Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, March 1, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
GLENN RIEKER, Secretary
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
JOHN B. RICE, 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: We'll call the
2 Tobyhanna Township Planning Commission meeting for
3 Thursday, March 1st, 2007 to order. First of all,
4 is there any general public comment?
5 We'll move on to approval of
6 minutes for February 1st, 2007.
7 MR. RIEKER: I make a motion to
8 approve the minutes of February 1st, 2007.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
10 Do I have a second to the motion.
11 MR. MILLER: I'll second it.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor, say aye. Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: First item on
19 our agenda, under old business, is Keswick Pointe,
20 Phase 1 PRD.
21 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Good
22 evening. Charles Hannig and I'm here as the
23 applicant on behalf of Keswick Pointe and Hannig
24 Development. We are before you tonight and we have
25 a number of items that have been resolved, 19 items
3
1 have been worked through on our checklist. A
2 number of the other items we just want to give you
3 a quick update. We know we are not moving forward
4 for recommendation tonight and our application will
5 be tabled, but I do want to update everybody
6 quickly on our progress.
7 In your reviewing notes, you'll
8 see that No. 1 is pending and we are waiting for
9 solicitor review. This covenant and the other
10 items that we submitted was for design review
11 criteria and our by-laws for the association were
12 submitted spring of '05. So we are still waiting
13 for an attorney review on that. I don't think
14 there is anything in there that is substantially a
15 problem, but there have been issues that I think
16 the engineer would like to have confidence that the
17 solicitor has reviewed for completeness. And we
18 certainly welcome any input. I know we have a new
19 solicitor. There are --
20 MR. RICE: Mr. Hannig, let me
21 stop you. You're looking at me, but it's the
22 township solicitor that needs to review those
23 documents. I am the planning commission solicitor,
24 so you need to communicate with him.
25 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: He's had
4
1 them for that same period of time. I'm just making
2 a comment.
3 MR. RICE: You're looking at me
4 though as if I should have been doing something and
5 I know I shouldn't.
6 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: At this
7 point any solicitor that will read them will be
8 welcome, before we revise them. But at any rate,
9 we have resubmitted, after comments, resubmittal to
10 the county conservation district. And those
11 revisions were submitted February 20th. And we
12 have gotten that down pretty much to a short list.
13 No. 3, we have some water
14 details. I don't know if you have anything to
15 report on that, Jim.
16 MR. JIM GAIDULA: Jim Gaidula,
17 I'm project engineer with Reilly Associates. Just
18 to give you an update on the water, we are
19 currently preparing the water permit application,
20 water supply permit application for submission to
21 DEP. We are waiting on a couple last details from
22 some of the equipment suppliers. But to give you a
23 synopses of the system, we have a 300 thousand
24 gallon water tank located in the general vicinity
25 of the townhouses. There is a water booster pump
5
1 station to increase pressures to some of the high
2 areas of development. And our supply is located
3 down near Tobyhanna Creek. We have a 300 foot well
4 drilled at this point that's a flowing artesian.
5 We have supplies in excess of 100 gallons per
6 minute. We do have a very substantial supply.
7 We've gotten some feedback from
8 the hydrogeologist in regard to water quality and
9 our testing came back from Kirby Health Center.
10 The water treatment parameters that we are looking
11 at are disinfection with sodium hypochlorite as
12 well as treatment with sodium carbonate, which is
13 commonly referred to as soda ash to address pH, a
14 low pH. Water came in at about 5.9 on the pH
15 scale. So we'll be increasing that back up to, you
16 know, seven, seven and a half parameters by using
17 sodium carbonate.
18 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Moving
19 again on our list here to item No. 5, Jim, perhaps
20 you may want to comment as to further design work
21 that we are doing and we'll be submitting shortly
22 on the sources.
23 MR. JIM GAIDULA: Yes. Bob has
24 forwarded to us some of the sewer details that were
25 standardized by Pasonick, with the original
6
1 construction of the sewage collection system. So
2 we'll be adding those sewage details to our plans
3 to correspond to what the township is already
4 accustomed to.
5 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Item No. 9
6 is with regard to financial security for the
7 improvements. We do have a draft agreement that I
8 forwarded to the township, that includes all the
9 required public facilities, sewer, water, roads, et
10 cetera. As part of that, we are prepared of course
11 to issue a letter of credit once we have all those
12 details approved. A new estimate is being updated.
13 We have not updated the estimate for a while
14 because we've been making some changes to the plan
15 that will affect the final outcome of the cost of
16 improvements. But that has come together and we
17 perhaps need somebody to give us a comment on the
18 letter that was sent or the agreement that I
19 rewrapped, but it's similar to the template used
20 for another applicant, one that's been accepted
21 already by the township, somewhat standard.
22 No. 10 is design. Again, we are
23 waiting for some comments back from the fire chief.
24 He was sent a letter and we are still waiting for
25 comments from him relative to our water system.
7
1 MR. JIM GAIDULA: I have not --
2 Bob have you had any further input?
3 MR. McHALE: He should have
4 something in the next few days.
5 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: We'd like
6 to submit that with our next submittal. We've
7 honored all the other comments that were required
8 of us from other outside agencies, so that's our
9 last one that we need.
10 MR. JIM GAIDULA: With respect
11 to water modelling, Bob, I think we submitted that
12 in the preliminary design report back in December
13 for the review of the fire supply, in the event of
14 a fire. And I can tell you that we've modified
15 slightly the tank elevation, and we'll be
16 resubmitting the water modelling in accordance with
17 that for next month.
18 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Item 11
19 again is an item waiting for solicitor review. The
20 contents of paragraph L in our covenants, copy of
21 which I'll submit for the record. I think that
22 short paragraph addresses the right of egress and
23 ingress for the lot owner to and from and would
24 meet and satisfy that requirement.
25 Item 12, again is details. You
8
1 want to handle that?
2 MR. JIM GAIDULA: Again, it's a
3 matter of providing some additional details at the
4 well station. Again, with respect to the chemical
5 treatments, that we are providing. We are waiting
6 on some additional supplier information. We expect
7 to have that submitted for the next meeting.
8 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: The PennDOT
9 mitigation, Item 16. I met -- I believe it was on
10 the 29th of January with two of the supervisors,
11 and Bob, and we have discussed the possible
12 mitigation. We've advanced a formula that ties our
13 traffic with the traffic of the intersection. We
14 are talking about offsite mitigation at the
15 intersection of 940 and 115. We have submitted to
16 them our suggestion as to what our financial
17 contribution should be and we are waiting for a
18 response.
19 Seventeen, we had added
20 pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of our
21 amenities area and felt that most of the traffic
22 funnels forward and thought that that was adequate.
23 Bob has asked that we likewise provide crosswalks
24 and signage on the other intersections to the rear
25 of the project because there is access back there
9
1 to our common space which are the more natural
2 elements of our public amenities. So we've agreed
3 to do that and that will be on the next submission.
4 Number 18 is again revising
5 details on the stormwater management plans and I
6 think you have done that or we'll have it completed
7 by the submission --
8 MR. JIM GAIDULA: I have talked
9 to Bob with regard to those comments. They are
10 relatively minor, labeling that is required on the
11 plan, and we'll address those.
12 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Nineteen, a
13 draft document. This document here is relative to
14 maintenance, and, Bob, the one that was sent to me
15 which I have revamped, I felt was more of a
16 security agreement or developer's general agreement
17 for securing the new construction and I don't know
18 whether you have another template that better
19 addresses this particular thing that you're
20 comfortable with, but if not, I'll be happy to
21 draft my own. I take it you have something that we
22 can operate off of? I'll be happy to work from
23 that document.
24 We have provided, so they can be
25 part of your records -- this is the developer's
10
1 agreement that we resubmitted, that I mentioned
2 earlier in my statements today and likewise our
3 stormwater management agreement that was submitted
4 back in August of '05, neither of which have had
5 comments. So we welcome commentary.
6 No. 21 is the PennDOT issues.
7 Jim, if you want to address those.
8 MR. JIM GAIDULA: With regard to
9 PennDOT, we had proposed some improvements along
10 115 to include a left turning lane along the south
11 bound approach coming from Blakeslee Corners into
12 the Keswick Drive entrance. And we've completed
13 those HOP plans, highway occupancy permit plans and
14 submitted them to PennDOT. So we'll be waiting to
15 get any additional comments from PennDOT. With
16 regard to the revised traffic impact study, we have
17 several comments that Bob had forwarded to me the
18 other day, which we'll be providing a response to
19 in the next day or two.
20 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Item 24 is
21 a solicitor review as to securing the rights of the
22 owners for the recreational offerings that are in
23 the development. I think that that's covered
24 adequately in our covenants, however we are waiting
25 for review and we'd be happy to amplify anything in
11
1 regard to that, if it's necessary.
2 Item 32 is still an open item.
3 This relates to the sewer collection and EDU
4 purchasing. We have, again, met with the township
5 and we have reviewed the amount of EDU's required
6 and offered our methods of payment for those and
7 again waiting for a response from the township as
8 to how they would like to proceed with that.
9 Thirty-three, again, is a letter
10 of understanding that has been drafted between
11 myself and Mr. Sincavage regarding the spur of road
12 known as Maple Road that links the two projects
13 together, Old Farm and Keswick Pointe at the rear,
14 which will provide emergency exit only and we had
15 to draft something that would indicate the level of
16 requirements on us to maintain that road, snow
17 removal, etcetera, etcetera. We think this letter
18 offers as much understanding of that as we can do
19 at this time until we actually contract for
20 services, but I think it outlines our mutual
21 responsibilities.
22 Item 35 is with regard to the
23 Pocono Lake dam and the developer. We have taken
24 action and we have done an analysis of the dam if
25 it were to be breached and how it would affect our
12
1 project. That study has been forwarded on to the
2 proper people and I believe you sent another copy
3 this week to another party.
4 MR. JIM GAIDULA: Yes. With
5 regard to the comment about that Bob made
6 requesting that we do an analysis of the impact of
7 our project should the Pocono Lake Preserve dam
8 fail, of course they have an emergency action plan
9 and that details a certain notification list,
10 people who may be located in what's called the
11 inundation area. Bob had asked that we evaluate
12 our project with respect to that inundation area.
13 The net impact on our project would be that there
14 are probably 7 or 8 lots which are located down in
15 the lower section of the project that the rear lots
16 would become a part of that inundation area. The
17 reality is that most of those homes would be built
18 up above that water level.
19 With respect to notification, we
20 had forwarded our summary report to Pocono Lake
21 Preserve and asked them to review any comment. We
22 have not gotten any comment back, however I made
23 contact this past week with Paul Frantz who is
24 their hydrologist and asked them to take a look at
25 what we had submitted and also provided him with
13
1 contact information so we can be added to the
2 notification list.
3 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: We can
4 likewise add a note to our plan relative to that so
5 that those people had proper notification.
6 MR. JIM GAIDULA: We can also
7 add a note.
8 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: A copy of
9 that report will be given to each of the residents.
10 I don't think it will affect too many of them, but
11 it may be something depending on what the plans are
12 for utilization of their lot. It may come or not
13 come into play, but it certainly is something
14 worthy of review.
15 In regard to Item 39, again is
16 some details. These are -- we still have some
17 lighting photometrics that will be submitted with
18 our next submission. There was a question about
19 our exterior lighting, especially in the area of
20 our townhouse clusters and those we will
21 demonstrate by the photometrics that will be
22 available on both the garage and poster lights and
23 things surrounding those units that are controlled
24 by the residence in addition to the overhead
25 lighting.
14
1 I guess the last one is the
2 pipeline here. We, if you recall, have a necessity
3 because of access for fire lane to have one
4 particular cluster where we have to circumvent the
5 townhouse cluster with a piece of apparatus. We
6 wanted a right of way to go through the pipe line
7 area which we, of course, have to feed to. Talking
8 to the pipeline folks, at first pass, was they were
9 opposed to anything and everything. On subsequent
10 conversation, we now have a dialogue. I think that
11 they are reviewing what we have and I think we have
12 an opportunity to solve it. We are not going to be
13 excavating a pipeline. We'll be putting fill on
14 top of probably the existing grade and it will only
15 be used for emergency purposes. We further told
16 them that we'll make them happy about the lack of
17 casual traffic running over it. That we will, you
18 know, block it off on both sides and make it only
19 available to emergency personnel. I think that was
20 a favorable step in the right direction of
21 mitigating any problems and have them offer the use
22 to us in the interest of safety.
23 And that pretty much is an
24 update on where we are. I don't have to repeat
25 that Bob, at this point, of course is recommending
15
1 that our application be tabled because we are not
2 quite ready to put a full court press on it, but we
3 wanted to give you a report that every item is
4 being diligently worked on. Hopefully some of the
5 outside agencies will start to respond to not only
6 the first but second submittal. I think we'll
7 start seeing some things that are completed. It's
8 a complex project. From the day we started, it's
9 approaching two years through the tentative
10 approval, and I know you all got to see us more
11 than you like, but I think we are getting closer.
12 So thank you for your time and diligence.
13 Does anyone have any questions
14 of us while we are here? If not, Bob, is that a
15 pretty good portrayal of where we are?
16 MR. McHALE: Yes, sir, I believe
17 it is.
18 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: We
19 appreciate your time and patients with us. We'll
20 continue to work.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: As I've done in
22 the past, I'll turn it over to the vice-chairman to
23 take the vote.
24 MR. MILLER: Do I here a motion
25 to table the Keswick Pointe project?
16
1 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
3 MR. MILLER: Any comments? All
4 in favor? Aye.
5 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I abstain.
9 MR. MILLER: And also we
10 recommend that the township solicitor review all
11 the legal documents for the project. I don't know
12 if we need a motion for that.
13 MR. RICE: I think just some
14 communication from the planning commission. It
15 looks to me there is like a half dozen different
16 documents.
17 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: A lot of
18 the thing really isn't areas that I think would be
19 a strong review. There are certain parts of it
20 that are pertinent to the usage of the property as
21 it relates to being a PRD and meeting the spirit of
22 that ordinance.
23 MR. RICE: The development
24 agreement, and that usually gets finalized once you
25 get the final plan approval.
17
1 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: Those
2 agreements are agreements that have been signed in
3 the past. It's just a matter of someone, using the
4 term boiler plate, that's pretty much what they
5 are. Those will sit on the side, almost like
6 closing documents until we are ready to sign
7 everything and go forward.
8 MR. RICE: Right. As long as we
9 communicate either through Bob or myself that --
10 MR. CHARLES HANNIG: The
11 covenant review would be helpful because at some
12 point in time we'll start doing things that will
13 start to collateralize our materials and get ready
14 to market the project.
15 Thank you.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you. The
17 next item on our agenda is Pyramid Network
18 Services, final land development.
19 MR. MICHAEL GRAB: Good evening
20 commission members. My name is Mike Grab. I'm
21 legal counsel for T-Mobile who is the applicant.
22 Similar to the last application, we have just a few
23 items, 2 or 3 items to address with Bob since his
24 last review letter of February 16th. We had
25 submitted some supplemental information and we've
18
1 narrowed the items down and so our plan is to get
2 those few items addressed before the April meeting
3 of the planning commission and then we should be
4 ready to proceed. This one has been on the agenda
5 for a number of months where we've been diligently
6 been working with Bob to address each of those
7 items. So, again, we plan to be ready to proceed
8 before the board for planning commission action at
9 the April meeting. I'd be happy to answer any
10 questions that you have.
11 This is the proposal to replace
12 the existing mobile sign on 940 and 380 with a
13 three-pole sign of equal height and then to
14 collocate antennas on each of those poles. So it's
15 a fairly straight forward project in terms of land
16 use. It's just a matter of crossing T's and
17 dotting the I's.
18 MR. RICE: We are trying to
19 determine whether or not there is any -- there is a
20 waiver dated February 1st, '07.
21 MR. MICHAEL GRAB: I think we
22 just submitted one too, beginning February. I'm
23 not sure the exact time, but the extension was
24 granted as part of that.
25 MR. RICE: Sixty days after
19
1 either receipt of revised plans you will notify the
2 township in writing --
3 MR. McHALE: Revised plans were
4 submitted February 23rd.
5 MR. RICE: You're going to need
6 a time waiver at next month's meeting then.
7 MR. MICHAEL GRAB: Okay.
8 MR. RICE: Assuming it's not
9 moving forward.
10 MR. MICHAEL GRAB: Okay. So we
11 can do that to the extent necessary at the next
12 month's meeting.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone have any
14 questions in terms of this project? Public have
15 any questions of the applicant?
16 MR. MICHAEL GRAB: Thanks very
17 much, planning commission members.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll entertain a
19 motion to table the Pyramid Network Services land
20 development plan.
21 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
23 Do I have a second to the motion?
24 MR. RIEKER: Second.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
20
1 second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
2 MR. MILLER: Aye.
3 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
4 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item on our
7 agenda is Glorious Church. Anyone here
8 representing Glorious Church?
9 MR. MARC WOLFE: Mr. Chairman,
10 that should be tabled at the applicant's request.
11 It's actually the following agenda item and if
12 there is a time issue, we'll be happy to extend the
13 time.
14 MR. RICE: I actually looked at
15 that today. Marc, you had sent a letter granting
16 an indefinite waiver. I looked at that. I don't
17 believe there is an issue.
18 MR. MARC WOLFE: If there is,
19 that's fine. Thank you.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
21 motion?
22 MR. MILLER: So moved.
23 MR. BAXTER: Second.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
25 favor please say aye. Aye.
21
1 MR. MILLER: Aye.
2 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
3 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need a motion
6 to table the conditional use application of
7 Glorious Church.
8 MR. RIEKER: So moved.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
10 Do I have a second to the motion.
11 MR. MILLER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor please say aye. Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Next item on the
19 agenda is Wee-Wons Day Care expansion preliminary
20 final land development plan.
21 MR. BRICK LINDER: Good evening.
22 My name is Brick Linder. I'm project engineer for
23 the Wee-Wons Day Care expansion. I'm here tonight
24 with Ms. Cathy Guydish who is the owner and the
25 applicant. And we currently have a special
22
1 exception use application pending with the zoning
2 hearing board as well as a land development
3 application pending with the township. The special
4 exception use application with the zoning hearing
5 board was heard last week or had begun to be heard
6 last week. It was continued to a later date.
7 Cathy was out of town at the time of the hearing so
8 it was continued and rescheduled for I believe
9 early March to be continued. So that application
10 is out there pending. As I said, we also have a
11 land development application. We've gotten Bob's
12 review on both and tonight we are here without any
13 revised plans, we are here to request to be tabled,
14 but hopefully with the intent to try to get a
15 couple questions answered and a resolution to some
16 of the items so that we can address all the
17 comments, and after the special exception use
18 hearing concludes, come back to you all with all of
19 our comments addressed and everything in order for
20 approval.
21 So with that said, I'm going to
22 start off. I know it was presented to you folks
23 last month as an initial submission. I'm going to
24 ask if anybody has any questions at this point or
25 any thoughts behind the layout and what was
23
1 proposed. What you're seeing up here is really
2 just a colored version of what's been submitted.
3 It shows a little bit of the landscaping, shows the
4 proposed paving area. The proposed day care
5 building here, proposed swimming pool and its
6 relationship or their relationship to the existing
7 building, the existing parking and paved areas and
8 Route 423 which is on the easterly side. So I'll
9 answer any questions or anything that the
10 commission has at this point. If not, I'll move
11 into some of the questions we have.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Brick, my
13 initial one was -- and this came up at the last
14 meeting, was the wetlands.
15 MR. BRICK LINDER: Yes.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: From what you're
17 showing, you're planning on filling some wetlands.
18 MR. BRICK LINDER: We are. We
19 are. A little history on the wetlands. When the
20 project was originally proposed, it was a wetland
21 delineation that basically followed this line and
22 came along something like this. The project was
23 built on the upland area. Cathy has had C&H
24 Environmental evaluate the wetlands further. It
25 turns out that there is a good portion, a very
24
1 substantial portion of upland that was on the other
2 side of the original delineated wetland line. It
3 actually turns out that there is a relatively large
4 wetland out here. This line actually comes down
5 off the sheet and back over here and it wraps
6 around here. This is all upland in the area where
7 the project is proposed, with the exception of a
8 long narrow finger here and a small pocket right
9 there. C&H Environmental has had the Army Corp of
10 Engineers on the site to verify the delineation.
11 They are and have submitted a jurisdictional
12 determination and they will be applying for the
13 permits to fill and disturb those wetlands. Now,
14 as of last, I have been told that the Army Corp,
15 due to some litigation, has put jurisdictional
16 determinations on hold. I understand that that has
17 since ceased and they are no longer on hold. They
18 are issuing them, however we don't have our JD as
19 of yet. We've kind of been in a holding pattern
20 until this litigation issue gets resolved. But the
21 JD is out there pending. I have also been told by
22 C&H Environmental that they have discussed the
23 project with the Army Corp, and what is being
24 proposed is an acceptable proposal and it should be
25 permitable once the JD gets issued and once the
25
1 plans and the whole application gets submitted to
2 the Army Corp. So it boils down to less than I
3 think a quarter of an acre of disturbance. It's a
4 minimal area. That obviously is still hanging out
5 there. It was my hope before we came into the
6 township with our application to have all those
7 permits, however, because of the jurisdictional
8 thing, that was a delay. And I was also told that
9 the Army Corp wouldn't even evaluate the project
10 until we had the whole thing designed and submitted
11 the whole thing to them as a package. So C&H is
12 actually submitting that application concurrently
13 with theirs and that will be a contingency of any
14 approval the township gives. Anything else?
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's go over
16 your letter.
17 MR. BRICK LINDER: I just have a
18 couple of quick things. I'll begin on Page 3 of 6
19 under the subdivision and land development section,
20 Section B, about the middle of the page and further
21 down at the bottom, Section 135.17. There are a
22 couple of statements in your ordinance beginning
23 with No. 15 in the middle. It says existing
24 development, including streets, buildings --
25 existing development including streets and
26
1 buildings within 500 feet of the proposed
2 subdivision or land development should be shown.
3 Existing building, sewer systems, bridges,
4 petroleum or petroleum product lines, gas lines and
5 other significant features within 500 feet of the
6 tract; and subsection M at the bottom, existing
7 streets, intersection driveways adjacent to or
8 within 500 feet be shown. We are showing existing
9 driveways and existing features within the
10 immediate locale of the site and we would request a
11 waiver showing the other features within 500 feet
12 of the site.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's fine,
14 Brick, but you just have to submit it in writing.
15 MR. BRICK LINDER: I have those
16 requests tonight. I just wanted to make sure.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does any member
18 have any objection to those requests?
19 MR. BRICK LINDER: We have three
20 letters. I prepared them independently for each of
21 those sections in case you wanted to take action on
22 them.
23 Then the other thing I wanted to
24 discuss is on Page 4 of 6, it's in the middle of
25 the page under landscaping. And the comment is,
27
1 adequate landscaped screening shall be required
2 within a buffer strip of not less than 25 feet in
3 width, be devoted to that purpose adjacent to all
4 exterior lot lines of any commercial or industrial
5 subdivision, which are adjacent to or across the
6 street from a residential area. You have a zone
7 line that goes down through 423, east side is in
8 the R-2 Zone, the west side is in the C Zone, and
9 we quite frankly laid out the project with regard
10 to the requirements of your zoning ordinance and
11 the zoning ordinance requires a 15 foot buffer,
12 landscaped buffer, buffer strip, within that area.
13 We have provided a 20 foot landscaped buffer and
14 berm right here to screen the parking lot and the
15 project from Route 423. And that was provided, as
16 I said, in accordance with the definition of buffer
17 strip in the zoning ordinance. Our question is, we
18 are exceeding that, and is 20 feet acceptable to
19 the township?
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're saying
21 because it is 25 foot underneath the SALDO?
22 MR. BRICK LINDER: Correct.
23 MR. RICE: You want a 5 foot
24 waiver, basically?
25 MR. BRICK LINDER: It requires a
28
1 waiver.
2 MR. RICE: You're providing 20.
3 MR. BRICK LINDER: Providing 20.
4 MR. RICE: The subdivision
5 requires 25.
6 MR. BRICK LINDER: Landscaped
7 section provides 25.
8 MR. RICE: You need a waiver.
9 MR. BRICK LINDER: Would that be
10 a waiver?
11 MR. RICE: Yes.
12 MR. BRICK LINDER: Would it be a
13 waiver if the property across the street was not in
14 residential use?
15 It's residentially zoned, but it
16 is -- it's a community association use of Lake
17 Naomi Club. It's classified as an amenity in a
18 common area, according to the county tax assessor
19 and the county planning commission, rather than a
20 residential use. We had viewed it as being a
21 non-residential use because it's a parking lot
22 community area. This is a copy of a tax map which
23 shows the orange parcel, the Wee-Wons Day Care
24 parcel and the yellow parcel, which is the lands of
25 the Lake Naomi Club and the classification as such.
29
1 MR. RIEKER: How tall is the
2 berm that you're proposing to put in there? Have
3 you decided?
4 MR. BRICK LINDER: Presently
5 designed -- let me check the plans. I think it's
6 in the 3 to 4 foot high with evergreens on top.
7 MR. RIEKER: Have you decided on
8 the evergreens yet?
9 MR. BRICK LINDER: Last meeting
10 there was some questioning on that and it was
11 decided and they were -- they are specified as Blue
12 Spruce.
13 MR. RIEKER: I also see that you
14 put some additional plantings, I think we talked
15 about this last time, in the other island.
16 MR. BRICK LINDER: Requested
17 some in the existing island.
18 MR. RIEKER: I can't read the
19 label from here. Do you know what those are?
20 MR. BRICK LINDER: There is one
21 here, one here and one here. They are flowering
22 dogwoods.
23 MR. RIEKER: You might want to
24 change that. We try and tell all our clients'
25 projects, because of elevations, dogwoods are
30
1 marginally hardy here, at best. You may want to
2 switch. Since it's by Lake Naomi, they have
3 service berry, which are native to the area.
4 MR. BRICK LINDER: Service
5 berry. Is that a deciduous tree?
6 MR. RIEKER: Yes, single stem
7 service berry that will blend in with what grows
8 naturally in their swales. It's probably less
9 costly than dogwoods also.
10 MR. BRICK LINDER: Thank you.
11 Want a job?
12 MR. RIEKER: Single stem service
13 berry. I'll spell it for you, Amelanchier,
14 A-m-e-l-a-n-c-h-i-e-r, so you can put it on your
15 table. Single stem. They come in clump form, but
16 they do what you're trying to do.
17 MR. BRICK LINDER: That will
18 match Lake Naomi?
19 MR. RIEKER: It blends in better
20 with the area. If you put Amelanchier species or
21 Amelanchier canadensis, either one, SP period is
22 fine. Save you some money.
23 MR. BRICK LINDER: Thank you.
24 MR. RIEKER: It's all through
25 Pine Crest and everywhere.
31
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: John, do you
2 have a comment on the buffer?
3 MR. RICE: On the waiver to that
4 particular section it's a 25 foot requirement. I
5 mean, I understand your argument. That says a
6 residential area. It doesn't say residential use.
7 It's adjacent to a residential use. It says
8 residential area, zoned residential. You need a
9 5-foot waiver.
10 MR. BRICK LINDER: Okay.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Does any member
12 have any objection to the 5-foot waiver request?
13 MR. RIEKER: Since he's putting
14 the berm in or she's putting the berm in, that adds
15 a lot to the buffering, you know, versus 25 feet.
16 Putting a three-foot berm in there, it's going to
17 help tremendously with cars driving by because most
18 compact cars are going to be driving at this
19 height. It screens a lot better.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's also
21 adjacent to a roadway. It's not like there is a
22 house right there.
23 MR. ALAN YOUNG: Mr. Chairman,
24 if I may. I'm Alan Young representing Lake Naomi.
25 The club would like to support the waiver. We have
32
1 some concerns on other aspects of the development,
2 but I think that the 5-foot waiver would be
3 appropriate given the design of the berm.
4 MR. BRICK LINDER: Thank you.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you.
6 MR. BRICK LINDER:
7 Unfortunately, I'm not prepared tonight with a
8 letter requesting that waiver.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: You can get that
10 into us.
11 MR. BRICK LINDER: Thank you.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are also okay
13 with that.
14 MR. BRICK LINDER: And that's
15 all I have. The rest of the comments to me are
16 straight forward and understood. We will work to
17 address them.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do any of the
19 planning commission members have any comments?
20 Questions?
21 Mr. Young.
22 MR. ALAN YOUNG: Thank you.
23 Brick, if I could raise a couple
24 of questions for you that have come up in our
25 review of the application. Mr. Evans apologizes
33
1 for being out of town. We didn't plan it this way
2 ourselves.
3 We've been taking a look at the
4 traffic usage patterns. If you can concentrate on
5 that and the planning commission's review and the
6 engineer's design, to the point of taking a look at
7 where the parking actually takes place now on the
8 site and the number of movements per hour during
9 certain hours of the day. We have that data. I'll
10 gladly share it with the applicant and you after
11 the meeting. Our concern is one of safety and
12 concentration of traffic movements because this is
13 a drop-off/pick-up operation beginning the day and
14 at the end. I remember looking at this when the
15 initial application was reviewed and approved and
16 the concern remains about the same as to the
17 initial application, that there be good safety.
18 Lake Naomi Club also wants to
19 say for the record, for the commission and for the
20 applicant, this is a very needed service and it's
21 of great benefit to the employees and residence of
22 the Lake Naomi area. On the other hand, it's a
23 two-lane road. Parking seems to get concentrated
24 in a non-parking area of the existing site.
25 Movements are concentrated between early morning
34
1 hours, late afternoon hours, so we want to be sure
2 there is a conservative view of the traffic on this
3 site and entering and exiting the site. So rather
4 than dwell on hard numbers tonight, I'll gladly
5 share with you what we have so that we can work
6 with you to try and assure that the site is
7 properly developed and traffic is adequately
8 addressed.
9 That's all I wanted to say this
10 evening, Mr. Chairman, and we'll follow-up directly
11 with the applicant and try to shortcut this process
12 rather than doing it on a monthly cycle and we'll
13 try to move it along in an appropriate fashion.
14 MR. BRICK LINDER: Alan, could I
15 request that you provide us something in writing
16 outlining your concerns and whatever data you're
17 providing.
18 MR. ALAN YOUNG: We've been
19 trying to get ready for this meeting in order to
20 come and raise the issues and I'll gladly follow
21 up.
22 MR. BRICK LINDER: Okay.
23 MR. ALAN YOUNG: Thank you.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Brick, do you
25 currently have an HOP?
35
1 MR. BRICK LINDER: Yes.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: With the added
3 traffic?
4 MR. BRICK LINDER: Not with this
5 project. There was a low volume highway occupancy
6 permit issued with the original application. It
7 was for a one-way in, one-way out facility. There
8 were site easements to the alignment of 423, site
9 easements established across the adjoining
10 properties, so adequate site could be established.
11 I have been in touch with Brian Boyer who is the
12 district permit engineer in Allentown, went over
13 the project with Brian and he requested that we
14 update our highway occupancy permit application
15 through another submission to PennDOT, which we are
16 in the process of doing.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: How many
18 additional movements are you talking about?
19 MR. BRICK LINDER: Well, Mark, I
20 can't give you hard numbers right now. I can tell
21 you that just from reviewing the county planning
22 commission's comments, they were estimating about
23 550 ADT roughly, which is about 225, 250, 275 cars,
24 something like that, but that will all have to be
25 documented and supplied to PennDOT for their
36
1 review. That will bring the highway occupancy
2 permit up to the present proposal, limitations of
3 the present proposal.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that going to
5 take into a medium --
6 MR. BRICK LINDER: No, I don't
7 see it going in the medium volume.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, do you have
9 any comments?
10 MR. McHALE: No.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone else from
12 the public?
13 MR. JIM DEMBINSKI: My name is
14 Jim Dembinski and I'm the neighbor to the south,
15 Oakridge Construction. As far as the waiver, I'm
16 all for the waiver in granting that. I'm all for
17 the project as well. I'd like to be kept abreast
18 if I could with the information. Maybe Alan will
19 supply the stuff that you have. That would be
20 great. See what's going on.
21 MR. BRICK LINDER: Nothing else.
22 Then we'll request that we be tabled and be back in
23 in the future.
24 MR. RICE: You're going to
25 submit that other waiver in writing?
37
1 MR. BRICK LINDER: I will submit
2 the other waiver in writing.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'll need a
4 motion to table the Wee-Wons Day Care Expansion
5 preliminary final land development plan.
6 MR. BAXTER: So moved.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
8 second?
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion
11 and second. All those in favor please say aye.
12 Aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: The proposed fee
18 resolution and professional services agreement. I
19 really would like to get over this if we can. It's
20 on our agenda now. Let's do it. Unfortunately,
21 the snowstorm held us up, so.
22 I had asked Maureen to go back
23 and look at cost for land development and
24 subdivision application fees and total engineering
25 cost that had been incurred for that, which was
38
1 included in our package for tonight.
2 In looking at the resolution
3 that's proposed from our solicitor, specifically
4 going to the fees, I would like to suggest that
5 under the sketch plan, escrow account, our process
6 is -- is everyone following where I am on the
7 actual fees? Our sketch plan application is a
8 pretty informal process. Instead of getting into
9 fees for escrow accounts for that, I'm saying that
10 we should just make that zero. I talked to Bob a
11 little bit about this. Usually if a project is
12 substantial, they do have the presubmittal meeting.
13 That gets charged off to the applicant once they
14 actually submit. In other words, that time is
15 accumulated and it's charged off under the escrow
16 when it's submitted. So for these informal
17 projects that may or may not go, I don't see any
18 need for a fee or the escrow account amount. I'm
19 suggesting that we just leave that at zero, which
20 it has been. So that's actually no change.
21 Moving on to the minor
22 subdivision, under the application fee -- again,
23 all the fees stayed the same. The only thing that
24 we are suggesting changing right now is the escrow
25 account. The only other one I saw was under the
39
1 minor subdivision. I thought 2,500 was a little
2 bit high. When you looked at the schedule that was
3 given, I don't see anything exceeding -- there is
4 one -- the Valencia (phonetic)that went to 3000
5 let's say. I think that was the exception rather
6 than the rule. So I was suggesting we take that
7 down to $1500 for the escrow account. Again, you
8 know, when the escrow account gets below a certain
9 level, it has to be replenished anyhow, so -- the
10 only other comment that I had to bring to the
11 commission is under -- on page 2, it gets into a
12 per square foot of the impervious surface. And Bob
13 and I ran some quick calculations. We thought this
14 fee was getting a little excessive at $100 per
15 thousand square foot of impervious surface. If you
16 have a large parking lot, such as we have under
17 sketch plans for tonight, you know, that can get
18 very costly, so I thought that that was really not
19 needed. I don't know if you guys want to consider
20 just leaving the set fee at 2500 and 3500 and just
21 taking out the $100 per thousand square foot; or
22 taking that down to say $10 or a dollar per
23 thousand square foot, something in that line.
24 Besides that, that was the only other -- that's the
25 only changes that I saw, that I would suggest.
40
1 MR. RIEKER: The large parking
2 lots, Bob has to do some review of the profiles and
3 drainage, so I could see lowering it to say $10 a
4 square foot versus 100. It's large scale, some
5 details. He still has to look at the drawings.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anyone else have
7 any comments?
8 MR. VANDERVLIET: The work
9 that's being done, is there going to be a time
10 check done on it, verification, so we know what is
11 being charged is the right price to be charged?
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Bob, maybe you
13 can address it or John.
14 MR. RICE: Yes. I mean, what
15 has to happen Ted is there has -- there is part of
16 the fee resolution -- there should also be a
17 schedule of charges, hourly rates, however that is
18 billed through, so -- and it's got to be the same
19 that gets billed to a developer that would be
20 charged to the municipality. So attached to this
21 you will see, and I think -- the escrow -- let me
22 just say, they're a judgement call. These numbers
23 are based on this township's experience and they
24 change this every year. So some of these, for
25 example, that parking lot or that impervious
41
1 surface, that was because of a specific project
2 where the engineer spent a lot of time and a lot of
3 fees because of the way it was submitted. So it's
4 a judgement call that's up to the planning
5 commission and then the board, but there's got to
6 be a fee schedule attached to this.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: That's what my
8 problem is. There is equity to the contractor
9 developer also, as well as to the township.
10 MR. RICE: Yes. The idea is to
11 recoup the costs that are incurred by the
12 municipality who are permitted to do it under the
13 MPC, and it's not just limited to engineering, it
14 includes legal fees, if you have to hire a
15 hydrogeologist, any professional consultant because
16 the project gets involved in this, and it's also
17 some incentive to the developer to submit these
18 things in a timely fashion and you don't have them
19 on your agenda for five years, and you're
20 constantly churning them over and over again. But
21 that would be an attachment. That fee schedule
22 from the township's professional consultant would
23 be an attachment. Fees would be limited to that
24 hourly rate.
25 MR. RIEKER: That would be an
42
1 attachment to this contract.
2 MR. RICE: No. It would be
3 attached to the fee resolution. And then part of
4 the application procedure --
5 MR. RIEKER: In this contract
6 there is nothing -- like if I'm signing this
7 contract, it doesn't say how much I'm paying for
8 the services.
9 MR. RICE: At the bottom -- well
10 there should be a foot note. In Paragraph 3, it
11 talks about the professional consultant's charges
12 and fees and the last sentence states that the
13 developer accepts the fee schedule currently in
14 affect in the township. So -- and there is a
15 reference in the fee schedule to the agreement.
16 There is a footnote on the front page of the fee
17 schedule which references a professional services
18 contract. So, you know, it can be clarified some
19 more if the commissioner's board would want to do
20 that, but they are intended to -- the fee
21 resolution really will control and that schedule of
22 fees controls. The contract is a boiler plate to
23 fill in the blanks and whatever the fee resolution
24 is in affect when you sign it, that's what the
25 charge is.
43
1 MR. RIEKER: I agree that
2 somewhere on here we have to have that outlined as
3 to what those fees are.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: If the escrow
5 account is not used up in the review or the
6 applicant pulls or whatever, it gets refunded.
7 It's not kept by the township, only to reimburse
8 the township for actual costs incurred. Correct?
9 MR. RICE: Yes. Whatever is
10 left over, typically there is -- I think the
11 agreement requires a request from the developer and
12 it gets turned back, but if there is no request,
13 sometimes people forget that they have a couple
14 thousand dollars. It gets turned back by the
15 municipality.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: That was my
17 next question. Is there any accounting given on a
18 continuing basis to the applicant so that he knows
19 and he's not guessing?
20 MR. RICE: There'll be an
21 accounting because he's going to deposit an
22 additional sum and if the project goes on for a
23 long time, he's going to be asked to deposit
24 additional money. But the township has got a
25 keeping function that's got to track these
44
1 projects, so -- and that's something that anybody
2 can walk in and look at. That's a public record,
3 what those tabulations are. So I think there is
4 protection with the land owner, with some incentive
5 to do these projects in a prompt and efficient
6 manner and it helps the tax payers of the township
7 because you're not subsidizing, you know, these
8 projects.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think one of
10 our big problems has been that a lot of times plans
11 are submitted that are incomplete and Bob has to do
12 a rather lengthy review. Where when the applicant
13 starts getting hit with the escrow account and say,
14 okay, you're getting deducted this much from your
15 escrow account, they're going to get on their
16 engineer and lawyer to get the items done I think
17 in a more efficient manner.
18 MR. BAXTER: The escrow account
19 would be required at the time we formally accept
20 the plans? We've had some question about that.
21 MR. RICE: Yes. At the
22 application. There is some question about --
23 that's sort of a separate issue, but I think what
24 you're doing now is fine, but at the application --
25 they are now filling out an application submitting
45
1 plans and paying a fee and then that will -- they
2 will still pay a fee, make an application and they
3 will sign a professional services contract and it
4 will start your process. And the township will
5 have to keep track of -- there is always an issue
6 of chasing after certain developers that deposit
7 some money and the township does a lot of work and
8 then you have to chase after them to get that
9 replenished, the revolving escrow account to cover
10 the township's cost. So that's going to happen at
11 the application stage, at the front desk.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: So when the
13 application comes in, you know, say $1500, $2000
14 has to be deposited with the township.
15 MR. BAXTER: It's being also
16 tracked on an ongoing basis. And if we've used up
17 that escrow, theoretically the township could stop
18 any further review until the escrow was
19 replenished, so we are not having to chase anybody
20 when we've lost time.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: But when it gets
22 to a certain level, a request is put out.
23 MR. RICE: Yes. The township is
24 going to have to -- once it gets down to I think
25 it's 50 percent or 25 percent --
46
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think it was
2 25 percent.
3 MR. RICE: There is going to
4 have to be some kind of a -- it's 50 percent, on
5 the bottom of page two. There is going to have to
6 be a request to the land owner that they are at 50
7 percent and, I mean, it's possible that there won't
8 be any more work for some period of time, so there
9 won't be any need for Bob to do anything else. But
10 that's at least the first red flag. Most townships
11 are relatively flexible. They're going to continue
12 to do work unless it gets down to 10 percent or 25
13 percent. Then the word should go out to Bob and
14 any other consultant that we are not going to do
15 any more work on this particular project.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
17 questions. Any questions on the agreement? Any
18 questions from the public, questions or comments?
19 Mr. Carroll.
20 MR. ED CARROLL: My name is Ed
21 Carroll from Pinecrest Development Corporation.
22 I'm trying to understand what you're saying here.
23 The township has always had fee schedules and on
24 top of this you're going to create an escrow
25 account?
47
1 MR. RICE: No. The township's
2 had, at different times, and I can't give you a
3 long history of the township because I'm not that
4 familiar with the history of the township, but the
5 township has always had some type of a fee, and in
6 some cases, some type of escrow, but there has been
7 I believe some inconsistencies.
8 What's going to happen now is I
9 believe the fee right now is rather large. The fee
10 will drop down and be minimal. The escrow will
11 take the place of the larger fee. So you're going
12 to have a fairly nominal fee and there will be a
13 professional services escrow that will cover the
14 township's cost, which is really the costs that the
15 township incurs. So you will have both, but the
16 numbers will be adjusted. So it's about the same
17 as it's always been. I think right now the
18 township takes their costs out of the fee. So they
19 collect a large fee. They will collect a smaller
20 fee now, but have this escrow that will again cover
21 the township cost.
22 MR. ED CARROLL: We'll be before
23 you tonight later on this evening for a phase in
24 Pinecrest that has 50 some odd units. Three months
25 ago we wrote the check for the fee, but I believe
48
1 the fee was $750 for the township.
2 MR. RICE: Right.
3 MR. ED CARROLL: $300 for the
4 conservation district.
5 MR. RICE: Did you establish an
6 escrow account also when you paid that fee?
7 MR. ED CARROLL: No.
8 MR. RICE: You got a good deal
9 then.
10 MR. ED CARROLL: Nobody said
11 anything about an escrow account, just paid the
12 fee. Now, in our case, because it's a PRD and in a
13 long term situation, we had to submit by December
14 1st. Now the township has I guess a three-week
15 submission date prior to the meeting of the
16 planning commission, so obviously if we submitted
17 December 1st and the planning commission was on
18 December 4th, we could not meet in December. In
19 January we went through some issues that were
20 raised by the supervisors' solicitor. And in
21 February we went through some issues about the
22 project. What I'm saying is or the point I'm
23 trying to bring up is that because of the
24 submission dates and the nuances of this particular
25 project, the board asked that we would sign a
49
1 waiver, a time waiver. And the time waiver
2 basically, until it's refuted, so to speak, gives
3 the township 60 days from the day it's refuted to
4 take action or else it's deemed approved. The
5 question I am alluding to, if you have this escrow
6 and you have this ongoing project, and I heard a
7 project before that's been here a year and another
8 one that's been here a year, does this escrow
9 agreement owing to the fact that the township has
10 the right to ask you for a time extension, if you
11 don't give it to them you get turned down, so
12 everybody gives it, is that an unfair situation for
13 the public?
14 MR. RICE: No. No. Not at all.
15 In fact, the township doesn't give you, under the
16 way the code is written, the township doesn't give
17 you the time extension. The township has the
18 obligation to make a decision within 90 days. So
19 the only reason why they couldn't make that
20 decision within 90 days is because the plans are
21 deficient for whatever reason. It could be your
22 engineer, it could be the township's engineer, it
23 could be 60 days of snow, but you give us the
24 extension of time. You grant the township an
25 extension of time. So you can control and your
50
1 engineer can control how many reviews this engineer
2 has to do on your plan. If you work through it
3 promptly, you get through that, Bob does his
4 reviews and, you know, projects can occur very
5 quickly. You've got that obligation. The
6 township's obligation is to make sure that they
7 review your plans in a timely fashion. But for
8 whatever reason the 90 days runs, then our only
9 choice is to say to you, we are not ready to act on
10 this because it's so deficient, if you don't give
11 us a waiver, we'll have to deny it. That happens
12 all over this Commonwealth all the time.
13 MR. ED CARROLL: I understand.
14 MR. RICE: So I don't understand
15 the fairness issue you're raising at all because we
16 are talking about escrows, we are talking about
17 professional services. Right?
18 MR. ED CARROLL: Right.
19 MR. RICE: The township is
20 putting out and paying and the township I think is
21 merely trying to cover its costs.
22 MR. ED CARROLL: I have no
23 problem with that.
24 MR. RICE: But that's the
25 issue --
51
1 MR. ED CARROLL: But the problem
2 I have is because the township has the right of
3 asking for a time extension --
4 MR. RICE: We don't --
5 MR. ED CARROLL: Well, you do
6 because you will refuse it if you don't give it.
7 MR. RICE: Well, that's up to
8 you.
9 MR. ED CARROLL: I understand.
10 I understand. You can take a refusal or --
11 MR. RICE: It's not our right.
12 It's your right.
13 MR. ED CARROLL: It seems to me,
14 in a fairness way, one sided, but for instance,
15 Mr. Hannig had two or three items on his little
16 agenda there, where I've submitted it, but no
17 response. I've submitted it, no response. It
18 seems to me with this escrow situation, which has
19 never been here before, right?
20 MR. RICE: I think there has
21 been escrow, different types of --
22 MR. ED CARROLL: I was chairman
23 of this planning commission for 12 years and there
24 was never an escrow.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: What happened
52
1 was the professional fees were accumulated and then
2 we would go out to -- a bill would be sent from the
3 township asking the applicant to reimburse the
4 township for engineering fees.
5 MR. RICE: Afterwards. So we
6 are getting it up front.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are asking
8 for it up front so we don't have to chase people to
9 get that money.
10 MR. RICE: Some projects just
11 don't happen and there is let's say a $10,000 bill.
12 You're not going to find that particular property
13 owner after, for whatever reason, he sells the
14 project, he goes bankrupt, he leaves the state. So
15 we are allowed to do it up front, very clear in the
16 state law.
17 MR. ED CARROLL: I'm not
18 questioning that.
19 MR. RICE: And it's something
20 that all the tax payers and the township end up
21 footing the bill for if we don't get it. We are
22 hoping to get it up front and if there is money
23 left over, it gets turned back.
24 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: You didn't
25 get a bill yet.
53
1 MR. RICE: Cost of doing
2 development.
3 MR. ED CARROLL: I have
4 developed in this township for 20 years. We never
5 got a bill once ever from this township because we
6 dragged something out. I'm not talking about
7 Pinecrest Development, I'm not talking about myself
8 personally, I'm talking about the average public
9 who comes here and who is maybe confused about the
10 process or this or that and does not know how to
11 handle it. I think that it says something about
12 almost an unfriendly atmosphere for someone who is
13 trying to improve their property or whatever. I'm
14 only raising it as a fairness question. I
15 understand that because I see your agenda, I don't
16 recall years ago that the agenda was so full with
17 so many people who were not here or whatever and
18 maybe that's what you're trying to cure. So I just
19 wanted to comment to the planning commission
20 members by way of fairness, the upfront cost of
21 doing land development today are enormous and to
22 add one more thing to it, I just want them to
23 consider the fairness issue. Thank you.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you for
25 your comments.
54
1 Do the planning commission
2 members have any comments or questions?
3 MR. BAXTER: We are not really,
4 as I see it, increasing any fees. It's just a
5 matter of prepayment versus post payment.
6 MR. RICE: Right.
7 MR. BAXTER: So there should be
8 no ultimate increase to the developer, it's just a
9 matter when they are paying.
10 MR. RICE: We are getting the
11 smaller application fee and a specific type of
12 escrow account. The fees aren't -- I don't believe
13 are any greater. I think the application fees are
14 pretty much the same. We are getting them up front
15 instead of waiting till the end of the job and then
16 hoping that you get reimbursed. If the plan gets
17 approved and it gets recorded, that's some pretty
18 good leverage to get reimbursed, but that doesn't
19 always happen.
20 MR. BAXTER: Also the length of
21 time that it's taking for a project, but the time
22 in review that the engineer is putting into it,
23 that determines the fee. So if it goes on as
24 Mr. Hannig has for almost two years, there has been
25 a lot of inactivity during that two year --
55
1 MR. RICE: Those reviews that
2 aren't being done that he's wondering when they are
3 being done, he's not being billed for that because
4 there was no work recovered. So, you get what you
5 pay for under that agreement and it's got to be
6 documented.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: That's the
8 reason I brought up the accounting part of it, the
9 equity for the contractor. This should be as
10 important as getting the fees so that he knows what
11 is going on all the time. Not only the contractor,
12 but homeowners when they come in.
13 MR. ED CARROLL: That's what I
14 was speaking to.
15 MR. RIEKER: I think we also --
16 I hope this would motivate the engineers that
17 represent you applicants to do their work, instead
18 of Bob acting as the teacher with a red pen saying
19 this, this, this has to be done, when you're paying
20 your engineer $125 an hour. He or she should have
21 it cut and dry when they come before us. You know,
22 there has been questions about other proposals that
23 have come before us that have been approved rather
24 quickly. That's because all their stuff was done.
25 Their engineers did their homework. And other
56
1 people came in and drag it on and drag it on. As
2 any police officer will tell you when you get a
3 ticket, that ignorance is no excuse that you didn't
4 know it was 55 miles an hour. So when you hire
5 either the attorneys or the engineers, that's their
6 job, their job to bring it ready to us. And I
7 think with these fees, they'll think maybe my
8 engineer should get it done for me.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: For contractor
10 and developer they are on the clock.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any other
12 comments from the public? Heidi.
13 MS. HEIDI PICKARD: I just had a
14 question. The copy of the developers' agreement
15 that I had did not say when that would be
16 replenished. I have, "In the event the above
17 deposit escrow funds shall fall below the original
18 deposit." Where were you reading 50 or 25 percent
19 needs to be replenished?
20 MR. RICE: Heidi, you're looking
21 at Page 2 --
22 MS. HEIDI PICKARD: Okay.
23 MR. RICE: -- of the
24 professional services agreement, the bottom of Page
25 2, that's Paragraph 4. You have the deposit amount
57
1 in the first part of that which would be per the
2 fee resolution. And then the second paragraph
3 basically says, "If that amount falls below 50
4 percent, the developer shall, upon written notice
5 from the township, deposit to replenish it back to
6 that original sum."
7 Now, practically speaking, most
8 townships are not that on top of -- when it gets to
9 50 percent, you're not going to get a letter right
10 away, but it should be pretty close to when you
11 fall below that 50 percent. Then there has to be
12 notice and then the original escrow sum gets
13 replenished. That could be modified to 25 percent.
14 MS. HEIDI PICKARD: My copy
15 didn't have that. I had an earlier copy. It says
16 original deposit.
17 MR. RICE: Yes. We made a
18 couple of changes to this, I think, when it was
19 just sort of an idea. Someone asked me for an
20 example last fall, I think. When the planning
21 commission was going to consider it, we put a
22 little more clarity into it.
23 MS. HEIDI PICKARD: I wanted to
24 make one other comment because of Ted's comment.
25 Currently, Maureen is keeping track of all these
58
1 hours now and billing them out. That same system
2 would occur. If she needed to replenish, she would
3 be billing out and showing what we had spent the
4 money on; or when he was returning the balance she
5 would have a break down of all the fees that were
6 charged. Thank you.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you,
8 Heidi. Any other comments?
9 I would like to move this if the
10 commission is so inclined.
11 MR. BAXTER: Where did we leave
12 the fees for the impervious surface? We talked
13 about Paragraph E, 1E.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
15 MR. BAXTER: I agree. I think
16 that that's an awful lot of money.
17 MR. RICE: I think you can
18 delete that. You've got that in two places because
19 the top of Page 2, that's for a residential land
20 development, the $2500 plus the $100. The second
21 half of that can be deleted. You're going to get
22 the escrow and it's going to be replenished. Then
23 under the commercial, industrial, institutional
24 land development, the same figure is there, $3500
25 plus that extra per square foot. If you drop both
59
1 of those off, I don't think there is any major
2 issue with the fee resolution going forward without
3 that because it's going to be a revolving --
4 whatever the original number is, however you
5 calculate it, it's going to be revolving, so.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Right.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we can delete
8 it or Glen said $10 or something.
9 MR. RIEKER: Since we have
10 escrow you can delete it.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Delete it.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All right.
13 Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion?
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: I move that we
15 adopt it and make a recommendation to the
16 supervisors with the changes just noted.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Did you get the
18 changes?
19 MR. RICE: Yes. I marked up --
20 the sketch plan goes to zero; the minor subdivision
21 goes to $1500; and on Page 2 we are deleting the
22 second half of those two fees that pertain to
23 impervious surface. So four changes.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
25 Do I have a second to the motion?
60
1 MR. RIEKER: Second that.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
3 favor please say aye. Aye.
4 MR. MILLER: Aye.
5 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. RICE: One other issue with
9 this that I think needs to be done. There is a
10 couple sections in the subdivision ordinance, the
11 application procedure that needs to be modified and
12 I would, with this, as part of this, that needs to
13 also -- I'll communicate that to the supervisors
14 that that -- because it only talks about
15 engineering fees at this point. It needs to -- the
16 definition in the planning code is professional
17 consultant, much broader than just engineer. So
18 that needs to be clarified in the ordinance. There
19 is a couple places where that needs to be fixed.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's just
21 language so everything is in conformity.
22 All right. Moving on to open
23 projects. Dunkin Donuts. Anyone here representing
24 Dunkin Donuts? Bob, have you heard anything?
25 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
61
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Are we okay on
2 time on this one?
3 MR. RICE: I think you're okay
4 with the time. I think there is a general waiver.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Then we need a
6 motion to table Dunkin Donuts land development
7 plan.
8 MR. MILLER: So moved.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do I have a
10 second to the motion?
11 MR. BAXTER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor please say aye. Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Pinecrest Lake
19 Company.
20 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Mark, we
21 gave the township a waiver. We are just delayed
22 with our engineer in trying to meet the
23 requirements necessary that was recommended. I
24 submitted the time waiver. I think we should be
25 ready to go by next meeting. Too many parties to
62
1 get together at one time.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: So you're asking
3 to be tabled?
4 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Yes.
5 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move to table.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
7 Do I have a second?
8 MR. RIEKER: Second.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
10 favor please say aye. Aye.
11 MR. MILLER: Aye.
12 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Shikhman Medical
16 Office Building. No one represents them? I'll
17 entertain a motion to table.
18 MR. MILLER: So moved.
19 MR. BAXTER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
21 favor please say aye. Aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
24 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
63
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Austin James
2 Associates preliminary and final site plan. Anyone
3 here representing them? I'll entertain a motion to
4 table it.
5 MR. MILLER: So moved.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Second to the
7 motion?
8 MR. BAXTER: Second.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
10 favor please say aye. Aye.
11 MR. MILLER: Aye.
12 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
13 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
14 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Locust Ridge
16 Quarry Contractors Shop preliminary and land
17 development plan. Anyone here representing them?
18 I'll entertain a motion to table.
19 MR. MILLER: So moved.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
21 Do I have a second to the motion?
22 MR. BAXTER: Second.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
24 favor, please say aye. Aye.
25 MR. MILLER: Aye.
64
1 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
2 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Creek View
5 Estates. Is this still open or did they withdraw
6 formally yet?
7 MR. RIEKER: You skipped one.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm sorry.
9 Well, let's get rid of that while we are on it.
10 MR. RICE: They had said
11 verbally that they are going to withdraw that. We
12 have not been able to get Attorney Weiner to put
13 that in writing yet, so we are working on that one.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Should we table
15 it then?
16 MR. RICE: You should table both
17 of those.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: I do have a
19 motion to table Creek View Estates preliminary and
20 final minor subdivision and the PRD.
21 MR. BAXTER: Do we have anything
22 even accepted from them? I don't think we saw
23 anything more than a sketch plan, if I remember
24 correctly.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'm not sure.
65
1 We've been tabling it. Just table it. We'll
2 check. I need a motion to table.
3 MR. MILLER: So moved.
4 MR. BAXTER: Second.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
6 favor please say aye. Aye.
7 MR. MILLER: Aye.
8 MR. RIEKER: Aye.
9 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
10 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
11 MR. RICE: Just to answer that
12 question, there was a subdivision plan that was
13 never accepted. There is a PRD application which
14 we have a waiver request on and we've been told
15 that they are going to withdraw, but we have not
16 been able to get that in writing yet.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Back to
18 Pinecrest Phase 7, final land development plan.
19 Just for the record, while
20 Mr. Carroll is getting set up, Pinecrest Lake
21 Company did submit a time waiver dated February 26,
22 2007, so we have that in the file. Thank you.
23 MR. ED CARROLL: I want to talk
24 about three things tonight. No. 1, I want to talk
25 about this idea of the one way road. As you recall
66
1 from our last meeting, I said to my engineers, I
2 don't want any impacts on wetlands, so they came up
3 with the idea of the main road going in to a loop
4 road and out again as a one way thing. And we
5 talked about it last time. There was some pros and
6 cons and whatever.
7 I want to propose a new solution
8 to this. I can tell you, and the question last
9 time was how much out of the two mile loop road was
10 choked down because of wetlands. It's 800 feet out
11 of 11,000 feet. The road that goes from Pinecrest
12 Drive to the sewage treatment plant I would propose
13 to be one way. Three hundred of that 800 feet are
14 on that road. I then would propose, and I can tell
15 you from the sewer treatment plant to the entrance
16 to the old boys camp can be two ways, it's not a
17 problem anywhere there. From the edge of Fox Run
18 and Lake Road, which is in this area, we have some
19 areas, 10 feet, 20 feet that need to choke down to
20 stay out of the wetlands. So I would propose
21 coming in and going up Fox Run to the road that
22 goes down to the sewer treatment plant, that that
23 whole section be two way except where I need to
24 choke down for the wetlands. And when I choke
25 down, let's say I choke down for 30 feet,
67
1 immediately on either side of 30 feet I can go back
2 out to 26 feet so I can have yield signs, almost
3 like the bridge at Lake Naomi and if a gigantic
4 fire truck that we now have, a New York City fire
5 truck comes in, someone could pull off. And even
6 if it was two cars, someone could pull off. So the
7 majority of up to the road that goes to the sewage
8 treatment plant would be two-ways less the choke
9 down. The road to the sewer treatment plant will
10 be one way. There is virtually not many houses on
11 it and I don't think it makes an impact. And then
12 from the sewer treatment plant all the way back out
13 to Pinecrest Drive, two ways, except where I choke
14 down. And that's going to be a total of 500 feet
15 and it's going to be 10 foot, 30 foot -- you know,
16 it's going to be wherever the wetlands are.
17 I really don't want to impact
18 any wetlands. I don't think it's the right message
19 to send. I'm working on special paving that
20 absorbs the water and it's not runoff. I'm working
21 on all kinds of special roof drains, trying to get
22 away from these basins where we cut down trees so
23 the water -- I went through that last month. I
24 think this might be a reasonable compromise. We
25 also have a situation out over the dam which you
68
1 all know. The dam is there and it's one way
2 without yield signs since 1929. So that I'm
3 suggesting that maybe that would be an idea that we
4 could legitimately work on.
5 MR. BAXTER: How long is the
6 stretch then that you're suggesting would be one
7 way, the road to the sewer treatment plant?
8 MR. ED CARROLL: Two thousand
9 feet. Half a mile.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: About a half a
11 mile --
12 MR. ED CARROLL: Half a mile
13 would be one way in between. I mean that really
14 chokes down a long way.
15 MR. RICE: Because of the
16 wetlands there?
17 MR. ED CARROLL: Yes. I'm