Before
THE TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
---
In Re: Regular Business Meeting
---
TOBYHANNA TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania 18350
Thursday, July 12, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m.
---
PRESENT: MARK SINCAVAGE, Chairperson
JOSEPH MILLER, Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT BAXTER, Board Member
TED VANDERVLIET, Board Member
ROBERT McHALE, P.E.,
Township Engineer
JOHN B. RICE, ESQUIRE
ALSO PRESENT: PHYLLIS HAASE, Zoning Officer
---
Panko Reporting
537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360
(570) 421-3620
2
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: I'll call the
2 regularly scheduled Tobyhanna Township Planning
3 Commission meeting for Thursday, July 12th, 2007 to
4 order.
5 First order of business is
6 approval of the May minutes which we all received
7 by email. Do I have a motion?
8 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
10 to the motion?
11 MR. BAXTER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
13 second. Any discussion? Comments from the public?
14 All those in favor please say
15 aye. Aye.
16 MR. MILLER: Aye.
17 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: We received the
20 June minutes by email. Motion to approve.
21 MR. MILLER: So moved.
22 MR. BAXTER: Second.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
24 second. Any discussion? Anything from the public?
25 All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
3
1 MR. MILLER: Aye.
2 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
4 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
5 Any public comment on anything
6 in general?
7 Move on to old business.
8 Pinecrest Lake. Brandon, you're up.
9 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Good
10 evening. I finally got our plan mostly finished
11 for a minor subdivision. The owners of the
12 existing properties expressed some interest on some
13 remaining lands of Pinecrest Development
14 Corporation. Back in November Bob McHale made some
15 recommendations of what we wanted to do, to make
16 the lot conforming with the new zoning laws. So we
17 have some irregular rear lot lines towards Route
18 940, at the top of the page. We've also added a
19 picture on your left hand side, the way the
20 property sits today, explaining the way the
21 properties are existing. And then to the right,
22 the plan shows the proposed minor subdivision.
23 I had asked -- the lot lines got
24 all reconfigured, somewhat irregular -- to have the
25 minimum zoning requirements of 100 feet there
4
1 towards 940, to the top of your page, each of
2 those, and then as well as the subdivision. These
3 lots will be simultaneously combined into one
4 parcel. So, I guess, theoretically, instead of
5 having the capability of six houses, we still just
6 have three and the folks just gain more land.
7 I have asked -- it was our
8 goal -- I never wanted to see us as a developer
9 there have access off 940. No billboard. I put
10 that in the deed restrictions. I think the
11 attorney at the time, it was not Mr. Rice, it was
12 one of your colleagues, recommended -- there was a
13 small piece of the middle property, the Bossuyt
14 property, that was encroaching on the Newswanger
15 property. We did find a recorded easement on that.
16 That was a concern of the other attorney. That's
17 also on the added notes.
18 Mr. McHale's requested we have
19 each of the property owners sign and date -- the
20 property owners that this is their wish and they be
21 combined simultaneously into their existing
22 property. I think Mr. McHale recommended -- behind
23 the three properties there is an old paper road
24 that was part of our property. The three existing
25 homeowners use that as access around their house.
5
1 The Newswanger property is hooked up to the central
2 sewer system, so there is a sewer main under that,
3 in the middle there, in the shaded gray area. That
4 was existing prior to this subdivision. There is
5 also, to the left of the Ciafrei property, there is
6 a utility easement for Aqua and PP&L that runs the
7 sewage line from Pocono Pines, and Lake Naomi Club
8 also runs up in that. That is existing and is part
9 of lot 4.2 next door there -- that was subdivided a
10 few years ago.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. We have
12 Mr. Mac McHale's letter dated July 10th. Have you
13 addressed most of these items, Mr. McHale?
14 MR. McHALE: Yes.
15 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you want to
16 go through these? Does the board want to go
17 through them one by one? What is outstanding, Bob?
18 MR. McHALE: The only two items
19 that I want to bring to your attention is, as you
20 know, with all new subdivisions or land
21 development, we try to bring everything up to the
22 standards. And if you look at the access for both
23 of these existing driveways, they access on
24 Sullivan Road, which is a township road. If there
25 is an existing driveway permit for those, then we'd
6
1 just like to have a copy of it. If there isn't,
2 then typically the applicant would just apply for a
3 township access.
4 The only other item, and I spoke
5 to Bill Weber today, and this is regarding the
6 International Fire Code, which is in the third page
7 of my review letter. According to the IFC, you get
8 into residential lots. If these were new lots,
9 say, we would have at least a 20 foot wide roadway
10 that would gain access and provide 150 foot of
11 coverage -- within 150 foot of coverage around the
12 buildings. Sullivan Road can act as part of that
13 fire apparatus access road. So to go 150 feet off
14 of Sullivan Road brings us near to the back of
15 these buildings. Some of these buildings are
16 further than 150 back. So what Bill and I were
17 discussing is, for this access drive, which is
18 already a gravel drive, some places it's already 20
19 feet, the red sketch in pencil portion here would
20 show a slight widening of maybe two to three feet
21 on either side and that would run up to the back of
22 the middle lot. And that would give us the 150
23 foot of coverage to all buildings. According to
24 the International Fire Code, it could stop at this
25 point. There would be no truck turn around area
7
1 required because fire trucks could proceed on this
2 drive and exit. So all we would be asking is that
3 they would widen or make sure that this roadway
4 access is actually 20 feet to the east side of
5 the --
6 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: In the
7 middle? Bossuyt.
8 MR. McHALE: Bossuyt. And that
9 would take care of it.
10 MR. MILLER: Is that a road now?
11 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: It's an
12 easement, utilities easement.
13 MR. MILLER: I mean that road's
14 been there forever.
15 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: That's
16 been there since the casino, if you remember. I'm
17 sure it shows more than 20 feet now. It is part of
18 an existing lot 4.2, which is on the left hand side
19 of the Ciafrei property, which was subdivided a few
20 years ago. So we just kept an easement there. And
21 that is also an irregular line to make lot 4.2
22 conforming.
23 MR. MILLER: Is that a recorded
24 easement?
25 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Yes, it
8
1 is.
2 MR. McHALE: Brandon was
3 indicating that that driveway is wider than what's
4 shown on the plan. If the plan would show the
5 correct width to be 20 feet or greater, then it
6 would show compliance.
7 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I think at
8 the time we had the survey, we focused on finding
9 the three existing properties and tieing them in.
10 I appreciate what you're saying, Bob. I think it
11 works. But, you know, I found that out this
12 afternoon at 4 o'clock, after I just got back from
13 Stroudsburg getting these plans from yesterday's
14 letter.
15 MR. McHALE: My suggestion would
16 be just simply this, that they agree to make sure
17 that that was either correctly shown on the plan,
18 20 feet or wider, or ask the homeowners to just add
19 a few extra feet to the width of the driveway.
20 That would take care of it. And a favorable
21 recommendation be made tonight.
22 MR. MILLER: It's just a small
23 condition.
24 MR. McHALE: Correct.
25 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I'm sure I
9
1 can verify it very easily. Nate Oiler
2 miscommunicated to me. I thought it had to be 150
3 feet off of Sullivan Road, which would fulfill the
4 fire code.
5 MR. McHALE: You have to have
6 the 150 feet of coverage from the point of where
7 the vehicle would be parked.
8 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I guess
9 that's fine since we are not building any new
10 houses. The houses have been there for 50 years.
11 I don't think -- I'm glad to go out and verify it,
12 but I have already changed the plans twice already.
13 You know, there is also a township ditch that runs
14 right to the edge of that thing too. I can
15 verify -- John Kerrick is well aware of it. He and
16 I put it in. There is a drainage pipe that runs
17 from the other side of Sullivan Road. There is a
18 few catch basins that all go into that ditch.
19 There is a ditch there. I'm sure it's more than 20
20 feet. There is no doubt in my mind.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: We need to
22 verify that. We need to see that on there.
23 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I need to
24 redraw the plans again.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Just show it 20
10
1 feet.
2 MR. VANDERVLIET: Just out of
3 curiosity, if he was to scratch this and say forget
4 about it, then what would happen to that road?
5 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Mr.
6 Ciafrei uses it and Mr. Bossuyt uses it to gain
7 access. There is also a three car garage --
8 MR. VANDERVLIET: What would
9 happen to as far as fire trucks are concerned?
10 What would happen to it as far as the town is
11 concerned? What would happen in the future about
12 fire trucks going in and getting out? I mean, this
13 seems like a grandfathered situation to me.
14 MR. McHALE: But any time an
15 application is brought before the township, all the
16 current ordinances have to be met. That's what is
17 before us.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: The applicant is
19 coming in and changing some things.
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: The applicant
21 is coming in and he's making it better for the
22 people that live there. And at the same time they
23 are saying, fine, you pay to do this, then you can
24 make it better for the people. So my question is,
25 if he just says the heck with the road, I'm not
11
1 going to do it, nothing happens, right?
2 MR. RICE: If he doesn't do the
3 subdivision?
4 MR. VANDERVLIET: He doesn't
5 have to do the subdivision. Just an aside.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Noted.
7 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I guess my
8 concern is, you know, I get my review letter
9 yesterday. We have to turn our stuff in June 13th
10 and it doesn't give us any time to react. So that
11 means I'm tabled another month. I have already
12 gone back to the engineer. I spent probably
13 another two thousand dollars.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: You don't have
15 to come back to us.
16 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: But I need
17 to get plans drawn.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: You have to get
19 the plans drawn for the board of supervisors.
20 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I'll have
21 to verify for the township that that's more than 20
22 feet over.
23 MR. RICE: There is some other
24 items in there that have to be added.
25 MR. McHALE: He's got the rest.
12
1 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: We have a
2 waiver.
3 MR. RICE: Clear sight
4 triangles.
5 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: This was a
6 revised plan today. I just picked this up from
7 what Bob had seen originally.
8 MR. McHALE: I had asked if they
9 would turn that information in by Wednesday, 4
10 p.m., that we could look at it and make sure
11 everything is in compliance. If all this was done
12 originally, we wouldn't have to look at it again.
13 But it wasn't per the ordinance, so we have to
14 review and make sure.
15 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I feel the
16 plan was reviewed the first time. I corrected the
17 plan, but I didn't know that then --
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: This is the
19 international fire code.
20 MR. McHALE: What review were
21 you speaking about?
22 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: The first
23 time that we submitted this back in November, you
24 gave me comments that we --
25 MR. McHALE: Do you have a copy
13
1 of those?
2 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Yes, I do.
3 You wrote a letter to RKR Hess. You're the one who
4 suggested changing the lot lines. You're the one
5 who made me --
6 MR. McHALE: Those were the
7 general comments. They weren't a full blown review
8 letter, because the project was incomplete at that
9 point in time. It wasn't in conformity with the
10 zoning ordinance. I believe you recall that, do
11 you not?
12 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I don't
13 believe being made aware of that, no. It didn't
14 say -- you asked to combine and get the signatures
15 and everybody and make it concrete and show it on
16 the note. I guess I felt that those comments
17 constituted a review and, therefore, I had my
18 engineer prepare the plan according to your
19 comments and recommendations and that's my
20 understanding of how that worked. I guess I also
21 feel that it's difficult to react to something when
22 we have to turn it in so early in 24-hours notice
23 to prepare something --
24 MR. McHALE: We tried to put
25 that in there to help it along, so that you got it
14
1 turned in that we could make a favorable
2 recommendation for tonight. We were trying to help
3 your application along because I think you were
4 about four or five months where you didn't turn in
5 anything to us, if I recall.
6 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: It was
7 difficult to get these people on board out of
8 state. One fellow lived out of state and to get
9 him to explain what the township would like to see,
10 get him to agree to put his name and get it
11 notarized on the plan, that was a little hard to
12 understand. He had to send it to his attorney. I
13 had to develop a comfort level. And that all took
14 quite a bit of time to get everybody on board.
15 MR. BAXTER: So, to show this is
16 what we all know it is, the plan has to be redrawn.
17 Does he have to go and get these signatures and
18 notary all over again?
19 MR. McHALE: The entire plan is
20 not being redrawn. It's a matter of verifying what
21 he says is true, that he's establishing or making
22 comments here that there is actually 20 feet or
23 more in the width of this roadway. But what's
24 shown on the plan is less than 20 feet, so it's a
25 matter of a technician taking about 5 minutes to
15
1 put a couple other lines on here that would match
2 up with what's in the field, according to what he's
3 stating.
4 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: If that's
5 what we have to do, that's what we've got to do.
6 MR. BAXTER: We can move it on
7 here and he can just go get that line drawn when it
8 goes to the supervisors.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Or just make a
10 notation on here that it's in fact 20 feet.
11 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I can redo
12 12 plans in red pen and that's okay?
13 MR. VANDERVLIET: They do it
14 with as-builts. That's fine with me.
15 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I may
16 already have the information on the subdivision we
17 did for lots 41 and 42. There is -- like I said,
18 after those lots were subdivided, the township and
19 I went in and put a drainage ditch on the plans to
20 follow the edge of the easement. If that's what
21 we've got to do, that's what we've got to do.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: We can move it
23 tonight then.
24 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Okay.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. The
16
1 applicant has requested a couple waivers. We have
2 a letter here.
3 MR. RICE: Under Subdivision and
4 Land Development, Section 135.12, which is showing
5 the distance within 500 feet, that's a waiver
6 request; 135.15.A, similar, existing development
7 showing that one within 500 feet of the proposed
8 subdivision or land development; 135.17,
9 preliminary plan requirements regarding showing
10 other features, man-made features, intersections
11 within 500 feet. And I guess the other final plan
12 requirements, that note is going to be updated,
13 closure calculations. That's not a waiver. But
14 the next section on the second page, Paragraph 15,
15 the drainage study and stormwater drainage plan,
16 that's multiple sections of the subdivision
17 ordinance that are in there. There is a verbal
18 request of a waiver. And there has been a written
19 request submitted for all these waivers,
20 Mr. Carroll?
21 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Yes. I
22 think you got that email today, Bob?
23 MR. McHALE: Yes. That is
24 correct. And they are also noted on the plan.
25 Note 10.
17
1 MR. RICE: That waiver was
2 subject to that note being added. Has that note
3 been added regarding future development?
4 MR. McHALE: Yes. That's note
5 11.
6 MR. RICE: They are the waivers.
7 I guess the rest of the comments, they have already
8 been complied with.
9 MR. McHALE: That is correct.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: With the
11 condition that the access roadway be confirmed to
12 be a minimum of 20 feet in width.
13 MR. RICE: I have a question on
14 that. What if it isn't, then what? I would assume
15 the applicant would see that it's 20 feet in width?
16 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: I will see
17 that it's 20 feet.
18 MR. BAXTER: Then there is
19 something about the renaming of the plan, the
20 technical correction.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: I think that was
22 done.
23 MR. RICE: I'm assuming that was
24 done on the submittal today.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's been
18
1 corrected.
2 MR. McHALE: And the signature
3 of the owner is correct. Mr. Carroll signed off as
4 vice president of Pinecrest Development
5 Corporation, when before it was the signature for
6 Pinecrest Lake of which was the applicant, not the
7 owner.
8 MR. BAXTER: So I would move we
9 approve the final minor subdivision and lot
10 combination plan for Pinecrest Lake, subject to
11 waivers as outlined in Mr. McHale's letter of July
12 10th, 2007, and subject to the verification of the
13 adjoining street to the east --
14 MR. MILLER: West.
15 MR. BAXTER: -- west is verified
16 to be a minimum of 20 feet.
17 MR. MILLER: I'll second that.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
19 second. Any further discussion? Any comments from
20 the public? All those in favor please say aye.
21 Aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Thank you,
19
1 Brandon.
2 MR. BRANDON CARROLL: Thank you.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Giacalone. Did
4 you receive Mr. McHale's letter dated July 11?
5 MR. HENDRICKS: I did. We made
6 a submittal to address his comments from the
7 previous review letter. And if the commissioners
8 so desire, I'll go through and highlight some of
9 the highlights of those comments, if you want to.
10 I don't want to take your time up.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Let's go over
12 the comments so we make sure. There is not that
13 many.
14 MR. HENDRICKS: Just the
15 comments on the review letter from July 11.
16 Comment No. 1 is about
17 submitting the plans on computer readable media.
18 We will do that. We'll comply with that upon final
19 submittal.
20 We have submitted a highway
21 occupancy permit to PennDOT. We got it back with
22 comments. It was resubmitted and we will provide a
23 copy of that as soon as we get it back from
24 PennDOT.
25 And the signatures that are
20
1 required on the cover sheet, when we go before the
2 supervisors, those signatures will all be there.
3 We have asked for two waivers.
4 One of those is SALDO Section 135.17 requires all
5 existing buildings and sewer systems, bridges,
6 etcetera, within 500 feet of the tract to be shown.
7 We ask for a waiver on that. We also ask for a
8 waiver from Subparagraph M of that same section,
9 which requires all existing streets, intersections,
10 driveways, adjacent to or within 500 feet be shown.
11 And we ask for a waiver of that also.
12 On comment number 3, Chapter 73,
13 fire lanes and fire code requirements, I met with
14 the volunteer fire department chief and we do show
15 fire lanes ongoing now, that are in compliance.
16 And we added the appropriate signage. Some
17 revisions were made of that signage today at the
18 suggestion of the township engineer.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: Did you receive
20 Guardian's Inspection letter dated 11 July?
21 MR. HENDRICKS: Yes, we did.
22 And I did talk to Bill Lewis and Engineer McHale
23 about that some. And there is basically three ways
24 to deal with that. One is to put storage
25 facilities onsite. The other is to sprinkle the
21
1 building, but you'd have to put a storage facility
2 in and a pump. And then another way is to provide
3 the building using a fire rated construction so
4 that your areas become smaller. The applicant is
5 agreeable to do whatever we need to do to comply
6 with it. I believe that --
7 MR. RICK SUTLOFF: Mark, I'd
8 like to have a discussion with Guardian on that
9 because I'm not sure they are correct in
10 calculating that this does need fire suppression.
11 It's tiered. And I think we fall under the square
12 footage required. So whatever their final answer
13 is, we are going to comply with, but we'd like to
14 have a discussion and then if they find that they
15 made an error, we'd just submit a letter to you at
16 that time.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Yes. We'll need
18 it from Guardian that they reviewed something with
19 you and you came to some sort of agreement. And,
20 actually, we were talking about that prior to the
21 meeting because we saw this letter, the commission
22 members saw this letter and were surprised by this.
23 Maybe the volume calculations need to be reviewed.
24 MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you.
25 Drainage plan comments,
22
1 stormwater management. We do have the E and S
2 Plan. Everything has been submitted. The only
3 comments we don't have back yet are from Monroe
4 County Conservation District on the stormwater
5 management. We do have the comments back from the
6 Monroe County Planning Commission. They have all
7 been complied with. They were minor. So as soon
8 as we get comments back from the conservation
9 district, if there is any changes, we'll make those
10 on the final plans. I don't anticipate any, but we
11 don't know that.
12 We also asked for a waiver from
13 the requirement to show plan profile of drainage
14 swales. This project only has a very minor swale
15 coming down this side of the building, and the
16 township engineer indicated that the elevations on
17 the grading plan and the site plan -- that's really
18 not necessary for such a minor swale situation.
19 Then the other comments are that
20 the owner will sign a maintenance agreement
21 governing the stormwater facilities prior to final
22 approval and provide a deposit in the amount of a
23 thousand dollars. Certainly he'll do that. And
24 we'll make sure Mr. Sutloff has approved plans on
25 site when he's doing construction. And that we
23
1 will provide engineering certification on the
2 as-built plans on completion.
3 On the site lighting, if you
4 recall on the previous submittal, we had about a
5 two foot area here which exceeded the half foot
6 candle overflow on the adjoining property. And we
7 had conversations -- we are going to relocate that
8 lamp six degrees and we still meet -- we don't have
9 that overflow any longer. There was also a
10 question about the average foot candle on the
11 walkways and parking area. And on this submittal
12 we attached a drawing which actually showed all the
13 foot candles on it. And I don't see that comment,
14 so I expect you were satisfied with that. There is
15 a comment -- checking with PP&L about the height,
16 we have one light here. It's within this 30 foot
17 piece for PP&L. And Bob McHale asked us to verify
18 with PP&L if that height is acceptable. We have a
19 20 foot pole here. There is a 20 foot sign already
20 existing in the right-of-way and some other
21 structures. We do have a call in to PP&L. We have
22 not heard back from them, but we will confirm if
23 that is acceptable to them.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is the
25 depth of your detention basin?
24
1 MR. McHALE: About two feet.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is it going to
3 be a wet bottom?
4 MR. HENDRICKS: No. It will be
5 a dry pond. It's an outlet. Goes to the wetlands.
6 MR. McHALE: Small three inch
7 diameter outlet. There is a rain garden, however,
8 in the upper right hand corner.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay.
10 MR. HENDRICKS: We have a rain
11 garden here to catch some of the flow so we don't
12 put it on PennDOT's right-of-way. The rest of the
13 water all goes back to the site. We have a drop-in
14 structure here, from the parking lot to our
15 detention basin. This area, there is a detention
16 basin.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Any questions?
18 MR. McHALE: Jim, you want to
19 mention that you'll be submitting for the
20 non-jurisdictional letter?
21 MR. HENDRICKS: Yes. I did
22 discuss that, some in-house and also with the
23 applicant today. We are going to turn in a set of
24 plans to the Corps of Engineers and ask for a
25 non-jurisdictional letter. And the reason is
25
1 because we are working so close to the wetlands
2 here and HRG has a very well qualified wetlands
3 expert on staff. We surveyed this again. He's
4 done hundreds of them. And because we are going to
5 be working so close to the wetlands, we want to
6 alleviate any problems with the corps or anyone
7 else coming out and saying we think the wetlands
8 are a foot over here, stop everything till we sort
9 it out.
10 Mr. McHale had some meetings
11 with the Corps of Engineers recently and they are
12 now offering a service called a non-jurisdictional
13 letter that takes about three weeks to get instead
14 of a jurisdictional determination that takes six to
15 eight months. So we figured we could send a copy
16 of the plans and ask for their letter.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: That will make
18 it a lot easier on a lot of projects. That's good
19 to hear.
20 MR. HENDRICKS: Anything we can
21 do to speed things up.
22 MR. McHALE: It would be
23 beneficial to meet in their office and explain the
24 plan to them. What the corps will do is, actually,
25 once the construction -- they are actually showing
26
1 orange construction fencing around all the wetlands
2 to keep the contractor from getting into the
3 wetlands, which is very prudent on their part. But
4 once they get that in place, the corps can come out
5 to the site and they can basically make the call
6 that they are in uplands for all their
7 improvements. That's where that letter comes in.
8 That's the site visit. Saves the corps a lot of
9 paper work as well, as I understand it.
10 MR. HENDRICKS: HRG is going to
11 be using orange fencing on your plans because we
12 had a situation recently where the wetlands had
13 been delineated, they had been flagged, placed on
14 the drawings, surveyed, and the contractor got
15 outside the wetland boundary into the wetlands by a
16 minor amount and the conservation district
17 determined there was an error there and it cost the
18 owner and the contractor. So one of the first
19 sequence of construction is to establish that
20 orange fencing there, and that way no one gets in
21 trouble.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: Good idea.
23 MR. RICK SUTLOFF: I'd like to
24 note it for the record that we were not that
25 contractor.
27
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else?
2 Any comments from the public? Entertain a motion.
3 MR. VANDERVLIET: Recommend that
4 we approve it subject to Bob McHale's letter of
5 11th of July; that we approve the request of the
6 applicant's waivers and satisfactory response to
7 the items in that letter.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
9 Do I have a second to the motion?
10 MR. BAXTER: Second.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
12 second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
13 MR. MILLER: Aye.
14 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: Dunkin Donuts.
17 Bob informed me prior to the
18 meeting that they have recently submitted new
19 documents for review, so it looks like they are
20 moving once again.
21 Mr. Rice brought to our
22 attention that their time waiver expires August
23 1st. So the township has to request a time
24 extension from them prior to our next meeting which
25 is scheduled for August 2nd.
28
1 Next item is the Wee-Wons Day
2 Care expansion. Bob, do you know anything about
3 that?
4 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: John, have we
6 found out anything further on this?
7 MR. RICE: Yes. Wee-Wons. When
8 the original plan was filed, there was no drop dead
9 date in terms of -- there is sort of an indefinite
10 extension going on. So what I believe you had
11 discussed with Pat, maybe the last meeting, was
12 trying to move some of these projects along that
13 have been hanging out there. So Wee-Wons, Locust
14 Ridge and I think Glorious Church, we are going to
15 send out some letters and try to get a status
16 report or at least a suggestion to these applicants
17 that unless there was some activity this is going
18 to be on the planning commission for some action at
19 some point, probably within the next 60 days. The
20 way the waivers were at the time, it's sort of an
21 open ended waiver, unless they give you 60 days
22 notice. So I want to flip that around and give
23 them notice that the planning commission is going
24 to recommend something unless we get some activity.
25 So I assume we'll get either activity or a letter
29
1 back. But then I'm going to put them on a drop
2 dead date for action, because some of these will go
3 on forever if you don't stay on top of it.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Is that okay
5 with the commission? Okay. That takes care of
6 those four. I guess we have to table each one of
7 those?
8 MR. RICE: Yes. I know Locust
9 Ridge we have a waiver till August 10th. So you're
10 okay on that one. The other ones I believe are
11 just open ended, but I would -- yes, I would go
12 ahead and move to table those at this point.
13 MR. MILLER: You want to do them
14 individually then?
15 I make a motion to table Dunkin
16 Donuts Land Development Plan.
17 MR. BAXTER: Second.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
19 second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion on the
24 Wee-Wons to table.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move to table.
30
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
2 to the motion?
3 MR. BAXTER: Second.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
5 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
6 MR. MILLER: Aye.
7 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
8 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
9 MR. SINCAVAGE: Locust Ridge
10 Quarry.
11 MR. MILLER: Motion to table
12 Locust Ridge Quarry Contractor's Shop.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
14 to the motion?
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
16 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
17 favor please say aye. Aye.
18 MR. MILLER: Aye.
19 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
20 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Glorious Church
22 Land Development Plan.
23 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
24 to table Glorious Church Land Development Plan.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: I have a motion.
31
1 Second to the motion?
2 MR. BAXTER: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
4 seconded. All those in favor please say aye.
5 MR. MILLER: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye.
9 MR. MILLER: I make a motion to
10 table Glorious Church Conditional Use Application.
11 MR. BAXTER: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
13 seconded. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Pyramid Network.
18 Anything happening with that, Bob?
19 MR. McHALE: I have not received
20 any revised documents.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Do you know
22 anything?
23 MR. RICE: No.
24 MR. McHALE: I think they were
25 working with PennDOT also during this time period
32
1 on obtaining a sign permit. That's the
2 combination, it's the sign and the antenna array
3 that was going to be mounted on the sign. As I
4 recall, they found that they did not have a sign
5 permit.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. I'll
7 entertain a motion to table Pyramid Network
8 Services Final Land Development.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
10 MR. BAXTER: 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. Glacial
17 Till, we have a letter from them in our package
18 asking to table.
19 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move to table.
20 MR. BAXTER: Second.
21 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and
22 second. All those in favor please say aye.
23 MR. MILLER: Aye.
24 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
25 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
33
1 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye. Are we
2 okay on the time?
3 MR. RICE: Actually, we had a
4 waiver till September 7th. So he's got 23 days.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Lands of Elaine
6 Brockett.
7 MR. RICE: We have a waiver on
8 that till September 6th.
9 MR. MILLER: I'll make a motion
10 to table Lands of Elaine Brockett Final Land
11 Development.
12 MR. BAXTER: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
14 second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Shikhman Medical
19 Offices.
20 MR. RICE: That and Austin James
21 we have waivers until August 10th.
22 MR. McHALE: Shikhman, they are
23 in the process of looking at some other options.
24 The infiltration testing did not come back very
25 favorably. They were counting on the infiltration
34
1 for their stormwater management. So they are going
2 back to kind of revise and modify and look at some
3 other creative alternatives. That's where that's
4 left.
5 The Austin James, we did receive
6 a package a few days ago, as I recall.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: So they are
8 moving it in.
9 MR. MILLER: Make a motion to
10 table Shikhman Medical Office Building.
11 MR. VANDERVLIET: Second.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
13 favor please say aye. Aye.
14 MR. MILLER: Aye.
15 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Austin James.
18 MR. VANDERVLIET: Move to table.
19 MR. BAXTER: Second.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
21 second. All those in favor please say aye.
22 MR. MILLER: Aye.
23 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
24 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: Aye. Creekview
35
1 Estates.
2 MR. RICE: Wasn't this plan
3 denied?
4 MR. McHALE: This is the
5 resubmission that they made. As I recall, at the
6 last meeting, their legal counsel was going to
7 prepare some language and a proposal.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: We denied one
9 but this isn't the one we denied.
10 MR. McHALE: The one recommended
11 for denial was the Robert Ciccone (phonetic) and
12 John Sowerski (phonetic).
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: This was
14 resubmitted on 5/16.
15 MR. RICE: This is the other
16 minor subdivision. Two different zoning districts.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right.
18 MR. RICE: Okay. They have a
19 lot of waivers requested on that one, right?
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Right. But they
21 are working on it and we are okay with time frame.
22 MR. RICE: Yes.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we have to
24 just table that.
25 MR. MILLER: I make a motion to
36
1 table Creekview Estates Minor Subdivision.
2 MR. BAXTER: Second.
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
4 favor please say aye. Aye.
5 MR. MILLER: Aye.
6 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
7 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: Omnipoint
9 Communications. Anything on that Bob?
10 MR. McHALE: No, sir.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: 5/16.
12 MR. RICE: We are good to August
13 14th on the waiver.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'll deal with
15 that next month. Motion to table it.
16 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
17 MR. BAXTER: Second.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
19 favor please say aye. Aye.
20 MR. MILLER: Aye.
21 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
22 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
23 MR. SINCAVAGE: Blakeslee minor
24 subdivision. Anyone here? We do have a review
25 letter. Have you heard anything further?
37
1 MR. MILLER: Do we review when
2 there is nobody present?
3 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are not going
4 to go over it if they are not here.
5 MR. RICE: No reason to. They
6 received the letter, Bob, right?
7 MR. McHALE: That is correct.
8 MR. SINCAVAGE: We'll table it.
9 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion. Second
11 to the motion?
12 MR. MILLER: Second.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: Motion and a
14 second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
15 MR. MILLER: Aye.
16 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
17 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Brick City
19 sketch plan. No one is here.
20 MR. RICE: This project is
21 partially in Tobyhanna and then in Coolbaugh. Pat
22 had sent a letter to the applicant suggesting that
23 since most of the improvements are in the other
24 township, that there would be some kind of a
25 written -- there had been an inquiry whether or not
38
1 land development would be waived. They were told
2 to put something in writing. We still haven't
3 gotten anything in writing from them. So maybe one
4 of us probably ought to follow up and get a written
5 waiver request and that would come to the planning
6 commission at some point.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: And this is the
8 sketch plan.
9 MR. RICE: This is a sketch
10 plan.
11 MR. SINCAVAGE: So we don't
12 really have to do anything.
13 MR. RICE: No.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: It hasn't been
15 formally submitted.
16 MR. RICE: And they are not
17 interested enough to be here to talk to you.
18 MR. McHALE: The way this came
19 about is they sent an email to us with this sketch
20 and they basically asked for any input from the
21 planning commission on the sketch plan and that's
22 kind of the way they left it. So if you all have
23 any comments, you all recommend like street trees
24 or some kind of landscaping along the frontage, at
25 least maybe in the township portion, I can convey
39
1 that to them.
2 MR. SINCAVAGE: I thought we had
3 done this before. I thought we had seen this
4 before. We asked for landscaping along 940. They
5 agreed to that.
6 MR. VANDERVLIET: Yes.
7 MR. SINCAVAGE: But bring that
8 to their attention again, that we are still
9 recommending landscaping along 940 and Spruce
10 Drive.
11 MR. RICE: The township would
12 still have to review the access.
13 MR. McHALE: Access and
14 stormwater.
15 MR. RICE: Stormwater. But
16 probably there is no need for two full blown land
17 development plans to be filed.
18 MR. MILLER: How close is
19 Coolbaugh to our stuff down here, Bob?
20 MR. McHALE: That's there line.
21 MR. MILLER: I know, but how
22 close in regulations are Coolbaugh and--
23 MR. McHALE: I haven't compared
24 ours and theirs.
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: It's a sketch
40
1 plan. We don't need any action.
2 That brings us to the Brodhead
3 Watershed Association. I see Theresa Merli is
4 here.
5 MS. THERESA MERLI: Theresa
6 Merli. I represent the Brodhead Watershed
7 Association. Thanks very much for putting me on
8 your agenda tonight.
9 The Brodhead Watershed
10 Association, as most of you know, is an
11 organization dedicated to maintaining the high
12 quality of our water resources in this watershed.
13 And quite -- well, a number of years ago, the
14 Brodhead Conservation went in and one of the
15 recommendations was to identify streams that are
16 incorrectly designated. And we decided to start at
17 the top. One of the most, according to the Monroe
18 County water quality studies that are done every
19 year and also many other studies that have been
20 done on the Indian Run and Swiftwater Creek, the
21 upper reaches of it, the studies all indicate that
22 these two streams are actually exceptional value
23 streams. They are more pristine than the high
24 quality cold water fishery designation that they
25 currently have. As I mentioned, through the --
41
1 following up on the recommendation from the
2 comprehensive plan, we are petitioning to have them
3 formally redesignated. Their existing use is in
4 fact exceptional value. Their designation is high
5 quality cold water fishery. And so we are moving
6 forward on that.
7 We basically are inviting you
8 and other planning commissions, board of
9 supervisors -- we'll eventually get more of these
10 letters out. Its's been kind of a hit or miss
11 process. -- to join us in either as a
12 co-petitioner or with letters of support for this
13 higher designation.
14 I'm here to answer any questions
15 you may have about it. The petition does outline
16 our thinking. I did not supply people with the
17 many appendices. I would be happy to do that, A
18 through Y, but I didn't think -- I just figured I'd
19 wait until somebody requested them before I provide
20 those copies.
21 One of the other reasons we are
22 moving forward on this recommendation is because
23 the county water quality studies are telling us
24 that degradation is happening rather seriously in
25 some areas. In fact, the 2006 water quality study
42
1 indicated that the mouth of the Brodhead, just
2 above where it enters the Delaware, is lined with
3 sewage fungus. So we are doing something wrong.
4 And we are hoping that by doing what we can in the
5 headwaters to make sure that degradation does not
6 happen up there, that we will be able to improve
7 the lower reaches of the Brodhead Creek. There are
8 quite a few other areas that are showing severe
9 impact, if not less severe impact.
10 Like I said, we are looking for
11 letters of support in co-petitions. The bottom
12 line is we are all trying to do the same thing. We
13 are all trying to allow for development that is
14 mindful, is protective of the assets that we have
15 here. One of the focus of the group is the high
16 quality of water. We hope that you will consider
17 supporting our petition, again, just a letter or as
18 co-petitioners. I don't expect an answer tonight.
19 MR. MILLER: Are you looking for
20 a direct response from the planning commission
21 itself?
22 MS. THERESA MERLI: Well, I'm
23 not sure how to handle that. I wasn't sure if I
24 should go through the planning commission first and
25 then to the board of supervisors. I don't know
43
1 that you can do anything other than advise the
2 supervisors.
3 MR. RICE: The supervisors would
4 have to be the ones to sign off on it. The
5 planning commission, if you're inclined to make a
6 recommendation to the supervisors, but ultimately
7 they are the ones that --
8 MS. THERESA MERLI: It seemed
9 appropriate to come to the planning commission
10 first and then move on. I'm kind of guessing my
11 way through some of this.
12 MR. RICE: If the planning
13 commission wants to recommend either like a letter
14 of support or you said a co-applicant.
15 MS. THERESA MERLI: As
16 co-petitioner.
17 MR. RICE: Has the petition been
18 filed to DEP?
19 MS. THERESA MERLI: Yes.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: What is the
21 Brodhead Watershed in Tobyhanna Township? Do you
22 have any maps with you?
23 MS. THERESA MERLI: There is not
24 a lot of it in Tobyhanna.
25 MR. BAXTER: This is about it.
44
1 MS. THERESA MERLI: That reach
2 is probably about it, but it was recommended --
3 MR. McHALE: Out in the hallway
4 we have that map.
5 MS. THERESA MERLI: It's very
6 little, but it was recommended. I have gone to the
7 Monroe County Planning Commission asking for their
8 support and they indicated that they'd like to hear
9 comments from the municipalities involved before
10 they make their decision. So it would be needed to
11 be copied to the Monroe County Planning Commission.
12 MR. BAXTER: It's just a little
13 bit that is on the -- probably on the west side of
14 380.
15 MS. THERESA MERLI: Correct.
16 MR. BAXTER: Then goes under 380
17 and down through Pocono Manor.
18 MR. McHALE: Yes.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're saying
20 the Swiftwater Creek is exceptional value?
21 MS. THERESA MERLI: Above 611.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: No, no. You're
23 asking for it to be designated exceptional value?
24 MS. THERESA MERLI: Yes, because
25 the studies do show that it is in fact exceptional
45
1 value. When the designations were done years
2 ago -- well, you know better than I do.
3 MR. McHALE: There is a packet
4 of information that was supplied to us. One is
5 entitled The Affects of Special Exception
6 Designation, Guide for Communities. Probably good
7 to leaf through and at least read through that
8 material. It speaks to the differences between
9 high quality or exceptional value in general, what
10 it does or how it impacts permitting those type of
11 things, related to general permits versus
12 individual permits. There is items that it talks
13 about -- it's not labeled as far as a page, but
14 there is a section on wetlands and stream
15 encroachment where if it's designated as
16 exceptional value or EV wetlands, and if it's in a
17 floodplain, then basically you have to have a water
18 dependent use or project in order to impact them.
19 So those are the kind of -- that's where they
20 actually list docks or marinas are good sources of
21 water dependent projects. So if you had just a
22 typical commercial development that's not water
23 dependent, it needed to impact exceptional value
24 wetlands in a floodplain, according to the
25 literature, it doesn't appear that that would be
46
1 possible. But there is other good information in
2 here that you might want to read through if you
3 haven't already.
4 MR. BAXTER: So this is right at
5 the site -- we saw a sketch plan some months back
6 from a big box concern.
7 MR. McHALE: Hirshland.
8 MR. BAXTER: Yes. A part of it
9 is --
10 MR. McHALE: It goes to the east
11 side of 380 where the Pocono Manor project was
12 proposed as well.
13 MR. SINCAVAGE: This really
14 affects most of our commercial industrial zoned
15 land out of that intersection.
16 MR. BAXTER: It wouldn't impact
17 -- most of that is Pocono Manor.
18 MR. SINCAVAGE: Most of it is
19 Pocono Manor. The Hirshland properties, they are
20 on the west side of 380. I don't know if Hirshland
21 owns it where the project is proposed.
22 MR. BAXTER: Bob, what you just
23 said, how would this impact what anybody might
24 decide to do on that site with regard to buffers or
25 impact?
47
1 MR. McHALE: The literature
2 doesn't really address anything related to a
3 buffer, but what it does speak to is -- for the
4 most part, it generalizes the differences between
5 the permits that are typically required for
6 different types of projects, when you get into the
7 NPDES permitting, whether you would get a general
8 permit or individual permit. There is also a
9 section that speaks to going through the
10 antidegradation review with DEP. There is four
11 basic components as to how you prove if you're a
12 point source of discharge that you're not
13 degradating the stream system. And it speaks to,
14 you know, the first item you have to look at is do
15 you have any non-discharge alternatives? Can you
16 do something other than discharge into the
17 waterway. And it goes through a number of items,
18 but I think it would be very good to read through
19 those. It's pretty well put together.
20 MR. RICE: There is generally
21 going to be more scrutiny to any activities, road
22 construction, sewage plans.
23 MR. MILLER: How much more
24 difficult does it make it, John? We have no
25 experience with it.
48
1 MR. RICE: When you're dealing
2 with DEP, who knows? But is the petition to make
3 this stream EV?
4 MS. THERESA MERLI: Yes. It is
5 already a special protection water. It is
6 designated as high quality. So anything that
7 happens there now has to fulfill special
8 protection. Now, the EV status does change some
9 things regarding wetlands.
10 MR. RICE: Right. I mean, there
11 would be more scrutiny by DEP and more opportunity
12 to contest things by somebody who might oppose the
13 project in the area if it's EV.
14 MR. BAXTER: But if they are not
15 impacting the wetlands or stream -- and from what I
16 just read real quickly, it doesn't appear that that
17 would matter. It's only if they are impacting the
18 wetlands affecting the streams.
19 MR. RICE: Right. There might
20 be for stormwater management. There might be more
21 exotic BMP's that would have to be implemented,
22 things like that, if you're impacting the stream.
23 If you're moving dirt in the watershed it's
24 going -- you're impacting the stream.
25 MS. THERESA MERLI: For example,
49
1 the 537 plan for the Pocono Manor Development site,
2 one of our concerns early on was their sewage
3 treatment plans. And we did have quite a few
4 conversations with them and they have been very
5 amazed at the remarkable forward thinking of water
6 reuse that they have indicated there. So that will
7 not be affected. I mean, they are proposing not to
8 increase the current discharge. They would reuse
9 just about everything, which is four stars with us.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's what this
11 planning commission heard also and that's what
12 impressed us about the whole project. And even
13 though we took some heat on our recommendation, we
14 heard a lot of things in the multitude of meetings
15 that we had with them. That's why we came up with
16 the recommendation to allow the zoning change for
17 that project.
18 MR. RICE: The other thing that
19 happens with this type of stream is DEP and other
20 organizations will -- if someone wants to do
21 funding and some grants and things like that, there
22 will be priority given to a stream that's got EV
23 classification.
24 MS. THERESA MERLI: True story.
25 MR. RICE: I know of a couple
50
1 that were not necessarily municipality but
2 conservancy organization, somebody else doing
3 something in that watershed. There is DEP, there
4 is foundations, there is the opportunity for that
5 type of activity.
6 MR. MILLER: My only concern is
7 that we might be penalized somewhat for activities
8 from people below the mountain which is not our
9 fault.
10 MS. THERESA MERLI: The stream
11 segment that we are looking to redesignate stops at
12 611. It's above -- Sanofi is across the street.
13 It's above that. And then up into the Indian Run.
14 MR. BAXTER: So it would be down
15 to where the Swiftwater Inn was?
16 MS. THERESA MERLI: Correct.
17 Was, yes.
18 Let it percolate. Whatever you
19 decide.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why don't we
21 take a look at this. We heard some good
22 information. Put it on our agenda for next
23 meeting. I can touch base with the supervisors.
24 Has this been submitted to the
25 supervisors?
51
1 MS. THERESA MERLI: I didn't. I
2 can certainly do that. I wasn't sure how to float
3 it up. No instructions with it, Mark.
4 MR. SINCAVAGE: Why don't you
5 forward this to the supervisors so they have a copy
6 of all this too. It looks like good information.
7 MS. THERESA MERLI: Shall I
8 address it to them or just copy them on the one
9 that I sent?
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: I would address
11 it to them.
12 MS. THERESA MERLI: Thank you
13 very much for your time. I appreciate it.
14 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else
15 from anybody?
16 MR. BAXTER: Sometime back Glen
17 had talked about us getting some of this kind of
18 stuff submitted to us electronically to reduce the
19 paperwork.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: We were going to
21 get computers.
22 MR. BAXTER: Talked about
23 computers or at least digital submission. Do we
24 know anything about that?
25 MR. SINCAVAGE: That's Bob's
52
1 department.
2 MR. McHALE: I thought you were
3 getting certain things, like review letters and
4 some information electronically, but we have not
5 gotten to the point where we've changed the
6 ordinance to ask the applicant to turn everything
7 in electronically till the end of the project. So
8 it would be a matter of changing the ordinance to
9 get them to do that, unless we just make requests.
10 I know Maureen, when she sends some of this
11 information out, she does copy electronically.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: What was
13 happening is we were sitting here and we were going
14 we don't have the review comments. So I had to
15 copy them and put them on our desk tonight, because
16 the last meeting we are sitting here, and we don't
17 have the letter. Well, it's on our computer. So,
18 I know the supervisors had said that they would
19 look into buying us computers so we would have a
20 laptop so we could look at, at a minimum, the
21 review letters, working towards the idea of getting
22 that done.
23 MR. BAXTER: My thought is this
24 kind of thing, I'm not going to read this. We are
25 requiring them to submit 8 copies of something that
53
1 doesn't get looked at and goes in the trash and
2 that costs the applicant money.
3 MR. McHALE: Generally, on the
4 resubmittals, if they're reports, we ask for three
5 copies instead of the eight, to cut down on some of
6 that paper work, because we keep record copies and
7 I mark one up in case we need to send one out to
8 somebody.
9 MR. BAXTER: You're the only one
10 that most of this is going to mean anything from a
11 real practical stand point. That's what we look to
12 you for. So I'm just wondering if we need to do
13 something to expedite --
14 MR. McHALE: It would be nice to
15 get some electronic files that you can view if you
16 want to and get them in PDF format. That would
17 take an amendment to the SALDO, just to say with
18 each review set turn in electronic copies.
19 MR. SINCAVAGE: We could give
20 them the option to do that. You know what I'm
21 saying?
22 MR. McHALE: Instead of turning
23 in eight copies, you're right, we could turn in
24 maybe two or three copies. And then electronically
25 turn in -- especially on some of these large
54
1 projects, that there is 65 drawings. That's a lot
2 of paper and a lot of cost each sheet. Some of
3 these bigger sheets are two dollars a sheet.
4 MR. BAXTER: Just for the paper.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: My last bill on
6 paper copying was 200 dollars. Just paper that we
7 had to reimburse the engineer for. So it does get
8 expensive. But, yeah, why can't we put that as an
9 option. If we have the computers, we could look at
10 it if we wanted to. If you can bring that up to
11 them. Get three paper copies and the rest
12 electronically.
13 MR. McHALE: Those PDF files are
14 nice to pull up on your screen and you can zoom in
15 to sections that you want to and if you don't want
16 to then you just file them away.
17 MR. MILLER: I have one thing.
18 A fellow that works for me is I think on the Zoning
19 Board of Kidder Township. There has been some talk
20 over there of people wanting to build these power
21 generating wind mills. I don't know how that goes,
22 but we have no ordinance against it. But, who
23 knows, it could crop up around here on some of the
24 higher elevations.
25 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: Joe, I
55
1 submitted ordinances to the board of supervisors at
2 the last work session and they are going to review
3 it.
4 MR. MILLER: Did you know about
5 that in Kidder?
6 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: Not in
7 Kidder. There is one in Tunkhannock.
8 MR. MILLER: I'm talking Kidder.
9 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: Right now
10 there is one already operating in Tunkhannock. And
11 I have two homeowners, one in Arrowhead and one in
12 Locust Lake Village that have contacted me to place
13 one on their property.
14 MR. MILLER: Let me tell you
15 from my experience, I go up north quite a bit,
16 there is a lot of windmills generating up there,
17 and it's ugly.
18 MR. McHALE: There is wind
19 turbines, they are generator type and then there is
20 also the smaller wind turbines built for
21 residential that you put one up to generate
22 electricity for your home.
23 MR. MILLER: I think if you were
24 a neighbor, I don't think you'd want to see that
25 thing run all day long.
56
1 MR. McHALE: Is that all covered
2 in one ordinance or two different ordinances?
3 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: There is two
4 different ordinances right now that I presented,
5 yes.
6 MR. SINCAVAGE: One for a
7 residential and one for the wind farms.
8 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: For the
9 farms.
10 MR. SINCAVAGE: Okay. If they
11 would like us to look at it, we'll look at it.
12 MR. MILLER: We have some high
13 points where it would work, on top of Locust Ridge,
14 up there.
15 MR. RICE: There is a property
16 owner in one township that we represented in Bucks
17 County that went to the zoning hearing board in
18 that township to put three of them on his
19 residential property. They permit it as an
20 accessory use, subject to some restrictions. He's
21 going to generate I guess his electricity for his
22 house and then kick back on the grid whatever the
23 extra is.
24 MR. SINCAVAGE: How big a
25 property does he have?
57
1 MR. RICE: A good size property,
2 so there wasn't a whole lot of neighborhood -- the
3 township wasn't that concerned about it. He had 20
4 acres. They were smaller ones.
5 MR. SINCAVAGE: Some of those
6 things go up to about 400 feet high.
7 MR. RICE: Right. These were --
8 I think the top of the propeller was less than 50
9 feet off the ground. There was a setback
10 requirement and it was on a hill. It was hidden by
11 a lot of trees. But people were looking at it and
12 I guess it's economically feasible to do. If you
13 can cut your energy costs, you're going to see
14 them.
15 MR. BAXTER: In Arrowhead you're
16 talking about a quarter acre lot. I wonder how on
17 earth --
18 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: And right
19 now I can only restrict it as an accessory
20 structure, as long as it meets the setbacks and the
21 height limitation. My concern would be fall zone.
22 I'm hoping -- and I have spoken to both
23 developments --
24 MR. MILLER: Is it something
25 that we have to permit?
58
1 MR. RISE: You have to provide
2 something.
3 MR. MILLER: Like cell towers.
4 MR. RICE: If it's a commercial
5 application, then I don't know how you designate
6 cell towers or utility uses, but it would be a
7 utility type use in whatever zoning district they
8 are permitted in. You don't have to put them all
9 over the place. If it's a commercial
10 application -- these little residential ones, that
11 gets a little thornier because if you have one acre
12 it's okay. If you don't have one acre -- the size
13 of the lot might dictate setbacks.
14 MR. McHALE: If you incorporate
15 that fall zone and you have a quarter acre lot and
16 it's only 100 feet wide, that limits the height of
17 it.
18 MR. MILLER: It would be limited
19 anyway by our 32 feet.
20 MR. SINCAVAGE: You're limiting
21 them by the current zoning.
22 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: That's
23 right. But still it's an issue. As I said, the
24 fall zone, that's a concern. I've spoken to most
25 of the developments. Either they are going to take
59
1 something to their board or they're discussing it
2 in-house right now to see if we can restrict it in
3 that way.
4 MR. RICE: Through a
5 homeowners --
6 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: That's
7 correct.
8 MR. RICE: I'm guessing they
9 probably already do somehow.
10 MS. PHYLLIS HAASE: One of the
11 developments did not as of yet, as of two weeks go.
12 MR. SINCAVAGE: Anything else?
13 Anything from the public?
14 Motion to adjourn.
15 MR. VANDERVLIET: So moved.
16 MR. MILLER: Second.
17 MR. SINCAVAGE: All those in
18 favor please say aye. Aye.
19 MR. MILLER: Aye.
20 MR. BAXTER: Aye.
21 MR. VANDERVLIET: Aye.
22 MR. SINCAVAGE: We are
23 adjourned.
24 (Meeting concluded at 8:15 p.m.)
25 ---
60
1
2
3
4
5 I hereby certify that the
6 proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
7 accurately in the notes taken by me at the hearing
8 in the above matter, to the best of my ability; and
9 that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript
10 of the same.
11
12
13
14 JOSEPHINE HOLLMAN, C.R.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25