Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, September 6, 2007, beginning at 7:08 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
PATRICK ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE, Solicitor
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you for
2 your patience. I'll call the regular meeting of
3 the Tobyhanna Township Planning Commission to order
4 for September 6, 2007. The first order of business
5 is approval of the August 6, 2007 minutes, which we
6 received via email.
7 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
8 we accept the minutes as presented.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
10 second?
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor please say aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
17 Any public comment, in general,
18 not anything specific on the agenda?
19 I will make a public comment.
20 If anyone is here for Act 167 and EV they will not
21 be discussed tonight. We discussed having a
22 special work session on that item because it's a
23 rather complex issue. There is a lot we felt we
24 need to go over. So we'll be scheduling a special
25 meeting for these two items.
3
1 Moving on to old business. The
2 first item on the agenda is Shikhman Medical Office
3 Building.
4 SARAH BUE-MORRIS: Good evening,
5 gentlemen. We've revised the plans once again.
6 Our infiltration testing, even
7 in the front, did not pass, so we've revised the
8 plans. The building is now here. The parking is
9 all on one side. The loading area is here. And
10 what we are doing for the stormwater is the rooftop
11 garden. And we are also doing rain gardens here
12 and also in all the islands.
13 I met with Bob. We went over
14 the comments and we are in the process of revising
15 the plans. We hope to have them in tomorrow.
16 I don't have any questions about
17 any of his comments, but they are all pretty minor.
18 So if you guys would like to discuss any of them,
19 we could -- although he recommends tabling, I'm
20 going to of course ask for conditional approval.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: And, once again,
22 I will tell you that we don't give conditional
23 approval, at the direction of the board of
24 supervisors. You will have to wait to get some of
25 these things worked out.
4
1 MS. COLLEEN KELLY: Can we get
2 conditional approval?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, that
4 doesn't really mean anything, though.
5 MS. COLLEEN KELLY: Just pending
6 the application and the finishing of the traffic
7 study? Can I get something to take back to keep
8 this moving, if everything is met? At least it's a
9 sign that we are going --
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: If everything is
11 met there is no problem.
12 MS. COLLEEN KELLY: No, I know,
13 but understand --
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: I would just
15 take Bob's letter of August 31st and say if these
16 conditions are met, we can approve it. It's the
17 best I can give you.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: It sounds like
19 you don't have any problems with any of the issues
20 that Bob has brought up?
21 SARAH BUE-MORRIS: No. We don't
22 have any problems.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're just
24 going to address them. You're going to submit
25 revised plans. If you do that, like you said, in
5
1 the next week or so, it will be ready for the
2 planning commission to make the proper
3 recommendations.
4 MS. COLLEEN KELLY: With the
5 traffic study, probably. And, understand, I've
6 just been putting things on the shelf, in the back
7 burner as to not spend more money than what we've
8 already spent, just because, you know, in June it
9 became a pig in a poke again. And that's why it
10 was last minute in order -- (inaudible).
11 SARAH BUE-MORRIS: We will have
12 a traffic study within two weeks. Maybe at the
13 minimum, Colleen could take back to the clients
14 that you guys have no major problems with it?
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Definitely.
16 MR. MILLER: I don't have any
17 problem.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just looking at
19 the review letter, it's minor things. The new
20 layout looks great. It was a challenging site from
21 the beginning. I think you're getting a workout.
22 MS. COLLEEN KELLY: Literally.
23 Physically.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
25 motion to table the Shikhman Medical Office
6
1 Building.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
3 MR. BAXTER: Second.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
5 second. Any further comment? All those in favor
6 please say aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
11 Dunkin Donuts, did they arrive
12 yet?
13 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Good
14 evening. It's been a while since we've been here,
15 but we wanted to wait until we pretty much resolved
16 all the issues that Mr. McHale was raising in
17 addition to addressing comments from PennDOT and
18 also from the conservation district. It's our
19 understanding that both of those permits, the
20 approval from the conversation district and the
21 PennDOT permit are forth coming, and that I believe
22 at this juncture, with very few exceptions, if any,
23 we've addressed all of the comments from your
24 township engineer, Mr. McHale.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Did PennDOT
7
1 insist on the entrance coming off of 940 as opposed
2 to coming on Beech Road and then having two
3 entrances off of Beech Road that we originally
4 talked about?
5 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: There is a
6 question in title on Beech Road. If you go to the
7 courthouse and look for Beech Road there is a
8 possibility that it may actually belong to Wawa.
9 So what we ended up doing, with the approval of
10 PennDOT, is tying in directly across the street
11 from the access to the commercial area across the
12 street. That's why it's actually a little bit of a
13 jog in our entrance so that we would match up
14 exactly with what is across the street, because
15 Beech Road does not match up with it. So that --
16 MR. McHALE: PennDOT didn't seem
17 to have any problems with the layout and
18 configuration. And the access onto Beech Road is
19 actually gated. It could be utilized for emergency
20 vehicles, fire trucks, those types of things, but
21 Beech Road itself isn't really a road. It's kind
22 of a residual of the old parking area from the
23 sit-down restaurant.
24 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Yes.
25 MR. McHALE: Doug, you may wish
8
1 to go through those last few items that you all
2 cleaned up, because we just got these plans in at
3 3:45 this afternoon and there are just some very
4 minor items you might want to touch base on.
5 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Sure. One
6 of the items was a fire lane that we now have shown
7 on the plan as well as the signage that would be
8 associated with that. The location is as requested
9 by the township.
10 We've also provided a traffic
11 study that showed that the amount of new traffic
12 that would be generated by the Dunkin Donuts would
13 have generated a couple of extra cars. I think the
14 actual number is six extra cars during the peak
15 hour in the morning and in the afternoon it
16 actually would have generated I believe it was 20
17 to 25 less vehicles than the peak hour generated
18 from the use that was there before, which was a
19 sit-down restaurant.
20 MR. McHALE: In the ITE
21 literature, there is a category -- I guess a Table
22 4, you mentioned, Doug, in your information --
23 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Right,
24 which is doughnut and sandwich shops.
25 MR. McHALE: That's without a
9
1 drive-through. The only thing I want to do is,
2 tomorrow I'm going to give PennDOT a call just to
3 verify that that would be the appropriate land-use
4 application.
5 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Actually,
6 what we had done was, we took that one and then the
7 ratio of the increase from that use, plus the next
8 one, which is 934, which is for a restaurant with a
9 drive-through business.
10 MR. McHALE: That would probably
11 be too high.
12 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Right.
13 Well, what we did is increase the ratio and -- used
14 that ratio between the two types of restaurants and
15 then applied that ratio to Table 4 and that's how
16 we got the figures to use to generate that formula.
17 So it's higher than the one, but it's a little
18 lower than the other. And it's documented also by
19 the -- it's comparable to other traffic studies.
20 We also mention the fact that we
21 had other information from other Dunkin Donuts and
22 those figures are comparable to the Dunkin Donuts
23 in other locations.
24 MR. McHALE: Guardian
25 Inspection?
10
1 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: That's
2 correct. Guardian had raised a concern with -- or
3 request that there be a certain amount of water
4 storage provided and there were a couple ways to
5 resolve that issue. Number one was to provide some
6 changes to the actual architecture and construction
7 of the structure itself or to actually provide
8 underground storage tank. And the route that was
9 chosen was actually to provide a firewall inside
10 the structure itself to get it below the minimum.
11 That information was provided to Guardian
12 Inspection Services. That was discussed with them
13 previously. They agreed with the solution of
14 providing a firewall, and then that information was
15 provided to them this afternoon. And I believe a
16 letter was forwarded onto the township from
17 Guardian Services.
18 MR. McHALE: I believe you added
19 a note to your drawing.
20 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: That is
21 correct. And we added a note stating the same,
22 what was agreed to in order to accomplish that
23 issue that was raised by Guardian.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Are they going
25 to be utilizing the building that's there?
11
1 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: No.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: They will be
3 ripping it down?
4 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Yes. At
5 one of the first meetings that I was here, we
6 talked about utilization of that facility, but it
7 was going to require some zoning variances, and as
8 it turned out, it just ended up being easier just
9 to tear down the building and put up a new one.
10 Our client would have very much liked to have used
11 the -- but all things being considered, it just
12 worked out easier to put up a new structure.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Well, it's a
14 tight site, so.
15 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Right.
16 Then once we provided the new structure, there is a
17 difference in square footage of two to three
18 hundred square feet, and just that difference in
19 dimensions of the building was enough to make the
20 zoning not an issue.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, are you
22 comfortable with the changes that have been
23 submitted?
24 MR. McHALE: Yes, sir.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're
12
1 recommending approval?
2 MR. McHALE: Yes.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: There is still
4 four waivers you're requesting?
5 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Yes. And,
6 actually, we only need three out of the four
7 waivers, because one of the waivers we were talking
8 about was the requirement for the existing driveway
9 and the HOP, but since we are getting an HOP, I
10 don't think that waiver is actually something
11 that's required. The other three are from various
12 sections of the ordinance, from the SALDO, that
13 refer to information being shown around the
14 surrounding adjoining facilities within 500 feet.
15 They just happen to come from different sections,
16 but all of them are requesting the same thing.
17 Then there is one waiver being requested from the
18 stormwater management plan that in general there is
19 a 15 foot buffer around the stormwater facilities
20 that we have, however, in one area it actually is
21 only about 12 feet because it corresponds to the
22 exit driveway from the drive-through, but it does
23 provide plenty of access to that stormwater area
24 because that stormwater area, in addition to the
25 exit driveway, also has the shoulder out on the
13
1 state road to provide access to this area.
2 MR. McHALE: That was just for
3 easement purpose.
4 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Just for
5 easement purposes.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Doug, what about
7 the wastewater needs and the proposed grease trap
8 design, has that been approved by the township SEO?
9 MR. McHALE: I spoke to John
10 Brogan this afternoon. He looked over the
11 literature and information that was provided to
12 him. In his preliminary review, he didn't have any
13 problems with it. He said he would take a closer
14 look at it during the building permit process.
15 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: But at
16 this point in time, he did state that it appears
17 that the size of the grease trap, which is probably
18 one of the more important issues that you're
19 concerned about, is adequate for the intended use.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: It will be an
21 exterior grease trap?
22 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Yes.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: What size?
24 MR. McHALE: 1500 gallons.
25 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: 1500.
14
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's what you
2 need.
3 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: If there
4 are no other questions --
5 MR. BAXTER: The only question I
6 would have is, there has been some boundary line on
7 the -- what would be the eastern boundary line.
8 This shows that the adjacent property -- there has
9 been some question on that boundary line. Have you
10 been involved in the resolution of that at all?
11 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Our client
12 told us that we had an agreement of sale to buy
13 that from the current owner.
14 MR. BAXTER: He does, but it has
15 not been consummated yet. So that this agreement
16 would still be pending until he does go through
17 settlement.
18 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: That is
19 true, sir.
20 MR. BAXTER: That would
21 affect --
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: The land
23 development plan.
24 MR. BAXTER: Because of the
25 nature of the confusion over where the line is. So
15
1 I don't know how --
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: So there is a
3 dispute with respect to the property line, is that
4 the situation?
5 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: I'll try
6 and provide the short version of what I think the
7 issue is.
8 There were some improvements
9 made to 115 and in the process of making those
10 improvements, they also increased the right of way.
11 And in the process of doing that, a survey was done
12 for the corner of Wawa and we think what happened
13 was that that survey was accomplished coming to the
14 right of way line and starting at the right of way
15 line and moving their way east along 940, and then
16 that would provide the placement for Beech Road.
17 Then this property was surveyed attaching to that,
18 again starting from the intersection of 940 and
19 115.
20 The adjacent property, which
21 actually goes all the way to the next intersection,
22 started with the right of way there, and came in
23 the other direction. So what happened was that
24 there is a possibility -- not a possibility, there
25 is an apparent overlap in this area of -- I think
16
1 it's like 19 feet?
2 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
3 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: And we
4 think it all started as a result of what happened
5 out on the improvements out on 940 back whenever
6 that may have taken place, many, many years ago.
7 Now, there are ways to resolve that issue. Split
8 the difference or -- I think there actually is a
9 proposed solution to that that still makes this
10 plan, you know, workable if he doesn't actually
11 consummate the sale that he's got pending at this
12 point in time, but if he does purchase it, the plan
13 doesn't have to change at all.
14 If he doesn't buy it, then there
15 is the -- the line would have to move in
16 approximately 19 feet.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: How does that
18 affect the --
19 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: It doesn't
20 affect anything.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: It doesn't
22 affect the calculations for --
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: For lot closure.
24 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Lot
25 closure, no, it doesn't affect it. It's basically
17
1 a square.
2 MR. BAXTER: It's just where it
3 is.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does it affect
5 the setbacks.
6 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: No it does
7 not because the setback is 25 feet and the setback
8 right now actually comes to the edge of the
9 driveway. So by going in there, the extra footage,
10 we are not affected. I don't believe we are
11 affected by doing that.
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: Impervious
13 surface ratio is nothing?
14 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: What we
15 are doing now is less than what was there before.
16 So in terms of impervious issues, because this
17 entire site is paved at this point in time and we
18 actually pretty dramatically decreased the amount
19 of paving on the site in order to assist with the
20 stormwater management.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Obviously,
22 whatever -- I mean that dispute needs to be
23 resolved before any plans are recorded. I would
24 imagine your client is going to work diligently to
25 resolve the matter.
18
1 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: I would
2 think if he wants to construct his restaurant, yes,
3 it would be in his best interest to finish closing
4 that deal. Actually, we were led to believe that
5 it already was.
6 MR. BAXTER: It's about three
7 weeks away.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: If there is a
9 recommendation tonight, it should be subject to
10 resolving that issue prior to the board of
11 supervisors taking any action.
12 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: We would
13 appreciate that because Mr. Baxter said he believes
14 the closing at this point in time is scheduled for
15 about three weeks from now.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
17 MR. BAXTER: I think with the
18 condition --
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain A
20 motion for approval of the Dunkin Donuts, also
21 known as Blakeslee Donuts, Incorporated land
22 development plan, with the recommendation for a
23 waiver to SALDO Section 135.15A.15, 27 --
24 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: It's
25 135.15.A.15.
19
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
2 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: The next
3 one would be Section 135.17.L. The third one would
4 be 135.17.M from the SALDO. And then from the
5 stormwater management ordinance it would be Section
6 124-86.B, Subsection 19.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: That last waiver
8 was just for one area where you said it's going to
9 be limited to 12 foot.
10 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: That is
11 correct. The one portion of the driveway, instead
12 of pulling it into the landscaped area adjacent to
13 the building, we left it as the edge of the exit
14 drive.
15 MR. BAXTER: Which way is
16 traffic flowing?
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: And a
18 satisfactory stormwater management agreement be
19 executed by the board of supervisors; and that the
20 municipal stormwater maintenance fund be funded;
21 and that the eastern property line boundary issue
22 be resolved prior to approval by the board of
23 supervisors.
24 Do I have a motion to that
25 effect?
20
1 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion.
3 MR. MILLER: Second.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
5 second. Any further discussion? Any questions?
6 All those in favor please say aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
9 MR. MILLER: Aye.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
11 MR. DOUGLAS OLMSTED: Thank you
12 very much.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item is
14 Glacial Till.
15 MS. DONNA ALKER: I'm Donna
16 Alker from Achterman Associates. I have some
17 plans. Bob, I think they sent you a set of plans a
18 couple weeks ago, but there has been a couple notes
19 added to this set since then.
20 There should be a letter tucked
21 in there inside each one of these plans. Is there?
22 MR. MILLER: Yes.
23 MS. DONNA ALKER: Bob, are there
24 some items that you were able to check off or do
25 you want us to address certain --
21
1 MR. McHALE: Actually, we
2 reissued a letter this afternoon.
3 MS. DONNA ALKER: I wasn't in
4 the office late this afternoon, so I couldn't get a
5 copy of that.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you want a
7 copy of this letter?
8 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes, please.
9 I'm just going to go through it.
10 Do you want to go through the open items or are
11 there some that you wanted to discuss?
12 We did request a waiver and
13 that's from showing existing features, roads,
14 utilities within 500 feet.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's fine.
16 MS. DONNA ALKER: Item 4 on the
17 list we added --
18 MR. McHALE: You added the
19 drainage easements.
20 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes.
21 MR. McHALE: The utility
22 easement's on the drawing, but there has to be an
23 agreement prior to the board approval.
24 MS. DONNA ALKER: That would be
25 drafted by the solicitor.
22
1 MR. McHALE: Correct. That's
2 what was indicated.
3 I think your attorney is going
4 to draft it and provide it to our solicitor for
5 review.
6 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: That's
7 fine.
8 MS. DONNA ALKER: Item No. 3, we
9 did provide some profiles for some of the minor
10 culverts. We didn't provide a profile. We are
11 requesting a waiver from having to do the profile.
12 And No. 5 has to do with DEP mining permit that's
13 currently under review. We have an engineer that
14 is working on that with DEP right now.
15 MR. McHALE: The DEP did
16 indicate, out of the Pottsville office, that the
17 question and concerns we had related to settling
18 basins and the water supply source that they would
19 handle under their mining permit, that they were
20 going to send a comment letter to you because they
21 had concerns.
22 MS. DONNA ALKER: One thing they
23 mentioned during the meeting with us is, they did
24 not want the water in the settling basin to be
25 below the level of the wetland, so it wouldn't
23
1 drain the wetland. We did add a note on this set
2 indicating such. So that's the intention. Of
3 course, we'll comply with any requirement that they
4 have.
5 MR. McHale: Bill Greiner had
6 indicated that there was a barrier plan to show
7 additional fence along the north side. There is a
8 fence that's going to be run continuously along the
9 south side of Caughbaugh Road, and that would
10 protect the public from veering off or wondering
11 off Caughbaugh Road, since it's a gravel dirt road.
12 There will be one similar on the north side.
13 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: What type of
15 fencing?
16 MS. DONNA ALKER: Chainlink.
17 On the next page, No. 5, fire
18 lanes and No. 6, fire code. We did submit plans to
19 both the fire chief and to Guardian for review and
20 comment. We haven't heard back from them yet. I
21 don't expect that -- last time we went around with
22 the land development plan for the batch plant, we
23 did get comments from them and tried to incorporate
24 those same items on this plan. So we don't expect
25 we'll get too much different.
24
1 MR. McHALE: The only thing that
2 I can think of is from the fire access standpoint,
3 the fire chief will probably ask for signs, fire
4 lanes, just around the loop, the large -- I guess
5 it's Cyclone Ave. and Main Ave. Not around the
6 crusher, around the bituminous plant, add a few
7 signage.
8 MS. DONNA ALKER: Whatever
9 signage he needs, we'll add that. That won't be a
10 problem.
11 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: I would
12 note, if I could, Bob, the initial comments we got
13 before we had the revised plans were not really
14 site specific. And I think, you know, what we've
15 done, we've addressed all the prior comments from
16 both the fire company and from Guardian.
17 Certainly, if we need additional signs, that's
18 certainly not a problem.
19 MR. McHALE: At the time of
20 Guardian's initial review, they were coming up with
21 4400 gallons of water supply needed for fire
22 protection. But since then, the initial response
23 is now 7,000 gallons, so Guardian felt like you'd
24 be within that limit. They will be looking at it,
25 and provide us with a comment letter. I did speak
25
1 to Bill Weber this afternoon. He did say he felt
2 things would be in order.
3 MS. DONNA ALKER: Great. And
4 the last comment has to do with traffic related
5 issues along Route 115.
6 MR. McHALE: Those were requests
7 that the township had left as comments. I don't
8 know that anything needs to be addressed at this
9 point in time. It's for consideration.
10 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Obviously,
11 those are suggestions or requests only. It's not
12 something that the township is in a position to
13 require because they are offsite, but I believe
14 there was some other issues with regard to
15 additional signing. There is signage.
16 MS. DONNA ALKER: Warning signs
17 was one of the items.
18 MR. McHALE: There are notes on
19 your drawings that indicate trucks should drive
20 with lights on, speed limit restrictions.
21 MS. DONNA ALKER: Some of those
22 signs have already been installed. How about the
23 ones --
24 MR. MICHAEL CHRYSANTHOPOULOS:
25 The 10 mile an hour speed limit signs have been
26
1 installed.
2 MS. DONNA ALKER: There is
3 another one with the lights. Trucks must use
4 headlights.
5 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: It's my
6 understanding -- incidentally, this is Mike
7 Chrysanthopoulos who is one of the principals of
8 Tarhill. It's my understanding, Mike, those signs
9 are not an issue as far as putting those in.
10 MR. MICHAEL CHRYSANTHOPOULOS:
11 Not at all.
12 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: That's not
13 a problem.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: So you're okay.
15 I guess we are talking about warning signs along
16 115?
17 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: No.
18 MR. McHALE: He's not speaking
19 the 115. These are just related to Caughbaugh
20 Road, these signs.
21 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Yes.
22 MR. McHALE: This is a request
23 that the township is making for the applicant to
24 consider.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
27
1 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Again, if
2 there were to be any electronic signs along
3 Caughbaugh Road, I don't believe we have a problem
4 with, you know putting those in, but as far as
5 ongoing maintenance, we would expect that that
6 would be a township obligation as opposed to an
7 obligation of the developer.
8 MR. McHALE: That will be
9 something I think the board of supervisors will
10 talk over with you.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Looks like you
12 have three waivers, SALDO Section 135-12.D,
13 Subsection 2; SALDO Section 135-17, Subsections L
14 and M; and SALDO Section 135-22.B, Subsection 3.
15 MS. DONNA ALKER: Yes. And the
16 first two that you mentioned are related. They
17 have to do with showing improvements within 500
18 feet of the boundary.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: I also see one
22 last note. What is your position with that
23 suggestion of a road maintenance bonding or similar
24 agreement for the increased truck traffic on the
25 road?
28
1 MR. McHALE: That's what I
2 mentioned earlier about they will be discussing
3 that with the board of supervisors.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will discuss
5 that with them?
6 MR. McHALE: There was some
7 other agreement that was in place. The road was
8 realigned and delineating and defining --
9 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: The
10 easement.
11 MR. McHALE: Yes. So I'm sure
12 that will all come into play.
13 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Yes.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments
15 from the board? Questions?
16 Pat has reiterated the waivers
17 requested. I'll entertain a motion to recommend
18 approval of the board of supervisors for Glacial
19 Till, LLC contingent upon the requested waivers.
20 MR. MILLER: I'll make that
21 motion.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
23 Do I have a second?
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
29
1 comments? All those in favor please say aye.
2 MS. DONNA ALKER: Bob, thank you
3 for turning that review around so quickly.
4 MR. McHALE: You're welcome.
5 MR. THOMAS DIRVONAS: Thank you,
6 Bob.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item on the
8 agenda is Blakeslee minor subdivision.
9 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Good evening.
10 Louis Strunk.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you have the
12 review letter of August 29th?
13 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Yes. My
14 office has received the letter and we are in the
15 process or have addressed just about every issue on
16 there, which will be with our next submission,
17 however, there was one issue that we wanted to talk
18 to the board about, a specific waiver that had to
19 deal with the entrance driveways, proposed road.
20 According to SALDO, it looks
21 like we are going to have to pave this road and
22 there is only four lots on this property, one being
23 a very large hunting club, no houses; the other lot
24 borders 115.
25 We do not anticipate very much
30
1 traffic on this road. It looks like it will be
2 extremely light. What we'd like to do is ask for a
3 waiver and material construction of the road.
4 Basically, we'd like to not pave the road,
5 construct the road out of 2A modified, compacted or
6 shale or some other material similar or suitable to
7 the board. That's really our major issue. If we
8 can resolve that, I think all the other -- in the
9 review letter, all the other comments will be
10 addressed.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: This is the
12 first time the applicants are here, the first time
13 that we are really looking at it. Last month we
14 tabled it. We didn't discuss it. So, I know this
15 is an existing driveway coming in.
16 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Right.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: This is the
18 house. This is the shed or is that a house?
19 MR. BILL BLAKESLEE: Bill
20 Blakeslee. I'm the executor of my mom's and dad's
21 estate, and my sister.
22 MS. WENDY WHITE: Wendy White.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you're
24 leaving a 40 foot --
25 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Fifty-foot
31
1 easement. It's a utility and access easement for
2 the rear two lots. There is no plans on pushing
3 dirt or putting anything there. Some day, when
4 they do, there will be the utilities through there
5 and there will be an access easement also.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Can these lots
7 be further subdivided in the future or is there a
8 restriction to that?
9 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: That, I'm not
10 sure of.
11 MR. McHALE: They can be further
12 subdivided.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: They can be.
14 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: It's not our
15 intent, obviously, at this time for that. They
16 just want to each retain a piece of the estate.
17 MR. BILL BLAKESLEE: Our major
18 goal is to try to get the estate settled. My
19 sister and I, we just wanted to hold on to some of
20 the land and we have a buyer for the house on two
21 acres. We are not planning on building right now.
22 You know, we are just trying to keep the land in
23 the family.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does anyone have
25 any comments?
32
1 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: As I said,
2 most of the other things on the checklist, review
3 list, we are addressing, such as the easement. The
4 current easement isn't actually where the driveway
5 is, so that has to be vacated and rewritten to
6 include that. When you plot the easement, it
7 doesn't match the existing driveway. That's all
8 being addressed. That's all being corrected.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: The problem I
10 have with it is those lots could be subdivided in
11 the future, so at some point, that road should be
12 paved. I mean, if you've got ten acres and --
13 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: They are both
14 ten acres.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's 20 acres.
16 What is it, RR? I think I saw RR somewhere.
17 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: I believe it
18 is.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you can put
20 10 houses back there.
21 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: We could put
22 a restriction in the plan prohibiting further
23 subdivision without paving the road, put it right
24 into the deed description so nobody can say they
25 didn't see it. Now PennDOT I believe is going to
33
1 require us paving a portion of the entrance. They
2 were non-committal on how far. So a portion will
3 have to be paved to meet PennDOT with the HOP. I
4 just can't get them to right now give me an exact.
5 The guy was going on vacation the last time I
6 talked to him.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Usually it's 20
8 feet.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: You would be
10 agreeable to, in this process, to agree to like a
11 declaration of covenants restricting -- putting a
12 note on the plan.
13 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: On the plan
14 and also in the deed for the two rear lots, so that
15 in some title search in the future, pulls it and
16 it's there.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like,
18 just by looking at this review letter, there is
19 also a number of waivers that you're probably
20 looking at. Not all of them have been requested in
21 writing thus far.
22 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Correct. And
23 some of those waivers that are on the plan
24 originally have been addressed, such as features
25 within 500 feet, that's all been placed. Things
34
1 like that. We've eliminated a lot of the waivers.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: So when you
3 resubmit, you will be in a better position to see
4 what you're requesting. Right now it looks like
5 you're requesting a lot.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. That was
7 our concern, that there was a lot. If we can clean
8 that up a little bit.
9 MR. McHALE: Similarly, the
10 drainage study will be needing to be looked at in a
11 similar fashion as the roadway, if they're not
12 going to be paving the road and creating any
13 improvements, then that should be included in the
14 declaration of covenants as well.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: That there is
16 not going to be any land improvement.
17 MR. McHALE: And at such time as
18 land improvement --
19 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: There will
20 have to be a drainage study, because you can pave
21 it or whatever, you know.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: It looks like
23 you filled out a time extension form.
24 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Yes.
25 Mr. Blakeslee did.
35
1 MR. BILL BLAKESLEE: Yes.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: So the feeling
3 of the board is that we are okay with not paving
4 that road if you put the deed restriction on the
5 plan that they will not be further subdivided.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: And also the
7 drainage.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: And drainage.
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: You will be
10 resubmitting your revised plans in the next week or
11 so -- couple weeks?
12 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Yes. One
13 question, though. The road design, that's going to
14 be pretty tough to get done by next Thursday. If
15 we can have the rest of the plan in, the road
16 designed as soon as possible, we'd like to --
17 MR. McHALE: You need to make
18 sure too that that road design can work with the
19 future subdivision. You can't have, you know, some
20 hairpin turns that would require a deviation from
21 the current subdivision. As long as your geometry
22 is in order --
23 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Yes. That
24 will definitely be taken care of.
25 MR. McHALE: I'd get everything
36
1 turned in by the cut-off and if your last portion
2 of the geometry, your roadway or the cross section
3 is lagging a few days, that's not going to be a
4 problem.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: That was the
6 purpose of my question. If you're leaving this
7 existing road and then you have these curves in
8 here to get back to these two lots, you have to
9 make sure that that's going to meet the
10 requirements, the roadway design requirement.
11 That's why I brought that up.
12 MR. BILL BLAKESLEE: I was
13 thinking, instead of going -- you mean, as the road
14 turns real sharp? I was thinking to go down -- go
15 right through the one 10 acre -- the front parcel.
16 Go straight down, because, you know, in the future,
17 it's not going to be any further subdivision. That
18 would be an option, you know what I'm saying?
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's something
20 you can take a look at because you're probably
21 going to have to watch your fire codes in terms of
22 designing this road for fire access too, because
23 that's going to be required. I just don't want you
24 to, like Bob said, create a subdivision that's not
25 going to work for you.
37
1 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: If it goes
2 further subdivided, that's got to be, yes.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any questions?
4 Bob, any comments? Anything further?
5 MR. McHALE: Nothing further.
6 MR. LOUIS STRUNK: Thank you,
7 gentlemen.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Entertain a
9 motion to table the Blakeslee minor subdivision.
10 MR. MILLER: So moved.
11 MR. BAXTER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any further
13 questions? Comments? All those in favor please
14 say aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
19 See you next month.
20 Wee-Wons Day Care expansion.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: We received a
22 letter from Mrs. Guydish requesting it to be tabled
23 this evening. They are in the process of moving it
24 forward. If you recall, they had to submit for a
25 special exception use previously. They received
38
1 that in late May, early June. Now they are moving
2 forward with some of the other requirements. But
3 they have requested it be tabled for this evening.
4 Also in their letter, they extended the time frame
5 until December, so you're okay on time.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
7 motion to table Wee-Wons Day Care?
8 MR. MILLER: So moved.
9 MR. BAXTER: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
11 favor please say aye.
12 MR. MILLER: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
16 Locust Ridge Quarry Contractors
17 shop.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Similar thing.
19 It looks like you received a letter from Locust
20 Ridge Quarry today, actually, kind of giving you a
21 status of their plan. It looks like they are
22 considering an alternative plan, but at this time
23 they are requesting it to be tabled and will either
24 resubmit or withdraw, according to this letter,
25 prior to your next meeting of October.
39
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: They did give a
2 90 day exception.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: We have a
4 preexisting 90 day extension that expires October
5 22nd, which would still be okay.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You meet before
8 that. The board of supervisors meet before that.
9 MR. McHALE: Yes.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
11 motion to table Locust Ridge Quarry Contractors
12 Shop.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
14 MR. BAXTER: Second.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
16 second. All those in favor please say aye.
17 MR. MILLER: Aye.
18 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
21 Glorious Church.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Glorious Church
23 is still -- I believe the township is in
24 communication with them with respect to scheduling
25 a conditional use or changes with their plan, but
40
1 there is nothing new, I think.
2 MR. McHALE: Their legal counsel
3 is looking to provide some information to the
4 township for consideration.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we need to
6 table it.
7 I'll entertain a motion to table
8 the Glorious Church land development plan.
9 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
10 MR. MILLER: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
12 favor please say aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
17 I'll look for a motion to table
18 the Glorious Church conditional use application.
19 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second?
21 MR. MILLER: Second.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
23 second. All those in favor please say aye.
24 MR. MILLER: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
41
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Pyramid Network Services.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: We received a
5 time extension from them this afternoon. I don't
6 believe anyone is here for Pyramid Network
7 Services, so you need to table that at this time.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
9 motion to table Pyramid Network Services.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
11 MR. MILLER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
13 second. All those in favor please say aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
18 Lands of Elaine Brockett, land
19 development.
20 Are we still good with time?
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. We just
22 received a time extension from the applicant.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
24 motion to table the lands of Elaine Brockett, final
25 land development plan.
42
1 MR. MILLER: So moved.
2 MR. BAXTER: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
4 second. All those in favor please say aye.
5 MR. MILLER: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
9 That brings us to Creekview
10 Estates.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: I did talk to
12 Joe Weiner this afternoon. I'll let you take it.
13 I'm not sure where you're going to go.
14 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: I'm
15 Charlie Unangst with Hanover Engineering. I was
16 here a few months ago with Creekview. I do have a
17 larger plan, but you probably all remember what it
18 looks like. If I can also hand one other document
19 out here.
20 When we were here last time, we
21 were looking to cut a large 135 acre piece into two
22 pieces, one being the property line or the future
23 line was going to follow a zoning district
24 boundary. We did not propose any development at
25 the time. We showed contours around our site and
43
1 on our site. No future easements and issues like
2 that. We got the township engineer's letter and
3 with that we requested a considerable amount of
4 waivers at the time to show future right of ways,
5 future easements, future roads, PennDOT access and
6 everything like that. At the end of last meeting,
7 it was discussed, and this is where -- and please
8 correct me if I'm wrong, to come up with a set of
9 conditions and restrictions for the property that
10 would go for any future development of this
11 property. My understanding of that -- I don't know
12 if it would take the place of the waivers, but it
13 would be a signed document by the owner, to say
14 yes, this is it, we are not proposing anything.
15 Future developments have to deal with and live with
16 these conditions and restrictions. We did receive
17 this.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: You're talking
19 about, just so I know, the declaration of covenants
20 that was forwarded from my office sometime in the
21 end of August.
22 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes.
23 Declarations of covenants, conditions and
24 restrictions. They were dated, the cover letter
25 from your office, August 28. That is the one.
44
1 We are fine with this, with one
2 clarification or one addition and does the board
3 have -- does the planning commission have copies of
4 that?
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: We received
6 copies, but we didn't print them out. We get them
7 by email.
8 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: One thing
9 on Sheet 2, under driveway location, I'll read what
10 it says here and then I'll discuss what I would
11 like in addition to it.
12 "In the event that PennDOT
13 determines that the future driveway location needs
14 to be modified or moved in order to provide proper
15 access in accordance with PennDOT regulation, the
16 developer, and the township, shall cooperate in
17 relocating the proposed future driveway."
18 What I also would like to add
19 into that is, after PennDOT, I would like to add or
20 DEP or the Army Corp of Engineers. With your
21 discussion of the creek and making it exceptional
22 value or whatever is coming out, there are certain
23 buffers and everything else, and depending on what
24 DEP does, I'm not saying we are not going to try
25 for a permit or a future developer wouldn't try for
45
1 a permit, but I would just like that added in there
2 that if the Army Corp says no --
3 MR. McHALE: The township can
4 assist in providing support in that, trying to get
5 it accomplished. If PennDOT and the township
6 believe that the access where it's shown on the
7 plan is the appropriate location, then we would
8 support that measure as you go through that
9 process.
10 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes, but
11 I'd also like, if the Army Corp or DEP are sitting
12 hear saying it's going to, you know, be a cold day
13 thing before you get it, I'd also like the township
14 to realize that and then work with us also in that
15 situation. You make the call. I mean, the
16 township is in charge. If the township doesn't
17 feel we are trying hard enough or the developer
18 would be trying hard enough, the future developers,
19 then it's still got to be a cooperative effort. So
20 if it wouldn't be a problem we'd like that added in
21 there.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: Now we are
23 talking about on page number 2 of the proposed
24 declaration that was forwarded to you, under number
25 4?
46
1 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Correct.
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: The only
3 addition you would like is with PennDOT comma DEP
4 comma or Army Corp of Engineers.
5 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Everything
6 else was okay.
7 MR. McHALE: We need to look at
8 the language in that because it's not going to be
9 left just to DEP or the corp to say put it
10 somewhere else as an alternative. There will be an
11 analysis you have to go through to say here's the
12 proper location and why we need it at the location
13 that it's shown; through traffic studies and
14 whatever else, the geometry and such. So we'll
15 just need to look at the language.
16 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: It's not
17 if DEP says no --
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: That's your
19 request for a change.
20 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: If it
21 can't by one or all three of those, we have to work
22 together to get it. I keep saying we, but, believe
23 me, my developer has not told me to do anything
24 with that property. So whoever buys it and moves
25 forward, we don't want to lock them in to just
47
1 saying only if PennDOT says no then, you know --
2 MR. ARMSTRONG: And you're okay
3 with everything else that was in that declaration?
4 You're okay with adding a note to the plan, if it
5 hasn't already?
6 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: You mean
7 referring to the declaration?
8 MR. McHALE: The declaration
9 note was shown. There was a few other notes. And
10 also the sanitary sewer easement agreement, that's
11 a recorded document that you all provided at one of
12 the meetings. That easement should be shown on the
13 plan. I think the sewer main and some of the
14 manholes are shown, but in the previous submission,
15 I don't think the easement was actually shown.
16 There may be a couple other items related to sewer
17 capacity and things that we wanted, but our
18 solicitor will get together and talk about some
19 additional notes that might be and forward those on
20 to you.
21 MR. ARMSTRONG: I think that
22 sewer agreement easement that was provided to us
23 indicated that there was 10 EDUs out there?
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Correct.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Some kind of
48
1 note to the plan, just clarifying what your
2 possible capacity is.
3 MR. McHALE: Now, the new
4 sketch.
5 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: One
6 minute, unless you would like to start.
7 MR. McHALE: That's fine.
8 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: The new
9 sketch. As you look at the new sketch, down
10 through -- I'll call it the middle of the property,
11 a little bit to the right is a straight line, a new
12 line cutting straight down the page. Through some
13 discussions with the property owner and the
14 township supervisors, I wasn't at the meetings, I
15 don't know how many, there was a discussion of the
16 fact that the open space committee or open space
17 group would like to purchase some of this land as
18 open space. The township owns property down along
19 the bottom, down along the creek and they would
20 like to include some of this into their holdings.
21 With this, also to the north of our site, which is
22 the Blakeslee Corners property, their western
23 property line or their left property line is the
24 boundary of the commercial/residential zoning
25 district. It was through discussions a possibility
49
1 of extending this -- instead of coming down to our
2 property, heading east with the zoning line and
3 then along the line, as we showed at the last time
4 we were here, possibly extending that zoning
5 district line straight down through our property,
6 which would enlarge the commercial piece of
7 property for this, and decrease the residential
8 piece. What this would do is, with the purchase of
9 any of the residential property or any of the
10 property for open space, obviously the property
11 owner has to get some money back out of the deal,
12 they purchased the property and such, what this
13 would allow, it would straighten out the zoning
14 line running straight down along the Blakeslee
15 Corners property, so it's not really making it an
16 odd zoning, it actually would be a nice clean cut.
17 With that then it would give a larger piece of
18 commercial, which would increase the value of the
19 commercial property and would allow better
20 negotiations on the residential or that part that
21 we wanted for some open space.
22 What we would like to do at this
23 time and I believe -- I honestly don't know who the
24 conversations were with, is to now proceed with a
25 subdivision, keeping the line as we have it, and
50
1 then also create a line as shown on here. So it
2 would be a commercial property, a residential
3 property and then another residential lot, so three
4 lots now, but with that understanding that we are
5 now going to be approaching the supervisors to
6 request that zoning change. If the zoning change
7 happens, we eliminate the middle residential or the
8 middle line and live with the western most line and
9 then we have the larger commercial and smaller
10 residential.
11 If the property or if the zoning
12 does not go through, the zoning change, we would
13 then just have the same old commercial that we were
14 proposing before and it would just be two
15 residentials at that time. We would have to
16 provide easements through the properties to get
17 access to 115, sort of like we did before. We have
18 to extend that through, again with the protective
19 covenants or restrictions and -- let me get it for
20 you. With the declaration of covenants, that would
21 run with this concept also. Any future development
22 would have to come back in. We'd have to do a
23 storm sewer, have to do traffic, everything
24 involved with that.
25 MR. McHALE: The only thing,
51
1 you'll need to show the extension of the roadway to
2 the back property.
3 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We would
4 have to extend that through this little -- yes,
5 this rectangular --
6 MR. McHALE: The middle lot.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: It sounds like
8 you're going to submit revised plans with three
9 lots, right?
10 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Correct.
11 MR. ARMSTRONG: Actually, it
12 looks like you have it already. You have
13 submitted --
14 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We have
15 not submitted -- did we submit it to the township?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right.
17 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: No.
18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Other than
19 tonight to the planning commission?
20 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: No. I
21 think -- did they have it for the discussion the
22 other day?
23 MR. BERARDI: Yes.
24 MR. ARMSTRONG: It sounds like
25 you're going to be submitting revised plans showing
52
1 three lots now and also you're going to be
2 petitioning the township for a zoning change, maybe
3 with a draft ordinance with that petition showing
4 the change in the zoning line.
5 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes.
6 Adding this piece to the commercial zone, yes.
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: You understand
8 the process? It will have to be advertised for
9 public hearing. The proposed zoning change would
10 come before this commission for comment and then
11 also Monroe County Planning Commission and then it
12 will go before the board of supervisors for action.
13 MR. McHALE: If I'm hearing
14 correctly, also, the minor subdivision that would
15 be presented as a three-lot subdivision would move
16 ahead then and the zoning would come either as
17 concurrent as you can or subsequent to it, but it's
18 not going to be subject or conditioned upon.
19 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That is
20 correct.
21 MR. McHALE: It's by itself.
22 MR. MILLER: You're definitely
23 going to do this, whether it will be --
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We are
25 looking to do that with three lots, with the hard
53
1 understanding that we are going to request the
2 zoning boundary change. If for any reason that
3 zoning boundary change doesn't happen, we still
4 don't want to hold this plan up. We still want the
5 same old 25-acre commercial and then just two
6 residential lots. It will still allow that back
7 piece to be dealt with.
8 With that, as far as -- and this
9 is our attorney's job. We do not have to go to the
10 zoning hearing board for this, any of this for
11 zoning change?
12 MR. ARMSTRONG: No. The way the
13 MPC reads, any zoning amendment that's not
14 initiated by the planning commission, there is a
15 process that needs to go through. It will come
16 before the planning commission, 30 days before it's
17 acted upon by the board of supervisors. It will
18 also go before the Monroe County Planning
19 Commission, but not the zoning hearing board, not
20 to my knowledge.
21 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: I just
22 wanted to verify that.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: No.
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: So what
25 we'll do is make the request to the board of
54
1 supervisors. They will then send us to you. We'll
2 come to you.
3 MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, there will
4 have to be some kind of ordinance, an amended
5 ordinance and zoning map --
6 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Is that
7 usually done by our attorney and then sent to you
8 to check?
9 MR. ARMSTRONG: It would be most
10 efficient if it would be done by your attorney.
11 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That's
12 what I figured.
13 MR. ARMSTRONG: That way the
14 township solicitor is not starting from scratch.
15 They may make changes with whatever you propose,
16 but --
17 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes. It
18 would have to be to your review and approval.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: And it would be
20 subject to a public hearing before the board of
21 supervisors. There will probably be a fee with
22 your petition, like an escrow fee, because there
23 will be advertisements. They have to advertise for
24 a public hearing.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Map changes.
55
1 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, there will
2 be map changes. I'm sure the township, the office
3 can direct you.
4 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: I'm still
5 not clear exactly what the process is? Can we just
6 review that once more, please?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Whenever there
8 is a zoning ordinance amendment in a township, it
9 has to be allowed for public hearing. So what will
10 happen is, if you petition the board of
11 supervisors --
12 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: That's the
13 question right there. In other words, what we've
14 got to do is petition the supervisors based on what
15 we are going to do?
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right, but it
17 will --
18 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Prepare
19 the plans and do everything we have to do. We
20 don't give them to you first, we give it to the
21 supervisors first?
22 MR. McHALE: Keep the two
23 separate. The minor subdivision, you keep moving
24 ahead on, showing as the three lots.
25 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: The big
56
1 plan cutting it to three.
2 MR. McHALE: That we keep moving
3 forward.
4 MR. ARMSTRONG: They are two
5 separate things.
6 MR. McHALE: Then the rezoning
7 portion of it, now you can speak to that.
8 MR. ARMSTRONG: This is rezoning
9 for it. Then you have to petition the board of
10 supervisors. That would start the process of
11 advertising for a public hearing for a zoning
12 change. Any time there is a zoning change, you
13 know, there has to be a public hearing, it has to
14 be reviewed by the planning commission, the Monroe
15 County Planning Commission, but your revised three
16 lots --
17 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: There is a
18 separate board for the zoning --
19 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: No. We
20 don't have to go to the zoning hearing board.
21 MR. McHALE: You will end up
22 before the board of supervisors for two separate
23 issues. One will be the minor subdivision, which
24 the planning commission is looking at right now.
25 Once the plans, all the documents are in place and
57
1 a recommendation could be made to the board of
2 supervisors, that's one item before the board of
3 supervisors. The second would be the rezoning
4 portion of it, which will start whenever you all
5 can pull that all together and it will follow.
6 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes.
7 MR. McHALE: And they are not
8 contingent upon --
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: The rezoning
10 gets submitted to the board of supervisors and then
11 it comes back to us.
12 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: I
13 understand. I got it.
14 MR. ARMSTRONG: Do you want the
15 planning commission's comments on changing it to a
16 three lot?
17 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We'd like
18 the planning commission's comments on changing it
19 to three lots. Since we have to come here for a
20 recommendation for the zoning change, off the
21 record, you don't have to say a word, raise your
22 hand if you think you're in favor of it. If we are
23 going to get shot down here for a zoning change --
24 if you don't mind commenting, that's fine. If you
25 would rather just wait until you actually see the
58
1 whole package and get direction from the
2 supervisors, then --
3 MR. MILLER: I personally think
4 it's a good idea.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
6 comments.
7 MR. BAXTER: No.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I agree. I
9 think it's a much better idea.
10 MR. ARMSTRONG: Obviously, they
11 will be in a better position once they have a
12 proposed amendment ordinance.
13 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Yes, I
14 agree. So with that, then I guess what we would
15 prefer to do is -- so we are going to take this to
16 the supervisors and petition for the zoning change.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Zoning change.
18 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Do we have
19 to come back here with the three lot subdivision.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. We have
21 not recommended approval yet.
22 MR. ARMSTRONG: You have to
23 submit revised plans for the engineer to review.
24 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: It will
25 all run together.
59
1 MR. McHALE: We'll send to you,
2 next week, some notes that we believe are
3 appropriate to add.
4 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That would
5 be great.
6 MR. BAXTER: So what they will
7 do is create three lots, get that through, and then
8 have the middle lot essentially rezoned to
9 commercial. Kind of a two-step process.
10 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: You may
11 see us one night for the three-lot subdivision and
12 for consideration of the zoning change. We may be
13 here on two different topics on the same agenda.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's the way
15 to do it.
16 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: So we'll
17 run them both together. But by the time we get the
18 zoning change, assuming we are, we would like to
19 have this plan approved. So I don't think there
20 will be any extra trips here.
21 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: I
22 understand.
23 MR. ARMSTRONG: How are we on
24 time? It looks like I have one for October 22nd.
25 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That's
60
1 probably it.
2 Now, before we totally leave,
3 the other night, two months ago, I went over all
4 the waiver requests. The fact that the waivers now
5 are really all covered under this agreement, do I
6 still have to request and have them granted?
7 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Because I
8 don't know if the planning commission is going to
9 be okay with all of them. They may be and they may
10 not be. They will be okay with a handful, but yes,
11 still submit a request for all the listed waivers.
12 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: So with
13 the next submission, you heard them all before, I'm
14 pretty confident and I know we can take some out.
15 We talked about it last time.
16 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. A revised
17 list would probably be great.
18 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: We will
19 make a revised waiver request, but just to let the
20 planning commission know, all the issues are
21 covered under this document. So what they are
22 covered under, meaning the waiver request we are
23 asking now, it states in here that any future
24 development, these waivers are no good.
25 MR. ARMSTRONG: Has to comply
61
1 with SALDO.
2 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That these
3 waivers are null and void with any future
4 development. That it's only for what you're
5 looking at, not future development.
6 MR. ARMSTRONG: Right, but they
7 can still determine that maybe one or two waivers
8 or not appropriate at this time, even though that
9 declaration may speak to it.
10 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: That's
11 fine. I just want you to know when we do come
12 back, we're still going to have a pretty lengthy
13 letter, all dealing with future development in my
14 opinion, not current.
15 The next submission date is next
16 week?
17 MR. McHALE: We have to look at
18 the planning commission's schedule. We can get
19 that to you. It's typically 15 working days prior
20 to the next meeting.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Our next meeting
22 will be October 4th.
23 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: It's not
24 this coming week, it's the next one. Oh, 15
25 business days. Next like Wednesday or Thursday.
62
1 If I don't hear from you like by Monday or Tuesday
2 with those notes, I'm going to have to -- I'll call
3 you, so that we can get them put on here. So we'd
4 really like to wrap this up to get out of your hair
5 and out of our hair with the three-lot subdivision.
6 MR. McHALE: Plan to get
7 everything in on Thursday, the cut off. And if
8 there is a note or two, we can coordinate that.
9 MR. CHARLES UNANGST: Okay.
10 MR. McHALE: We'll do our best
11 to get that to you.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything
13 further?
14 MR. MICHAEL BERARDI: Thank you,
15 gentlemen.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need a motion
17 to table.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion to table.
20 Second?
21 MR. BAXTER: Second.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
23 second. All those in favor, please say aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
63
1 MR. MILLER: Aye.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
3 Omnipoint Communications, T
4 Mobile.
5 MR. ARMSTRONG: We do have a
6 time extension on that.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
8 motion to table Omnipoint Communications, T Mobile.
9 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
12 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
14 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
17 Bielecke, minor subdivision. Do
18 you have the comments from Bob?
19 MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I have the
20 latest one. This is essentially -- I don't know if
21 you want to look at the plan?
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: This is just a
23 lot joinder, right?
24 MR. ROBBINS: Yes. And there is
25 a relocation of the 10 foot right of way. They
64
1 acquired lots 841 and 842 on Stag Run. There is a
2 ten foot strip between the two lots. They
3 approached the association. Bob has a copy of the
4 letter. They agreed that it would be fine to have
5 that right of way relocated to the northerly side
6 of the property.
7 MR. MILLER: What purpose does
8 that right-of-way serve?
9 MR. ROBBINS: I think that was
10 part of their discussion, why is it there.
11 MR. MILLER: State gamelands?
12 MR. McHALE: Isn't it an access?
13 MR. ROBBINS: Maybe for a
14 walking -- just some type of access to get back
15 there. There is no drainage. In fact, as the
16 drawing illustrates, their driveway basically
17 covers the majority of the existing strip, getting
18 it out there where they needed to use it. It would
19 be out there, open with nothing blocking it. The
20 other part is just extinguishing the lines between
21 lot 841 and 842 right of way and creating one
22 parcel. We are requesting the three typical
23 waivers, Section 135.12.D.2, Section 135.15.A,
24 Section 135.17.L and M, all of which basically
25 address locating structures and streets and so
65
1 forth, 500 feet from the property.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob recommends
3 approval. Anybody have any questions? Comments?
4 No one out there? Okay.
5 I need a motion.
6 MR. MILLER: I'll make the
7 motion.
8 MR. BAXTER: Second.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
10 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
12 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
15 Maguire minor subdivision.
16 Before I forget, we have a
17 planning module here for you. Let's take this
18 first. We have a planning module that's been
19 approved by the SEO. We need to approve the
20 planning module for Maguire.
21 You want to tell us a little bit
22 about the project first.
23 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Tom Harley,
24 Niclaus Engineering.
25 We have a 5.5 acre parcel on
66
1 Robin Lane that we would like to subdivide in half
2 and put two residential units, one on each
3 property. We received the review letter recently
4 and we believe we can address all of the comments
5 at the next meeting.
6 MR. BAXTER: Is there any type
7 of deed restrictions on this property currently?
8 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: No. You
9 mean for future subdivision?
10 MR. BAXTER: Yes.
11 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: No.
12 MR. BAXTER: I was under the
13 impression that a number of the lots on Robin Lane,
14 they were stipulated that they could not subdivide.
15 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Not on this.
16 MS. HAASE: Mr. Harley, you want
17 to make a note that you're tax ID number is
18 incorrect. It's going to need to be corrected.
19 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Okay.
20 MS. HAASE: It should be 15C and
21 you have 156 instead of 15.
22 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Somebody
23 probably couldn't read my writing.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: You have the
25 letter of September 4th?
67
1 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Yes.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you have any
3 questions?
4 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: I's not
5 really -- as far as the ownership of the private
6 road, it's just the owners of the lots in the area
7 maintain it.
8 MR. CHRISTOPHER MAGUIRE:
9 Currently, to my understanding, I'm Christopher
10 Maguire, the folks that live on that road get
11 together and actually take care of general
12 maintenance, plowing, they lay stone on their own.
13 As a group they take care of that.
14 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: It's not
15 really an official homeowners association.
16 MR. McHALE: It's not like you
17 need permission from someone to construct an
18 additional access.
19 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Correct.
20 MR. McHALE: If you would just
21 make note of that in your response letter.
22 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Okay. I
23 think that's the only question that I had.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you can
25 address the comments in this letter and resubmit
68
1 next month?
2 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Next
3 Thursday?
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is the cut off
5 date.
6 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Okay. Yes.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: I don't see
8 anything major in here, Bob. There is nothing in
9 there, right?
10 Just putting these two lots --
11 MR. McHALE: The plan was pretty
12 well put together to start with.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any comments
14 from any board member? Questions from the public?
15 We'll look for you next month and get it done.
16 MR. THOMAS HARLEY: Thank you.
17 MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, wait. The
18 planning module.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's get this
20 tabled first. Entertain a motion to table the
21 Maguire minor subdivision.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
23 MR. BAXTER: Second.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
25 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
69
1 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
2 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
3 MR. MILLER: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
5 I'll entertain a motion to
6 approve the Maguire minor subdivision planning
7 module.
8 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
9 MR. BAXTER: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
11 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
12 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
16 We'll get it signed.
17 E & T Realty. I think they
18 wanted a waiver.
19 MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't think
20 they need a waiver because they just submitted
21 their plan, but I think they communicated that they
22 wanted to be tabled this evening because they
23 weren't going to be here.
24 MR. McHALE: I spoke to John
25 Hennemeth, he's the one that actually made the
70
1 submission on behalf the applicant. He did request
2 that the plan be tabled tonight. He was on
3 vacation. He couldn't get a lette