and we had to incorporate some of
9 those changes. The other changes we really just
10 went through and put township secretary,
11 township manager and removed names of employees
12 who are not here any longer. So just updating
13 it to make sure that we're in compliance.
14 MR. KERRICK: I'll entertain a
15 motion to approve.
16 MS. SINCAVAGE: So moved.
17 MS. PICKARD: I'll second the
18 motion.
19 MR. KERRICK: Questions or
20 comments from the public?
21 Call the vote.
22 Anne?
23 MS. SINCAVAGE: Vote in favor.
24 MR. KERRICK: Jamie?
25 MR. KEENER: I vote in favor.
71
1 MR. KERRICK: Hugh?
2 MR. LAMBERTON: I vote in favor.
3 MR. KERRICK: Heidi?
4 MS. PICKARD: I vote in favor.
5 MR. KERRICK: I vote in favor.
6 Motion carried.
7 Do you have anything?
8 MR. KAPELSOHN: No.
9 MR. KERRICK: Does the board have
10 anything?
11 At this time I would like to open
12 the floor up to the public.
13 Sue? Ms. Snell, excuse me.
14 MS. SUSAN SNELL: What happened to
15 B? Did you vote on that or did the planning
16 commission?
17 MR. KERRICK: We tabled that, so I
18 jumped over. I apologize, I should have
19 announced it.
20 MS. SUSAN SNELL: Okay. My second
21 question is, you're removing the name of
22 managers, how is your manager search going?
23 MR. KERRICK: To be honest with
24 you, we haven't -- we've been kind of tied up
25 with some other things and we really haven't
72
1 done anything. It's kind of status quo, the way
2 we're going now. We're not saying we're not
3 going to look for a manager, but we just haven't
4 done anything actively for the past two months,
5 to be honest.
6 MS. SUSAN SNELL: And we've been
7 managing without a manager for eight months?
8 MR. KERRICK: Six months.
9 MS. SUSAN SNELL: Six months?
10 MR. KERRICK: Six months.
11 MS. SUSAN SNELL: Is it a
12 possibility you'll eliminate the position?
13 MR. KERRICK: I would say no, but
14 that's only my opinion.
15 MS. SUSAN SNELL: Thank you.
16 MR. KERRICK: It takes a lot of
17 time for myself and Heidi that we don't have.
18 Any other questions?
19 Mr. Sopack? I know you must have
20 at least one, possibly two.
21 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, if you
22 bother reading the paper yourself --
23 MR. KERRICK: I've read it, sir.
24 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: -- here we
25 have all these houses in probably half the
73
1 township -- I'm not talking about the whole
2 county -- there are 20 -- 18 of them sold this
3 year and there are 376 active, unsold.
4 MR. LAMBERTON: Mr. Sopack, you're
5 saying 18 houses were sold in a year, in this
6 township? That's just not true.
7 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: No, I'm not
8 saying -- read that. And then we have this
9 little jewel of an item here in Pocono Summit.
10 Do you see that?
11 MR. KERRICK: Yes, sir.
12 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, we've
13 got a lot of those jokers coming in our
14 neighborhood by me. I mean, my wife has
15 considered -- after a hundred years I've
16 considered of putting a fence around my woods
17 because some cloud of smoke --
18 MR. LAMBERTON: Mr. Sopack, that
19 18 is for the month of May, not the year. May.
20 Yeah, look up top.
21 MR. KEENER: It's comparing May of
22 2000 with May of -- or 2007 with May of 2006.
23 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Okay, so May.
24 So still 18 sold and there's 376 not sold. And
25 then we have this business here about what's
74
1 moving into these houses. This house they
2 expect to find a --
3 MR. KERRICK: I don't know whether
4 that has anything to do with the board of
5 supervisors, Mr. Sopack.
6 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, what
7 I'm trying to get you to see is, about cutting
8 down the number of houses being built. I
9 mean --
10 MR. KERRICK: If they meet the
11 requirements -- if a person owns a piece of
12 property and meets the requirements, we can't
13 stop them. We have SALDO, we have zoning. If
14 they meet all the requirements, you can't vote
15 no.
16 How would you feel if you owned a
17 piece of property and you met all the
18 requirements and we voted no because we didn't
19 want any more homes? You don't have the right
20 to develop your property same as everyone else?
21 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Does he live
22 here in this township? Of course not.
23 MR. KERRICK: I don't know where
24 he lives, sir.
25 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: They grab the
75
1 money and then they run and we're stuck with it.
2 That's what I'm complaining about. There's
3 nothing --
4 MR. KERRICK: That's your opinion,
5 sir.
6 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Nothing can
7 be done. I mean, you ever hear the way they
8 grab knives -- kids knifing people to death and
9 everything else going on around here? And --
10 MR. KERRICK: Unfortunately,
11 that's why we have a police department and
12 that's their job. I don't know how that has
13 anything to do with the board of supervisors.
14 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, I'm
15 asking you to try to cut down on the number of
16 houses being built in the township. That's all
17 I'm asking.
18 MR. KERRICK: Thank you.
19 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Thank you was
20 right. Yeah, like I said, you're talking about
21 putting a 25 mile limit in, we've got one a long
22 time on our --
23 MR. KERRICK: We took care of
24 that. I'll take care of that with the chief
25 tomorrow night and see if we can get some
76
1 enforcement on your street.
2 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: Well, I'd
3 like to see some enforcement over there once in
4 a while.
5 MR. KERRICK: Next question, you
6 must have another one.
7 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: No, I'm
8 wasting my time.
9 MR. KERRICK: You're not wasting
10 your time, you're voicing your opinion.
11 MR. LAMBERTON: Mr. Sopack, we
12 installed two stop signs along that street.
13 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: They're no
14 good. They come from the Salvation Army all the
15 way down across the railroad tracks, all the way
16 up there near the firehouse when you have two
17 stop signs right up there.
18 MS. PICKARD: Well, the rail
19 railroad tracks is Coolbaugh and the Salvation
20 Army, that's Coolbaugh Township.
21 MR. MICHAEL SOPACK: I know the
22 township, but they've got a wide open run all
23 the way up to there within two blocks from the
24 firehouse. And there's where the two stop signs
25 are, one block and the other block. You know
77
1 what a good part of it is, there's a chain link
2 fence that Triple A's got that fenced off where
3 nobody could cross over that anyway. That's
4 where your stop signs are. And down my way
5 where I got those woods