Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Monday, August 6, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I call the
2 regularly scheduled meeting of the Tobyhanna
3 Township Planning Commission to order for Monday
4 August 6, 2007.
5 First order of business is the
6 approval of the July 12th, 2007 minutes.
7 MR. MILLER: I make a motion we
8 approve the minutes.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
11 second. All those in favor, please say aye.
12 MR. MILLER: Aye.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
15 Any public comments on any
16 general items?
17 We'll move on to Austin James
18 first.
19 MR. MORRIS: I'm Roger Morris,
20 Vice-President of Bue-Morris Associates standing in
21 for my boss and spouse, Sarah. She had surgery on
22 Friday and is going a little slow today, but she's
23 okay.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Tell her we wish
25 her our best.
3
1 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. Anybody
2 need an update on Kurt's proposal? This is for the
3 office building that he has right over here down
4 the street from the Wee-Wons on 423, where he's
5 proposing a garage to store equipment and a small
6 addition to his existing office structure.
7 We received Bob's response
8 letter from our last submittal, I don't know,
9 around 11 a.m. on Friday. Just haven't had a
10 chance to address those items. However, the only
11 one that I need to get something from anybody else
12 is the fire hydrant details. And I wondered, Bob,
13 if the one we used for Venezia, if that detail
14 would suffice or you want to make sure it does with
15 the fire chief?
16 MR. McHALE: Yes. You better
17 run it by them, just because you're proposing a
18 small storage tank and it's a dry hydrant that's
19 attached to an enclosed structure; as long as
20 Guardian and the fire chief are okay with it.
21 MR. MORRIS: Yes. In order to
22 meet the minimum gallonage requirement for this
23 facility, he had to add storage capacity. And he's
24 proposing an underground tank, 3,000 gallon
25 underground tank with a dry hydrant. And Bob's
4
1 comment was for us to check with the fire chief.
2 If he has the specs or details on it, to use that.
3 I'm just saying we do have specs and details on all
4 kinds of hydrants.
5 MR. McHALE: I have their five
6 inch storage connection and then they have the
7 other two connections.
8 MR. MORRIS: Just make sure with
9 him and we'll slap it on the sheet and then show
10 him and Guardian. Is that correct?
11 The other items -- or do you
12 want to go through them, Bob?
13 MR. McHALE: There really wasn't
14 anything else that I can think of other than how
15 are you doing on your PennDOT permit?
16 MR. MORRIS: We had to get from
17 the surveyor some distances, bearings and
18 distances. That held us up on that, but we have
19 that now and I do understand that PennDOT, if it
20 hasn't been formally done, is intending to -- I
21 believe the township's requested a lower speed
22 limit in that section of the road.
23 MR. McHALE: It's been approved
24 to do that, it's just a matter of changing out the
25 signage. And PennDOT is looking to assist us in
5
1 that.
2 MR. MORRIS: Okay. And in that
3 regard, we do not, standing here at this moment,
4 have the easements from I believe Brandon Carroll.
5 But we were assured that that's no issue at all.
6 MR. McHALE: When you reduce the
7 speed limit, it's going to affect your sight
8 distance positively, I would think.
9 MR. MORRIS: Positively, yes.
10 So that's really -- these other things are, you
11 know, the signatures and all. Of course, that's
12 customary. We do that at the plan approval, put
13 the seals and signatures on the plans. We've not
14 had good luck with signing and sealing documents
15 that were not final approval. They got in the
16 contractors hands and they started using them
17 because it was signed and sealed, and so we try not
18 do that until we have actual final approval.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're
20 requesting two waivers? Just two?
21 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Number 1,
22 under B-1 and of course number 2, I believe that's
23 only two, Bob.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like
25 SALDO Section 135-15.A.
6
1 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: And SALDO
3 Section 135-17.
4 MR. MORRIS: Correct.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: L and M.
6 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: The one above
8 that was 135.
9 MR. MORRIS: 15.A.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: 15.A, Subjection
11 15.
12 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob is
14 recommending approval based on your meeting these
15 few requirements?
16 MR. MORRIS: Right.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: And you're in
18 agreement to comply with everything that Mr. McHale
19 has requested?
20 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any questions
22 from the public?
23 Any questions from the members
24 of the board? What is the pleasure of the board?
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move, subject
7
1 to the letter of August 3rd from the engineer, and
2 their compliance with it.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
4 Do I have a second to the motion?
5 MR. MILLER: Second that.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
7 second. Any further discussion? All those in
8 favor please say aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: The commission
13 is also agreeable with the two waivers he's
14 requesting?
15 MR. MILLER: Do we need a motion
16 on that?
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: I just left it
18 as part of the letter.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Dunkin Donuts.
21 Anyone here representing Dunkin Donuts?
22 MR. McHALE: I received an email
23 from Doug Olmstead and he's requesting that it be
24 tabled for this evening.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: They received
8
1 your letter of July 26th, Bob?
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like we
3 have a revised time extension from -- Dunkin Donuts
4 is the same as Blakeslee Donuts?
5 MS. HAASE: Yes.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll ask the
8 staff to correct the name on our agenda so we are
9 addressing the project properly. It's Blakeslee
10 Donuts. They asked to be tabled.
11 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
12 to table.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
15 second. Any further discussion? All those in
16 favor please say aye.
17 MR. MILLER: Aye.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
20 Creek View Estates. Anyone here
21 representing Creek View Estates.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: We do have a
23 recent time extension from them. I believe they
24 probably will not be coming tonight because they
25 had submitted a proposed declaration of covenants
9
1 that was not acceptable. And our office is
2 actually in the process of revising that.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any questions
4 from the board?
5 I think we received the email on
6 that. Motion to table?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, no. Has
8 that been accepted?
9 MR. McHALE: No, it wasn't
10 deemed to be a complete application for several
11 reasons. So that --
12 MR. MILLER: If it's not
13 complete, then we don't --
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. They are
15 not here, so we don't necessarily need to make any
16 kind of --
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: We don't need to
18 table?
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: We have a time
20 waiver.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We don't
22 take any motions then.
23 Open projects. Wee-Wons Day
24 Care. Anything on Wee-Wons?
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Wee-Wons. We
10
1 have an open extension pursuant to the prior
2 township time extension waivers. Wee-Wons was also
3 one of those matters that have been pending for
4 some time. I had correspondence with the counsel
5 for the applicant, and as you are aware, Wee-Wons
6 had to go before the zoning hearing board, which
7 it's their position that's why it hasn't been
8 before you now for the past couple of months. Now
9 that they have gotten the zoning hearing board
10 conditional approval, they apparently will be
11 submitting revised plans or correspondence to the
12 planning commission in the near future.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: But their time
14 waiver is fine?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Do we
17 need to take action on that?
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: You can table
19 it.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion to table
21 Wee-Wons.
22 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
23 to table Wee-Wons Day Care expansion.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
11
1 second. All those in favor please say aye.
2 MR. MILLER: Aye.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
5 Locust Ridge Quarry. No one
6 representing them. Did you send them a letter?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I have not
8 received a response from them. Our letter
9 indicated that since we did not receive any
10 revised -- or plans, that the planning commission
11 would take action I believe in September.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Yes. I
13 do recall that.
14 MR. MILLER: So we'll table.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes.
16 MR. MILLER: I make a motion to
17 table.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Question. We
19 didn't get a response from them, why should we
20 bother tabling it?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: I may have
22 gotten a response, but it was my impression that he
23 was going to submit some correspondence indicating
24 what the status is of the project. I think they
25 were also before the -- were they also before the
12
1 zoning hearing board?
2 MR. McHALE: They did earlier on
3 in the project.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: We told them we
5 would take action on it in September.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
8 favor please say aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
12 Glorious Church. Anyone here
13 representing Glorious Church?
14 Do you have any correspondence
15 from them?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: We also
17 forwarded them a similar letter with respect to the
18 fact that the plan has been pending for some time.
19 This is not only a land development plan, but also
20 a conditional use application. So they are
21 basically tied together, so to speak. When one
22 happens, the other will occur. We are still
23 waiting to hear the status of their pending plans.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: They were also
25 given until September?
13
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, they were
2 not.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's a little
4 different.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. It's a
6 little different because there is a conditional use
7 involved and it needs to be scheduled.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need a motion
9 to table.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
11 MR. MILLER: Which one, the land
12 development or the conditional use?
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Can we do both
14 of them?
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's do it
16 separate.
17 MR. MILLER: The land
18 development?
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes.
20 MR. MILLER: I'll second that.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
22 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
23 MR. MILLER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
14
1 Okay. The Glorious Church
2 conditional use application.
3 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
4 we table that.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second to the
6 motion?
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
9 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
10 MR. MILLER: Aye.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
13 Pyramid Network Services.
14 Anyone here representing Pyramid?
15 Any correspondence from them?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like we
17 have a revised time extension from the applicant.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Time extension
19 to --
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: To October 22nd.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: We don't need
22 action on that?
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Nope.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Glacial
25 Till Company. We have a letter of request dated
15
1 August 1st, 2007, requesting that they table it.
2 And they also will sign the waiver to the time
3 requirement until the 30th of October 2007.
4 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
5 we table Glacial Till.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
8 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
12 Lands of Elaine Brockett.
13 Anyone here representing Elaine Brockett? Hearing
14 none, do you have any correspondence?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: No, I do not.
16 It looks like the time period for Elaine Brockett
17 is September 6, 2007.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: We don't need
19 any action.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: What the
21 township will be doing is getting an extension from
22 them because I believe next month's planning
23 commission meeting is September 6th -- and the date
24 for action by the board of supervisors. So there
25 will be a need for an extension from them.
16
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: You will take
2 care of that?
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Shikhman Medical
5 Office.
6 MR. McHALE: Roger indicated
7 before he left that there wasn't anything to
8 discuss on Shikhman.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: How are we with
10 time?
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Shikhman, I
12 believe they just submitted another time extension
13 to run through October 22nd.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
15 Omnipoint Communications.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm actually
17 looking at that, and the one above for Omnipoint
18 discussed Pyramid Network Services. They are both
19 Omnipoint. I have an extension here from Omnipoint
20 Communication, T Mobile. I'll also check with
21 Maureen to see which this one actually applies to.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. So maybe
23 we better table that one?
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes.
25 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
17
1 to table Omnipoint Communications.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
4 favor please say aye.
5 MR. MILLER: Aye.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
8 Blakeslee minor subdivision.
9 Anyone here representing Blakeslee?
10 Anything to report on that?
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: No. I think
12 it's a fairly new plan. There is a review letter
13 from Bob McHale's office recently, isn't there,
14 from July? I don't know if the planning commission
15 wants to go through it without the applicant being
16 here?
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: No.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Just wait.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: You did do a
20 review letter, Bob?
21 MR. McHALE: Yes.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, have you
23 had any further communications with them since July
24 10th?
25 MR. McHALE: Their engineer had
18
1 spoken briefly about some questions regarding the
2 roadway geometry and discussion regarding PennDOT.
3 That's about it.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we should
5 table this one.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't know if
7 it's been accepted yet.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: The review
9 letter is done.
10 I'll entertain a motion to table
11 the Blakeslee Minor Subdivision.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
14 to the motion?
15 MR. MILLER: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
17 favor please say aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
21 V & M Realty, also known as Nish
22 Nick sketch plan.
23 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: We have A
24 couple of points I want to put into your knowledge,
25 that we want to move building to 45 feet toward --
19
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry.
2 Before you get started, this is on Lot 9 in New
3 Ventures Park. We have reviewed this project. It
4 was approved. They are asking to make some changes
5 to the plans. Do you have a plan to put up for us?
6 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's in this
8 package. It's the last one. We'll look at it as
9 you go along. The first item was?
10 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: We want to
11 move this building to 45 feet south side.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
13 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: This is the
14 parking area we want to move to this side, to
15 stormwater retention pond.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
17 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: I gave it
18 to everybody.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: You want to
20 change the elevation of the floor area of the
21 building?
22 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes,
23 because due to the geotechnical report, they are
24 saying the water is only four feet on the ground
25 level, four feet only. So we are going to put
20
1 radiant heat on the floor. People say it's not
2 good when water is only four feet, so whatever the
3 need for it.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
5 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: And
6 additional requirement of car parking due to the
7 mezzanine area.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
9 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: We are
10 going to put all of our new oil tanks and the used
11 tank in basement because due to the high level of
12 water in the ground.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you want to
14 put a basement 32 by 90 in order to store tanks?
15 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes, sir.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
17 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: It's going
18 to cost more money to put basement, but it's
19 environmentally safe because if we put outside into
20 the ground, maybe some tank might leak or pump out
21 in the winter when it's freezing temperature.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. And you
23 wan to put the water storage tank also for the
24 sprinkler system?
25 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes.
21
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: All right. This
2 is being submitted to us, as I understand it, as a
3 sketch plan because of the changes. Bob you're
4 considering these significant changes to the land
5 development plan?
6 MR. McHALE: Yes.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's basically
8 because you're creating additional parking spaces
9 and asking for additional fill.
10 MR. McHALE: As I understood it,
11 the applicant wants to raise the entire site by 3
12 to 4 feet, which would impact all the grading and
13 stormwater management and that type of thing.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that still
15 correct?
16 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. So the
18 matter before us is they need to come back with a
19 land development plan to show these changes.
20 MR. McHALE: Yes.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Have you
22 approached the fire codes official and the fire
23 chief about putting the tanks in the basement?
24 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes. We go
25 a couple times and tell them. They appreciate
22
1 this. This is a good step. Instead of putting
2 outside, if you are going to put in basement, you
3 can look everyday if there is any leak, any
4 problem. Easy to fix when pipe is broke or
5 leaking. So they appreciate it. We are going to
6 put sprinkler system also.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob?
8 MR. McHALE: I was going to ask
9 Mr. Singh if the geotechnical report addressed
10 dewatering of your basement.
11 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Yes.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, what's your
13 recommendation for this?
14 MR. McHALE: That it needs a
15 revised land development plan. I wouldn't
16 anticipate if you're going to use the same drawings
17 and just modify the grades, position of the
18 building, the parking lot, stormwater calcs. It
19 should go through expeditiously if they address all
20 the items on the tank.
21 Now, the water storage tank
22 that's shown on the plan, it's my understanding
23 they are not going to store 60,000 gallons outside,
24 that there be some other number internally if they
25 use an automatic sprinkler system.
23
1 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: It's going
2 to reduce half the water storage tank and if we put
3 outside, we need heating to heat the water in
4 wintertime. And if we put it in basement, we don't
5 need heat on.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: That same issue
7 came up in Downs and Reeder, which is an adjacent
8 project, and they use agitators to keep the water
9 from freezing. So putting it in the basement, as
10 long as the fire codes official and the fire chief
11 are okay with that -- unfortunately, you do have to
12 come back with a new land development plan, a
13 revised land development plan showing all the items
14 you just showed us.
15 Do you have any comment on this?
16 MR. MILLER: I can't see where
17 it's changing -- we have to go by the regulations,
18 but I don't think there will be any problems.
19 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Okay.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: There is nothing
21 significant that the planning commission sees that
22 we wouldn't be able to approve. We just need to
23 see the details.
24 MR. VIRENDER SINGH: Okay, sir.
25 Thank you very much.
24
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Model Act 167
2 Stormwater Management Ordinance.
3 Bob, why don't you lead us off.
4 I know we received emails from you concerning that.
5 You can start the discussion then. Are you here
6 for the 167?
7 MR. CAHILL: I'm kind of
8 listening. I'm really here for the next item.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Please feel free
10 to add any comments.
11 MR. McHALE: The email that I
12 submitted to you all was just to kind of outline
13 some where this plan has been in regard to buffers.
14 And I noted in there, in the previous final draft,
15 let me backup a step just a minute. The current
16 plan allows the opportunity for the municipalities
17 to enact buffers. If the municipality, according
18 to DEP, does not proceed with any buffers, then
19 they need to come up with another equivalent
20 alternative, if you will, to buffers. To date,
21 they haven't found an equivalent, per se, to
22 buffers, where you can write it into the ordinance
23 to state that. What they are really looking for is
24 that the water quality standards are not impacted
25 for the discharges that are going into the waters
25
1 of the Commonwealth. So we are going to have to
2 try to look through this a little bit and see if we
3 want to look at something in between. Maybe in the
4 June 30th or June 20th, '05, what they originally
5 had drafted was buffers of 50 feet as an inner
6 buffer and 100 feet of an outer buffer for wetlands
7 and vernal ponds. Lakes and ponds they looked at a
8 50 foot just straight outer buffer. And for
9 streams, they looked at a 50 foot inner buffer and
10 a 100 outer buffer.
11 The other thing we could look to
12 do is possibly consider smaller buffers, we could
13 go with no buffers or we could leave it to the
14 developer to justify what water quality standards
15 are actually discharging from the site. There is a
16 number of alternatives and approaches that we can
17 take, and all we are looking to do is begin that
18 dialogue as to what direction do we want to be
19 moving with this.
20 The Monroe County Commissioners
21 did not adopt this plan with buffers. They left
22 the buffers out and they left it to the
23 municipalities basically, and that's what DEP had
24 written back and stated that an equivalent
25 ordinance provision that meets the water quality
26
1 standards must be implemented. So that's kind of
2 where we are at.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: I've been
4 dealing with this issue since its conception. I
5 was on the planning for the Monroe County Planning
6 Commission when we actually had this drafted
7 in-house. And as Bob pointed out, the
8 commissioners did not put in a number in the model
9 ordinance of what those buffers had to be. They
10 left that up to the individual municipalities.
11 This impacts a very small portion of the township
12 in the McMichaels/Brodhead Watershed.
13 Mr. Cahill, part of Pocono Manor
14 is in that watershed?
15 MR. CAHILL: We are all in
16 Brodhead, yes.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: The
18 justification for that, the science has been
19 written into the study that was done by the Monroe
20 County Planning Commission, however, there is also,
21 as part of that, which Bob is going to look at in a
22 little bit more detail, is there is an option for
23 the developer to submit additional information so
24 that you can reduce that buffer. So even if we set
25 the buffer at 50 foot and 100 foot, which is
27
1 suggested in the study, the developer could still
2 come in with science, and we could reduce that
3 buffer. But Bob has to check that and make sure.
4 The second thing is, I had a
5 discussion with John Rice and Pat earlier today,
6 and I asked them to start a review of that, of the
7 ordinance, and make any suggestions to us.
8 Ted, do you have something to
9 comment?
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: I don't like
11 it at all. I don't like the buffer situation.
12 What it does is it says owner of the property, we
13 could care less about you. You made an investment
14 and now we are going to encumber your investment so
15 that you, in a lot of cases, you cannot even build
16 on your piece of property anymore. I'm an
17 environmentalist, but I'm not a tree hugger. I
18 believe a man's property is his property. Get your
19 hand out of his pocket.
20 MR. McHALE: In some cases, with
21 the size of these inner and outer buffers, you
22 could, in theory, have a roadway and small lot on
23 one side with a tributary or something, and by the
24 time you implement the buffers, it could go and
25 extend actually beyond the right of way into
28
1 another parcel that isn't even related to that.
2 That's the magnitude of --
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: You're saying
4 it nicely, Bob. You're taking a man's property
5 away from him.
6 MR. McHALE: But what we do have
7 to do, though, is we have to come up with something
8 to move forward with in a reasonable manner because
9 we are beyond what was expected as far as a time
10 frame to begin to implement it. Unfortunately,
11 there isn't anything out there that states that in
12 lieu of a 50 foot buffer, you can do A, B and C.
13 MR. MILLER: But if we can't
14 make that determination, how will they?
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: How will they?
16 MR. McHALE: What they will have
17 to do is chemical analysis of their stormwater type
18 stuff and those kind of items be presented to say
19 the water quality standards are not going to be
20 impacted because the water we are discharging, the
21 temperature is going to be taken care of because it
22 will go through certain channels or it will go
23 through an under ground system. The justification
24 is going to be very difficult and challenging.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Let government
29
1 buy the property then. I'm sorry. If that's the
2 case, the environment takes precedents over
3 people's livelihood, you buy the property. That's
4 the way I feel about it.
5 MR. McHALE: There are maybe
6 some items that we can begin to look at with regard
7 to existing lots. It may be that existing lots in
8 recorded subdivisions don't have the same impact.
9 I'm just thinking about some ideas. That's what we
10 wanted to do, is begin some dialogue and get your
11 input, exactly what we are getting now.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Well, there is
13 something you can do, enforce the rules that are in
14 effect now. In most places they are asking people
15 not to use high phosphorous type chemicals and so
16 forth for drainage. See to it, if it's going to be
17 farm type land, that they are not going to use that
18 stuff. See that if it is farm type land, that
19 you're not going to put the horse excretion at the
20 edge of the stream.
21 MR. MILLER: How much
22 development is below us? How much property is
23 already developed in the watershed?
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: That's another
25 thing.
30
1 MR. MILLER: Other than us up
2 here on top of the mountain, it's pretty much
3 developed, isn't it?
4 MR. McHALE: There is quite a
5 bit of development.
6 MR. MILLER: Again, they are
7 asking us not to do anything because they've
8 already screwed it up.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: There is an
10 old adage, dilution is a solution. As long as the
11 stream is running, what's coming off the top of the
12 mountain is not going to have near the impact of
13 what is below the mountain. We are not that built
14 up up here.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are on the
16 167. The 167 -- we are required by law to enact
17 the 167 Ordinance. In order to do that, even if we
18 change the buffers, our buffer has to be in
19 substantial compliance with the science that was
20 approved by the commission. I mean, we have to
21 adopt something on 167.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: We have to do
23 what EPA/DEP is going to force us to do, in other
24 words.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: This does come
31
1 out of DEP, you are correct.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: That's right.
3 And take a look over at Wild Pines Golf Course and
4 see the idiocy of DEP. Go down -- I'll take
5 anybody you want. Come over, I'll take you for a
6 ride. If that isn't the biggest joke I have ever
7 seen. It's a drainage ditch on No. 4. The whole
8 side of the No. 5 fairway, which is a Par 5, is
9 drainage ditch down to another ditch. Since it's
10 been in there, I haven't seen that much water in
11 it. All right. They took the trees out to make a
12 ditch. The best absorber of water you could find
13 was removed.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Now you're
15 making an argument for buffers, Ted. You better be
16 careful.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: No, I'm not
18 making an argument for buffers. I'm saying the
19 trees are a buffer.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's correct.
21 That's part of --
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yet, all the
23 trees are removed here. I'm saying that if a man's
24 got a piece of property that he can barely get a
25 house on and then you're going to put a 50 foot
32
1 buffer on his house, is he going to be allowed to
2 build it on the street or in the neighbor next
3 door's lot. Buy it from him.
4 I'll get off my soap box.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's a good soap
6 box to be on.
7 Well, I directed the attorneys
8 to start looking at it.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: We'll look
10 through the 167 Ordinance that was provide to us.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do we have
12 copies of that?
13 MR. McHALE: Electronic.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does anybody
15 want to print it or electronic is okay?
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Just so it
17 isn't over 100 pages.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's a lengthy
19 document. Actually, the ordinance I don't think is
20 that much.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is the
22 ordinance. It looks like it does it by
23 incorporation pretty much.
24 MR. McHALE: No. The model
25 ordinance with appendicis. This is the model
33
1 ordinance. The Act 167 document -- it's even more
2 voluminous than that.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Isn't it this
4 here that she sent out to us?
5 MR. McHALE: If that's got the
6 attachments, yes. It should be dated December 20th
7 of '05. That should be the model ordinance. She
8 may have made copies.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes. December
10 20th, '05.
11 MR. MILLER: 167 Stormwater
12 Management Ordinance.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's have our
14 attorney look at this. You think you can have some
15 comments on this by next month? I know we are
16 under deadlines from DEP to take some action on
17 this.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: We'll have
19 comments for you next month.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments
21 from the public ?
22 MS. WENDI FREEMAN: I might have
23 missed something, but what's the difference between
24 an inner buffer and an outer buffer.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: The definition
34
1 is in here, but, Bob, I don't know if you can --
2 MR. McHALE: The placement of
3 where the stream channel is, that inner buffer is
4 that first segment and primarily would be probably
5 like floodplain areas and such. And then the outer
6 buffer, you'd have other limitations and it would
7 be extended an additional 100 feet beyond that
8 inner buffer. So it's tiered, if you will, from
9 the stream channel or the edge of that water body,
10 50 feet then plus 100.
11 MS. WENDI FREEMAN: So it could
12 be a possibility of a 150 foot buffer from a body
13 of water?
14 MR. McHALE: Yes. And the
15 restrictions within the first inner buffer are much
16 more comprehensive.
17 MS. WENDI FREEMAN: Does it
18 depend on what kind of floodplain they are in, that
19 there will always be a 150 buffer or there sometime
20 will only be a 50 foot buffer?
21 MR. McHALE: It actually lists
22 out the different recommended buffers in a lake or
23 a pond. A pond might only have the outer buffer
24 and so the lake might only have 50 feet.
25 MS. WENDI FREEMAN: Okay.
35
1 Isn't that like what we have in
2 Lake Naomi, the buffer is 50 feet now?
3 MR. McHALE: Then you would meet
4 that portion for the lake. But for the streams,
5 any stream that would be running in or through or
6 tributaries, would be classified as that. If this
7 was an active, with the 50 foot inner buffer and a
8 100 foot outer buffer, then from that stream, you
9 would go on each side of the stream with 50 feet,
10 and each side with 100 feet.
11 MS. WENDI FREEMAN: That would
12 be a problem.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: But there are
14 things allowed in that outer buffer. The inner
15 buffer there is even things allowed. I can't
16 remember what they are, I think they are like foot
17 paths or something like that.
18 MR. McHALE: It's spelled out in
19 the model ordinance.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Things are
21 allowed in the buffer.
22 MS. WENDI FREEMAN: But the home
23 structure is not?
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, not on the
25 inner buffer. On the outer buffer --
36
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: No. That's a
2 suggestion that I have there. The buffers should
3 be geared to the parcel size, because the
4 non-source point runoff is generated by area. And
5 if you've got a small area that this poor guy owns,
6 why crucify him by taking a whole area away from
7 him. Give him some room to build.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, that's a
9 good point. Under our current stormwater
10 management plan, they have to address the
11 stormwater runoff from let's say their roof
12 gutters, just staying with a residential, single
13 lot, that water either has to go into the seepage
14 ring or some sort of retention, water garden,
15 something onsite already. So do you still have to
16 have the buffers if you're already addressing it
17 that way?
18 MR. McHALE: Yes. The way this
19 is proposed is that you would have the buffers from
20 the water body regardless of what you're
21 implementing. That's why we are looking at
22 beginning some dialogue on maybe we can allow
23 certain things to occur to get the water
24 temperatures lower and things to be able to meet
25 the water standards as they discharge.
37
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: The other
2 thing is recharge. Recharge is very viable.
3 MR. McHALE: Recharge is being
4 attempted. That's what they want to see happen.
5 But with the soil conditions and the higher perched
6 water tables, it's very difficult --
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: You got a
8 problem up here.
9 MR. McHALE: A lot of it depends
10 on soil types.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, you've
12 given us -- you point out some things in there.
13 Have you done a review of it?
14 MR. McHALE: I haven't done a
15 detailed comparison or anything like that, which I
16 will do at the same time that our solicitor is
17 doing that. The buffer is what I want to get some
18 direction on, your thoughts on how we should begin
19 to consider this approach. Do we want to start
20 with no buffers and look -- and leave open
21 alternatives, or start with a minimal buffer with a
22 mix of alternatives? The DEP has that Best
23 Management Practice manual out there. That has a
24 number of ideas and approaches to stormwater
25 management. And they are already getting away from
38
1 the single basin outlet. So people are beginning
2 to implement those measures. I think they are
3 doing a pretty good job of that. The only
4 difficulty we are going to have is monitoring and
5 making sure they stay in place and make sure they
6 stay maintained. That gets very challenging
7 because a single basin, you can walk out there once
8 a year, make sure it's functioning properly.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I would say,
10 from what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, is
11 that I think we need some sort of buffer, probably
12 an exemption from residential lots or a small
13 recorded subdivided lot that's already existing.
14 We need an exemption for land areas, some acreage,
15 five acres, ten acres. Then we've got to start
16 looking at putting in a buffer along the streams
17 and wetlands.
18 MR. McHALE: Is that a sliding
19 scale basically for buffers?
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes. Right.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's what I'm
22 hearing?
23 MR. McHALE: Yes.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes.
25 Something of that sort. But let's not do like they
39
1 did with the wetland situation, the seed of a
2 cattail in a puddle of water and it grows up, it's
3 a wetland. Let's not make that a stream now. I
4 mean, I've walked too many of those things where
5 the guy said, oh, right here, you better make that
6 a five foot area. You got two cattails there,
7 where they have done some backfilling, and so
8 forth, so it made a pond. Now, that's a wetland?
9 MR. McHALE: If I can kind of
10 dovetail off of that concept of a sliding scale.
11 What happens if we have a wetland along the fringe
12 of the creek or something, some water body, and
13 then you have a pocket or two of wetlands that are
14 scattered throughout the property? If you begin to
15 create these buffers off of those type of settings,
16 it would become very challenging.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Fill them in.
18 MR. McHALE: Sliding scale and
19 maybe some exemptions for those types of pockets or
20 something to that effect.
21 MR. VANDERVLIET: You people
22 have not been hit with this stuff as hard as I
23 have.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I beg to differ
25 with you on that one. I have gone through many
40
1 processes of dealing with the wetlands issue and
2 trying to get permits. So, I assure you, I know
3 what's going on.
4 MR. McHALE: The wetlands
5 themselves are going to be governed specifically by
6 the corp and the DEP, so we don't have to worry
7 about the wetlands themselves. This would
8 implement buffers beyond the edge of those.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: Exactly.
10 MR. McHALE: I'll see what I can
11 come up with, some kind of language and come back
12 to you with that.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's look at
14 the sliding scale. That's a good idea. And Pat
15 will start looking at it.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: We'll look at it
17 as well.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Could you also,
19 Bob, get in touch with some adjoining townships
20 that have enacted this and see what they have done
21 with it. I know Stroud only went with a 25 foot
22 buffer, if I'm not mistaken, but they are a very
23 urbanized area.
24 MR. McHALE: Okay.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just check with
41
1 them. Is any of it in Coolbaugh?
2 MR. McHALE: They are still
3 working on that.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Still working on
5 that. What about Pocono, are they still working on
6 it too? I think they are too. I think Middle
7 Smithfield and Smithfield may have enacted it.
8 MS. HAASE: I believe
9 Tunkhannock did also.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just contact
11 them and see what they did. Get some feedback from
12 them.
13 Any comments? We will be
14 dealing with that issue.
15 The Brodhead Watershed. They
16 were in here last month asking to be classified as
17 an EV, a portion of the Brodhead/McMichaels stream.
18 It's asking for us to actually be a co-petitioner
19 on the application.
20 I had some discussions with John
21 and Pat earlier today on this issue. And between
22 the three of us, we came up with the suggestion
23 that the adjoining property owners to the streams
24 be contacted and ask for their input on how their
25 designation may affect their plans. And Mr.
42
1 Cahill, I'm making that request of you, if that's
2 something that you feel you can do.
3 MR. CAHILL: We'd love to do it.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'd like to
5 have some written comments from you.
6 MR. CAHILL: I'll have our
7 engineer, probably our environmentalist --
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think that
9 it's the feeling of the board, I don't mean to
10 speak for all the members, having had some
11 discussion here, we are very concerned about the
12 impact this has on one of our largest commercial
13 industrial pieces in the township and what type of
14 restrictions that's going to put on there.
15 MR. CAHILL: We are very
16 concerned too.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Cahill, your
18 full name is?
19 MR. CAHILL: Jim Cahill.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're with?
21 MR. CAHILL: Pocono Manor.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: If that's okay.
23 MR. VANDERVLIET: Amen.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I got one
25 blessing today. That's good.
43
1 MR. McHALE: We also, as you
2 read through the literature that was given to us,
3 when you look at the references to the different
4 appendicis, toward the end of the document, there
5 is actually a list of appendicis, but the documents
6 themselves, the studies, the spread sheet, all the
7 information is not provided, or at least it wasn't,
8 the copy I have.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we'll request
10 that.
11 MR. McHALE: It would be nice to
12 have copies of these or know where they are
13 available to view on line or down load or whatever
14 the case may be, but it seems that if this document
15 was put together as a petition, if you will, that
16 they would be true attachments made to the document
17 so you could read through them. I don't know that
18 the Monroe County Planning Commission has provided
19 any guidance one way or the other on this yet.
20 MR. CAHILL: They've been asked
21 to be a co-petitioner also and to support it. I
22 can tell you, it was some of the liveliest debate I
23 have ever seen before the county planning
24 commission. And what they decided to do is table
25 it and seek input from the two municipalities that
44
1 are affected, yourself and Pocono Township.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. And we
3 are asking for input from adjoining property
4 owners. To clarify, Bob, if you could follow up
5 with the staff tomorrow and ask them to notify the
6 adjoining property owners that would be affected.
7 I don't know that there is that many out there
8 besides Pocono Manor.
9 MR. CAHILL: Kind of like spot
10 zoning it affects Pocono Manor.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: What other
12 property owners are out there?
13 MR. McHALE: This is the letter
14 I mentioned to you regarding the staff that was
15 making the recommendations to the Monroe County
16 Planning Commission themselves. That was a part of
17 the packet that we received.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Interesting.
19 May I have a copy of that?
20 MR. CAHILL: Mark, can I get a
21 copy of that too? Because I got my set from Pocono
22 Township and they never got a copy.
23 MR. McHALE: And there was other
24 questions that came to my mind as far as if it's
25 designated as high quality cold water fishery right
45
1 now, why wasn't it, if it truly met the criteria of
2 EV, why isn't it designated that? Why is it that
3 now, at this point in time, it's looking to be
4 designated EV? The impact, as we highlighted it
5 very briefly at the last meeting, was to read
6 through the literature on the affects of the
7 special protection designation, and there is more
8 strict or more stringent requirements that, for
9 instance, if you go to impact an EV wetland, you
10 have to have a water dependent use in order to
11 impact that. However, the DEP has indicated and it
12 appears that they accept road crossings and similar
13 type of impacts into EV wetlands. There is a
14 number of other things. Some of it is spelled out
15 in there.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Also, Bob
17 mentioned to me that he's concerned about what does
18 it mean that we are co-petitioners. I could see if
19 they were asking for a letter of recommendation,
20 but asking us to be co-petitioners could have a
21 different connotation.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. If you're
23 a co-petitioner, you're part of the petition.
24 Where if you're recommending --
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Letter of
46
1 support.
2 MR. MILLER: We don't have to do
3 that.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, we don't
5 have to.
6 MR. CAHILL: I'd volunteer to
7 draft a letter for your consideration.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're certainly
9 welcome, because we are concerned.
10 MR. CAHILL: We will.
11 MR. McHALE: Also, as they
12 described in the narrative, and as you read through
13 this, it was interesting to point out that some of
14 the discharges to other sewage treatment facilities
15 like Sanofi, Pocono Mountain School District, they
16 are not a part of this reach of stream. They are
17 down stream of the designated area. I just wanted
18 to throw that out, as you're reading through it.
19 Something to be --
20 MR. CAHILL: I also find it
21 curious that most of these people on the Brodhead
22 Creek Watershed Association, especially the
23 directors, live in Paradise Township.
24 MR. McHALE: We just want to be
25 able to have all the appropriate data in front of
47
1 us. If we are asked to look at or evaluate
2 something, it would be helpful to have all the
3 data.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think we'd
5 request that and also go to the property owners and
6 ask for their input.
7 MR. CAHILL: I do have one
8 request. I believe you got a letter also from the
9 county planning commission asking for your input by
10 a certain date, and if you could just respond what
11 you're doing and that you will have an answer back.
12 I think they tabled it to their September meeting,
13 which I don't know if you will have an opportunity
14 to meet before, to get back to them before that
15 meeting.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Before their
17 September meeting you're saying?
18 MR. CAHILL: They tabled it in
19 July for two months. That would be August and on
20 the agenda again at their September meeting.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. Any
22 further discussion? Okay.
23 Move on to the time waiver
24 requests. We've gone over all these.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: We've gone
48
1 through them when they came up on the agenda.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: That brings us
3 to Phyllis. Would you like to go over a couple of
4 things?
5 MS. HAASE: Gentlemen, I have a
6 few ordinances that we are proposing either to
7 enact or to amend. One would be 155.11, that's
8 regulations to all districts.
9 We have some confusion with C.3,
10 which would speak to the land coverage, which we
11 propose to change the language. The 50 percent
12 would speak to impervious surface and currently it
13 just speaks to land coverage.
14 And also D.2, we are adding a
15 statement that no building which has been razed
16 shall be rebuilt except in conformity with
17 regulations of this ordinance.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Pat, your firm
19 had a chance to look at these proposed changes?
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: It was discussed
21 a while back. I don't know if we looked through
22 all of them. It looks like there is just these
23 two.
24 MS. HAASE: That's correct.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: The board of
49
1 supervisors are looking for our recommendation?
2 MS. HAASE: Yes, sir.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Are we just
4 looking at 155.11 right now?
5 MS. HAASE: Correct. Those
6 would be the two changes to that ordinance.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do we want to
8 wait on that or do you want to have any feed back
9 from Pat's office or are we pretty comfortable with
10 this? I'm comfortable.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: It doesn't
12 really bother me.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: I need a motion.
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: What do you want
16 the motion to say?
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: That we
18 recommend this change, 155.11, proposed changes.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I guess the
20 motion would be that the planning commission
21 recommends approval of the changes to 155.11.C.3
22 and D.2.
23 MR. VANDERVLIET: I motion.
24 MR. MILLER: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
50
1 favor please say aye.
2 MR. MILLER: Aye.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
5 You got that one.
6 MS. HAASE: Wonderful.
7 There is another, and this would
8 be a new ordinance and this one speaks to flea
9 markets. My understanding is Mr. Armstrong would
10 like to review this a little further and make some
11 changes into it. It's the concern of the board
12 that we've had many flea markets popping up
13 throughout the township. There is no regulations
14 on that currently. We have a section that speaks
15 to the yard sales, but that doesn't work in the
16 definition. It's not exactly what this is. So the
17 board has asked that I put together or we put
18 together something for flea markets.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: When you say a
20 flea market, you're talking about something that
21 might be every Sunday or something like that, as
22 compared to a yard sale which might be once in a
23 lifetime?
24 MS. HAASE: Right. This would
25 be a special exception, in a commercial district
51
1 only, minimum two acres.
2 MR. MILLER: You're looking at
3 it as a business more or less?
4 MS. HAASE: Yes.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: The one that
6 pops up by the IGA every once in a while, would
7 that require it?
8 MS. HAASE: Well, if it's an
9 existing flea market, I don't believe that we would
10 be able to. It would be nonconforming.
11 Ron Smith is the owner and
12 manager of that one.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: I see you left
14 open the percentage of total site area to be
15 occupied by the building.
16 MS. HAASE: Presently 30 percent
17 in commercial is allowed for the use of land,
18 structure. The board thought that maybe Pat might
19 put some input into that.
20 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm sorry, where
21 were we? I was still looking at the other one.
22 MS. HAASE: The ordinance speaks
23 to the 30 percent of land can be used in a
24 commercial district. But as far as the outdoor
25 venders, we weren't quite certain what we should
52
1 use --
2 MR. MILLER: They would have to
3 come in with a plot plan more or less so you could
4 see what the square footage --
5 MS. HAASE: It would be a
6 special exception. They would have to go in front
7 of the zoning hearing board and present plans.
8 MR. MILLER: Parking. All that
9 stuff.
10 MS. HAASE: Yes, sir.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: So 30 percent.
12 What about the total site area occupied by the
13 outdoor venders?
14 MS. HAASE: That's something we
15 were hoping for some input.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Something I can
17 look at. I thought the board would give me some
18 direction. But I can look --
19 MR. McHALE: Other
20 municipalities sometimes have total impervious
21 covers of 70, 75 percent in a commercial district.
22 Whereas ours indicates a maximum building coverage
23 of 30 percent and then of course it's going to
24 layer on a percentage beyond that, that's going to
25 be later associated with parking or driveways and
53
1 such. It's a little more definitive when you say
2 the maximum impervious cover, because you can
3 actually compute that. That's a number you can
4 come up with as far as the 70 to 75 percent, if you
5 want to utilize something like that.
6 MS. HAASE: Especially with the
7 nature of this type of business, because in many
8 areas -- in our township we have one right now
9 that's a parking lot. But there are some areas
10 that will pave a section of land and they designate
11 booths and that's where they set their tables at.
12 So that's where we need some guidance and maybe
13 that's the key with the impervious surface.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm confused. L
15 and M are talking two different things. Total site
16 area shall be occupied by a building. And then it
17 says total occupied by outdoor vendors.
18 MS. HAASE: Correct. Many of
19 these are indoor and outdoor. Like in Blakeslee
20 Plaza, they have vendors indoor which that would be
21 the building itself. Currently the regulations in
22 a commercial district would be a maximum of 30
23 percent for the lot.
24 MR. MILLER: In other words,
25 inside the building, that's still considered a flea
54
1 market?
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: By definition.
3 MR. McHALE: So you could, in
4 theory, use the same 30 percent, whether it's in a
5 building or outside vendor for the square footage
6 of that retail facility, if you will.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're saying if
8 you want to limit it to just impervious surface,
9 not designate building or outdoor vendor?
10 MR. McHALE: Well, the 30
11 percent would be just for buildings or tents or
12 whatever they set up for the sale of goods.
13 Whereas, if it was impervious, we'd have to get
14 down to measuring all the driveways and the parking
15 spaces, all that to get up to 70 or 65 percent or
16 75 percent. Whatever number you want.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: What if they
18 just put down gravel, is that still considered --
19 MR. McHALE: Well, it depends
20 what kind of gravel. If it's 2A modified, it can.
21 If it's 2B -- you know. And we don't have a paving
22 ordinance per se, so once it's down, somebody could
23 pave over it and then get into more and more items.
24 MR. MILLER: So do I understand
25 that Blakeslee, inside that building, you'd be
55
1 limiting how many square feet can be used?
2 MS. HAASE: No. That's
3 existing.
4 If someone was to build on a
5 lot, in our ordinance it speaks to that lot, only
6 30 percent of that lot can be utilized for
7 building. I think that's where we have the 30
8 percent. What we need to do is also limit the
9 outside use of the property, so we don't have 100
10 booths set up.
11 MR. McHALE: Why wouldn't that
12 30 percent include the booths, because it's all
13 subject to retail sale of goods?
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: What we would
15 have to do is -- this is why I want to kind of look
16 at it. We'll have to add probably definitions. If
17 we are going to include buildings, to also include
18 tents or whatever they set up at flea markets, to
19 include that within that 30 percent.
20 MS. HAASE: Some flea markets
21 may not even have a building, just a field or lot.
22 MR. McHALE: Looking at fairness
23 to the commercial lot owner that has a building
24 structure, and they are limited to 30 percent, one
25 incentive then is to put things in a building, do
56
1 it in a tent or something temporary. You can have
2 more square footage on your lot that you can
3 actually sell from.
4 MS. HAASE: That's a good point.
5 MR. MILLER: Are you trying to
6 limit it or control it?
7 MS. HAASE: Control it.
8 MR. McHALE: But this area is
9 used for retail sales basically.
10 MS. HAASE: Right. On a weekly
11 basis.
12 MR. McHALE: That's why I was
13 thinking the 30 percent is what is dictated in the
14 ordinance for any other commercial lot owner. Why
15 would a flea market be allowed to go to 60 percent
16 and double that and not provide parking --
17 MS. HAASE: What happens if it's
18 an existing building that's already at 30 percent?
19 You're saying you can't have outside vendors?
20 MR. McHALE: Correct. They'd be
21 all inside.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: I could see the
23 30 percent working.
24 MR. McHALE: I'm afraid it could
25 impact other businesses.
57
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: If you change
2 the percentage, is that what you're saying?
3 MR. McHALE: Well, if we allow
4 tents and temporary structures not to count in that
5 30 percent, then it allows the flea market a larger
6 expanse of floor, if you will, to sell merchandise
7 from, as opposed to someone that's gone through the
8 effort of building a structure.
9 MS. HAASE: But, in essence, we
10 allow that right now. If you have a commercial
11 business, you can display your goods outside, as
12 long as it's in your setbacks. So they still can
13 utilize their land and display their goods. So
14 that would be the difference between, you know, a
15 retail versus flea market. They are still allowed
16 to display outside.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Is there some
18 way you can control it and be within the bounds of
19 the ordinance for buildings? In other words,
20 you're restricted as to what your setbacks are.
21 MS. HAASE: Correct. And our
22 ordinance speaks to you cannot display in your
23 setbacks.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: It does
25 already speak -- in other words, a flea market
58
1 can --
2 MS. HAASE: Not a flea market.
3 A business itself.
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: Can't you make
5 that so that it's within the setbacks?
6 MS. HAASE: It would have to be.
7 That's currently in our ordinance to any commercial
8 business.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: So if you have a
10 two-acre minimum, we are saying 30 percent inside
11 or outside --
12 MS. HAASE: That's what the
13 ordinance states already, 30 percent in a
14 commercial district.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Twenty four
16 thousand square feet.
17 MR. McHALE: We were looking --
18 you need to see if there is a land use category for
19 flea markets also and try to see what kind of trip
20 generation we are looking at.
21 MR. MILLER: How about that one
22 up 209 there, Marshalls Creek, I don't know if they
23 have regulations up there or not. It's been there
24 forever.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's been there
59
1 forever. I think that's it.
2 MS. HAASE: The maximum lot
3 permitted use for a commercial district would be 30
4 percent.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just keep it
6 consistent.
7 MR. McHALE: I think the
8 definition or the lot coverage in there, Phyllis,
9 if you look at that, speaks to the area within the
10 building line, which then leaves it open.
11 We have to further redefine the
12 lot coverage.
13 MS. HAASE: Yes.
14 MR. MILLER: If you take
15 somebody with a five-acre plot and they pave a
16 certain -- 30 percent of it, a space for a flea
17 market, do you -- how would you charge for that?
18 Would there be a charge through the township?
19 MS. HAASE: There would be a
20 charge.
21 MR. MILLER: As what?
22 Individuals in there or --
23 MS. HAASE: I don't know how I
24 would be able to regulate that. Because say they
25 had 100 spaces, and one week they only rent 20,
60
1 another week 80, you know, I don't know how --
2 MR. MILLER: As compared to
3 somebody putting up a decent size building to rent
4 space inside, whereas the township would get some
5 tax money from the structure itself.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: You will get a
7 small amount for doing the paving or the parking,
8 but compared to a building, it's nothing.
9 That's why when we were
10 discussing this, I brought up the transients. At
11 least with the transients, the township would get
12 $300, $500 per --
13 MS HAASE: That's eight days a
14 year. That's not a permanent business. This would
15 be permanent. So that's where there is a conflict.
16 MR. McHALE: I think we need to
17 move cautiously with how this is set up with regard
18 to that area, because we could end up with a peak
19 sale period of May through October and have flea
20 markets all over the township and have nothing
21 going on through the --
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: We don't want
23 that. All right.
24 MS. HAASE: And the final change
25 that we are proposing and we need some input from
61
1 the planning commission, would be for commercial
2 district planning. Currently, any plan that's
3 presented to the township under 200 square foot,
4 I'm allowed to approve. Anything over 200 square
5 foot in a commercial district would have to be
6 presented in front of the board.
7 We are kind of proposing if we
8 could change the 200 square foot. Pat is going to
9 look into it and see if we are allowed to do that
10 according to the MPC. The goal is to try to give
11 some of the residences or land owners some relief
12 for, say they wanted to put on a patio or deck,
13 something small, really there is no need for them
14 to go to the planning commission. They would still
15 be required to meet all the requirements in the
16 ordinance, but we wouldn't go through the process
17 of the planning commission. They still would have
18 to be presented in front of the board for approval
19 after Bob reviews the plans and myself.
20 MR. MILLER: You have to see all
21 the setbacks.
22 MS. HAASE: Correct.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. Even
24 under what this shows is 2000 square foot, anything
25 under 2000 square foot --
62
1 MR. MILLER: 200 or 2000?
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Proposed is
3 2000. Right now it's 200, which seems too small.
4 MR. McHALE: And maybe that
5 number for a building, you may think a thousand or
6 1500 is the appropriate number and all we want to
7 do is get some input from you all as to if you
8 think we should be going in this direction and then
9 the overall impact is related to the total
10 improvement at 5,00 square feet. Maybe that
11 becomes 3,000 square feet or 2500. So that's up to
12 you all.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: This is done
14 in many places.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right, but the
16 staff would review anything under that.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: They review
18 it, but as a non-planning board item it's passed
19 through the planning board just as a review item.
20 If there is any comments, it could be made. You
21 know, if it's an extraordinary situation, at least
22 it shows up on the planning board agenda as a
23 non-reviewable item that was handled by the staff.
24 Sometimes this is a cover your -- item way of doing
25 it.
63
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, that's a
2 thought. I wonder if that gets around your concern
3 with the MPC, as a non-review item by the planning
4 commission?
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: Like I said, I'm
6 going to have to look.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's a decent
8 suggestion. At least we get to see it, even if the
9 staff can take a look at it. The board of
10 supervisors still has to approve it though.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: You can't get
12 around that.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: You can't get
14 around that, no.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: So what's the
16 general feeling about the 2000 square foot building
17 and the 5,000 square foot of impervious surface?
18 Right now they are dealing with 200. Do you feel
19 that's -- and then Bob had a discussion that you
20 might want to explain for the rest of the board.
21 What are we trying to accomplish here?
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: I think this
23 should be tied into lot size. You got up to 2000
24 square feet --
25 MR. McHALE: See, on some of the
64
1 smaller lots, it might be the one acre lots that we
2 have throughout the township, 2000 square feet of
3 an addition --
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: That's a lot
5 of space.
6 MR. McHALE: Plus associated
7 parking. Whereas, if you have an Ahart's grocery,
8 and they just want to bump out the back of their
9 building to accommodate some additional --
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: A refrigerator
11 on the back of the building.
12 MR. McHALE: Exactly.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: No problem.
14 But if you don't tie it into the building size,
15 you're not accomplishing anything.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: The lot size.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Lot size.
18 MR. McHALE: So maybe the
19 building size is a percentage of the lot size.
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: Something on
21 that order.
22 MS. HAASE: And then you would
23 have to take into consideration existing, if you're
24 doing percentage.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. And that
65
1 would count towards your percentage.
2 Did you here what Phyllis said,
3 is that if there is an existing building and they
4 want to do something additional, would that
5 existing building count towards the coverage?
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes. A lot
7 size, most places, a lot size governs the size
8 building you put on it. I mean, typically --
9 MR. McHALE: We have that
10 presently.
11 MS. HAASE: We have that
12 presently, but we are trying to streamline the
13 review process for the applicant. But presently we
14 do have that.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: I understand
16 that, but the applicants don't always come in with
17 the maximum size that they put on a building. And
18 if they do, then se la vie.
19 MR. McHALE: We should also be
20 looking at incremental improvements that we don't
21 get one plan that comes before staff one month and
22 then two months later another increment comes in.
23 We have to put some kind of time limitations on and
24 how many they can come in with.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: And if you put
66
1 in -- govern it by the lot size as a percentage of
2 it, you're not going to get that because they're
3 going to get to a certain point and then they've
4 got to go to the zoning board of adjustment.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think those
6 are two good ideas. Instead of doing the 2000
7 square foot, maybe we look at the percentage of the
8 lot size. Secondly, a time frame as you suggested,
9 Bob, so that we don't have somebody coming in piece
10 meal.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: I think it's
12 ridiculous for you to have to come to the planning
13 board to put a little addition on a parking lot.
14 MR. McHALE: That's what we are
15 trying to address, those kinds of small
16 improvements.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Or new
18 refrigerator going in a Ahart's or something like
19 that.
20 MR. McHALE: Technically, that's
21 where we are at right now. If they wanted to add a
22 condenser unit on a side or a new refrigeration
23 system or something and they wanted to bump out the
24 side of their building by more than 200 square
25 feet, according to the ordinance, they would be
67
1 doing land development.
2 MS. HAASE: That's correct.
3 MR. MILLER: I think something
4 like this is needed. Absolutely.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we'll have
7 Pat look at that, make sure we can do it.
8 Bob, are you going to look at
9 the size or Phyllis, I'm not sure who is going to
10 look at that percentage of lot size.
11 MR. McHALE: We can look at
12 that.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: And time frame.
14 MR. McHALE: Yes.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else,
16 Phyllis?
17 MS. HAASE: No, sir.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why do I have a
19 155.32?
20 MS. HAASE: That was the signage
21 that I had questioned, which related to the flea
22 markets.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: I'll look at
24 that.
25 MS. HAASE: I'm fine with
68
1 keeping the signs as small as possible.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay. One thing
3 I did want to mention, the first ordinance that you
4 brought up, Section 155.11 with respect to
5 regulations as applicable to all districts, the
6 nonconforming expansion, just so you are aware that
7 that language is 50 percent of the existing
8 impervious surface area being used for the
9 nonconforming use. Just so you're aware, that's a
10 clarification. It's not just impervious surface on
11 the property. It's impervious surface that's being
12 used for the nonconforming use.
13 MS. HAASE: I just took an
14 excerpt out of the email you had given me, so if we
15 want to change that.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: All right.
17 MS. HAASE: But that's what we
18 are speaking of is nonconforming.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right. I guess
20 you could get into a situation where someone has a
21 bunch of impervious surfaces and they are claiming
22 only this is being used for the nonconforming use.
23 MR. MILLER: For instance?
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: For instance,
25 say someone has a residence, but they also have a
69
1 garage that's being used for commercial purpose
2 that's nonconforming, they want to expand that
3 garage -- well, no, that would be fine. I guess if
4 they were allowed to exceed -- if they were allowed
5 to enlarge but not to exceed 50 percent of the
6 existing impervious surface area, that 50 percent
7 would include everything, the residence, the
8 garage, the driveway. Whereas, the way this is
9 reading, it would only include 50 percent of the
10 garage and driveway.
11 MR. McHALE: And this is a
12 maximum one time.
13 MR. MILLER: Not parking
14 associated with the garage?
15 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, no.
16 Impervious surface would include parking spaces and
17 what not. The way it's reading, as long as those
18 parking spaces or driveway are being used for the
19 nonconforming use.
20 MR. MILLER: That's part of the
21 impervious surface, whether it be a building roof
22 or parking lot.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: The way this
24 reads.
25 MS. HAASE: So should we delete
70
1 the area being used for nonconforming use?
2 MR. MILLER: I don't know.
3 MR. McHALE: Unless we can think
4 of an example.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: I wanted to
6 make --
7 MS. HAASE: It's confusing the
8 way it's currently written.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: It i