Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

My physical therapist was killed. Well, half the shit they had, that's existing. It's done without a permit, and that's why none of the existing stuff exists.

And I'm like...

You want to kill people? Because it's the rules of the road. It's not rules of the vehicle. You want the same rules for everybody using the road, so there's no question, is that guy going to do this? Is he not going to do that? I'm like, why would you want to even consider doing that? No idea. No idea. And then helmets are optional. Actually, I've got a pretty good helmet right now. Well, since I ride out... I take my phone with me, and my wife knows where I am, so if I've got a problem, I could ring her on the phone.

I'm curious if Hanover's review letter for Green Meadow, did that set a record for number of pages? No.

I was impressed. I was impressed. It's only on page 12. I'd like to call the August 6th, 2026 East Island Township Planning Commission meeting to order. Please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Recording in progress. One nation, under God, indivisible, with a religion just for all.

All right. Roll call, please.

Mr. Chamberlain?

Here.

Mr. Long?

Here.

Mr. Hemming?

Here.

Mr. Mills?

Here. I can reflect four people, and Mr. Hartley, or Norm is not here today. I see Norm, yeah. All right, moving on to the second item on the agenda is public comments. I can reflect there's no public comments. Moving on to Item 3, approval of meeting minutes from May 7th. Questions, comments, gentlemen? I thought they were fine. No issues? No issues. Motion to accept the minutes for May 7th? So moved. Second. Motion by Marty, second by Tom. Roll call, please.

Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. Mr. Long? Yes. Mr. Henning? Yes. Mr. Mills? Yes.

Yes. Let the record reflect. Motion passed. Four votes to none. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, business before the planning commission. First item is SALDO 2026-005-6099, Airport Road Preliminary Land Development Plan.

Good evening.

Please, gentlemen, state your names and addresses for the record.

Roderick Cherumbolo. I'm the engineer for the project. Kevin Fenstmacher, 17 Country Road.

Michael Condoulas, 4602 Susan Drive, Bethlehem.

We have your first review letter from Hanover Engineering. I suspect you guys want to discuss that or talk about that?

I think there's some comments in here that I probably would need to speak with the engineer off the record or on the side to get into the technical aspects of it. But on the whole, I feel like the letter is very similar to the last one. We were here in June, I believe, addressing a 12 or so page letter from the engineer. A lot of these comments are very similar, so I'm not sure why they're being repeated in here. I would need to talk to Jill about that, I think. And they're mostly clerical or nothing that's going to change the design of the project. Since the last time we were here, we received our NPDES permit. So we're hoping that we can make progress here with the township tonight.

Questions or comments, gentlemen?

Based on my reading of the review letter, it sounds like there are some issues to resolve prior to us tackling it. The plan doesn't seem like it stands on its own. Am I wrong?

I would say the two most helpful things this evening, and I agree with Rod, I think once you get... a copy of the storm review that was indicated that would be under separate cover, the intention to digest that. I would say that it probably would be a good idea to either have a meeting at our office or a team's meeting or something, and go through everything at one time. Just to make sure that some of these comments that you feel are duplicated, I think it was because you might not have interpreted our original comment with our intentions. So I think a meeting of some nature would be best to make sure that we don't have that type of situation. I think two of the most important things I need to know is there's been a little bit of confusion as to what exactly these buildings are being used for and who's occupying them because I believe there's been a couple of different statements. And you're shaking your head no, but I can tell you at least two different versions of what our understanding of it was based upon... either talking here at the meeting or in a narrative or a plan note or something like that. So I think it would be very helpful to get a good understanding of what's being proposed and what's going to be there. I think we also need to know whether or not you've addressed, or I shouldn't say addressed, whether or not you have made any submissions to the adjacent township or if you intend to or if they're not requiring that or something of that nature because some of the comments that we indicated in the letter require input from either the other township or acknowledgement that they have no input, I guess would be the best way to say it. So those are two of the issues that I thought of off the top of my head that would be very helpful moving forward. And maybe we can discuss, like I said, the actual use of the buildings was one of the questions that we were unclear of regarding Are they only storage? Are they going to be offices and storage? Are they going to be separate companies? Is it all one company? So that's the type of thing that would be helpful.

Well, we stated that the past two meetings. I don't think you were present of what we were going to use them for. So I don't know if there was a miscommunication with who was in your place that reported back to you or not. But I think everybody was understanding what they were going to be occupied and used for at that time with the last two meetings.

Okay. So for my benefit. Let's go over it. Could you just. Kevin and I own the property under our business. Kevin runs a concrete business. He's going to use two of the buildings for storing his vehicles, tools, and whatnot, right? In one building or both, he wants to put a bathroom. Boys go to the bathroom, they meet there, you know, you go to the bathroom. So I have a property maintenance business that I'm going to use to buy appliances, you know, lumber, material, or when I go to remodel a house or an apartment or something like that. So that's the use right now.

So the existing building... And one of the two proposed will be part of your concrete business. Correct. And the third building is going to be for your maintenance. Property maintenance. Property maintenance. Yes. And two out of the three buildings will have water and sewer service. Is that what you're saying? We're going to put three out of three. So all three will have water in second.

Correct.

Okay.

And that's what the testing was done for, the PERC testing, the infiltration testing. That was all to be compliant with the three buildings with bathroom and a shower.

Okay. Because I know that that was one of the questions that they were trying to confirm with the city of Bethlehem is whether it was two or three buildings being served and whether the water lateral sizing would be sufficient with the current proposal or the current that's there. So, again, I'm going to make note of all that.

And to clear up one of the issues that keeps coming up is there's not going to be any storage outside the buildings.

That was another big question because obviously, you know, I won't say what happened with you guys, but sometimes that is one of the hardest aspects of a business to keep an eye on and what often ends up being a problem for the surrounding neighbors.

Full disclosure, if you drive by now, you will see some of Kevin's. materials outside just because that building is not that big and doesn't fit. That's why we need the other buildings.

The problem is that that would be used for part of the driveway.

The stockpile of buildings and concrete is waiting for approval so I can start cutting the driveway in and start doing that. So that's, you know, if you would drive by, that's what you'd see right now.

So one of the comments that caught my attention specifically was the existing driveway is and the fact that it is in alignment with the SCM001 infiltration bed. You have basically that infiltration bed overlaying that driveway and part of the backside of that existing building where there's parking or there's a gravel area for moving in and out of. So to me, that's a conflict right there with the infiltration bed and the existing driveway.

Let's talk about this here. See this blue?

Yeah, but we can't put an infiltration bed there because that's where the electrical line is already there.

No, I think what you're talking about is the existing driveway is on top of the proposed infiltration bed. Yes. Right, so that will still be the case. The bed will be constructed. There's yard drains... In the infiltration bed that will be within the gravel area.

So I'm not an engineer, so I can't speak intelligently about the engineering aspects or requirements related to that, but I know that was one of the, that caught my attention when I was reading the review letter. And Jill wrote the review letter, so she would be the one that would have to speak to with regards to that specific item. But like I said, it was one of the things that stood out to me.

As far as submitting to Hanover, they only have 300 feet of the driveway or something like that. 200 feet. So we plan on talking to them, but we want to get to this ahead of time.

You can't. See, that's part of the problem. Because you're in two municipalities, these guys can't approve something that's in another municipality, so you're going to have to do it concurrently. At the end of the day, to sign those plans, there's going to be two sets of signature blocks. unless Hanover defers not to participate. And that's why we need to know that now.

And I think that's in our best interest. We want to ask for a waiver for that since it's basically the only... We're not building on their property. The roadway coming in is their property, and then all the buildings eastbound.

From a practical standpoint, the only thing that they would be involved with from a concern standpoint is the access in any... residences or any buildings that would access your driveway would be my understanding that that would be their primary concern but again i don't know i can't speak for them but it's something we just need to know going forward because this body and when i say body east allen township cannot record your plan and with the potential that they need to sign off as well okay did not know that well we were kind of hoping that would be a condition of the approval to get you know the

approval from Hanover Township or a letter, a waiver, whatever. I think was their intent initially going forward with this.

I'll reach out to them.

They didn't want to get caught up in the land development process with Hanover Township for 200 feet of a driveway. Where PennDOT is telling them how to do the entrance.

Let's get this approved first.

Are there any other issues the board has that we can discuss tonight or otherwise we'll set up a meeting with Hanover and go over?

I would suggest setting up a meeting with Hanover, get that done, get some of these items on the letter taken care of. It's a little bit lengthy to be sending off to the board of supervisors for approval at this point. There's an awful lot left on it that Some of it's just clerical, but stuff should be cleaned up. And then we would love to see you back next month and get you off to the supervisors.

Okay. I have one quick question. Yes. Do you anticipate any issues related to having the proposed infiltration bed in the PPL easement?

No, they have a list of... It's right next to a tower. Yeah. They have a list of things that you can and can't do, and something like that underground is permitted. I was just thinking heavy equipment, accessing that tower. There's a transmission tower right there, right at the corner. I think the driveway is actually going to be more... of an issue, but I think we still comply with that. Because I'm assuming you can't put line trucks on top of the infiltration bed.

Correct. They won't have access to part of that easement for work. I'm a little concerned about that, having worked at PPL, and I know some of the difficulties they run into in the field.

We'll definitely get that cleared up with them.

Yeah, just better than in the 11th hour, I think.

Did you have a conversation one time with PP&L that they said as long as it's underground, they would still have access? Right. No.

They may not understand that underground means can't have big trucks on it. Yeah. You only want to make sure so they don't change their minds at the last minute. Other than that,

We look forward to seeing you next month if at all possible. We want to bring new businesses into the municipality.

And hopefully new residential buildings too.

Well, that depends. All right, moving on to item number two, business before the commission, Saldo 2026-008, estates at Green Meadow, subdivision land development preliminary plan submission.

Good evening. My name is Kevin Horvath. I'm consulting engineers here tonight on behalf of Antonio Tavares. He's the record owner of the property. probably familiar with it, but it's surrounded by Green Meadow Drive to the south, Meadow Drive to the west, and Cricket Road to the north. Approximately 100 acres in area. There's an existing farmstead on the southern portion on Meadow Road, and an unnamed tributary to the Catasauqua Creek more or less bisects the property. We're proposing 63 single-family dwelling lots, and a residual parcel that would contain, for the most part, stormwater management facilities. We're proposing two basins, one on either side of the existing stream that would discharge toward the southwest corner of the property. I'm sorry, the northwest corner of the property. You'll note that the road network comprises three proposed intersections, two with Green Meadow Road, one with Cricket Road, a looped sort of configuration on the north side of the property, on the far side of the stream. We have a pretty lengthy letter from Hanover. A lot of technical comments. This is, as you know, a preliminary plan. So we have a lot of work to do in the field, for instance. We need to do some well testing. We need to do a lot of septic system testing. We've conducted our infiltration testing for the two basins, and we're pleased with the results. Very deep soils. One of the comments in the review letter talked about carbonate features. Just for your information, the maps show maybe an interface between carbonate and shale geology in the southern portion I feel like I'm backwards here. That north arrow is wrong, isn't it? No, the north arrow is right.

I feel like it's actually to the east.

I feel like that's north, that way. Okay, my bad. Anyway, so we tested both the basins. There was evidence that this is shale geology, so the interface with the carbonate is apparently further to the south than this property, so we're pleased with that. We did an investigation. There are no karst features there. evident on the property of any sort. A couple of questions that I'd like your feedback from, if you're so inclined, within the review letter. Unless you want to go through a point-by-point, a 16-page letter, I'm happy just to grab some highlights, but please feel free to jump in with anything you have or would like to talk about if I skip it. That works. Okay. So I'm all the way on page five already, bottom of the sheet, comment number 38. It's talking about the road cross-section. The plan proposes a 30-foot wide roadway with curbing and a 50-foot wide right-of-way. That is the township's specification for one-side on-street parking. For a development of this nature, for the most part, I see no need for on-street parking. but there wasn't really an option to, it was either no curb, 28 feet, or curb 30 feet with parking. I don't know what your preference is. We kind of prefer the curb. It makes it a little bit easier for drainage, but I think 30 feet might be considered excessive for a subdivision with homes or lots of this size. So what's the preference of the township in matters like this or projects like this?

It's always been 30 feet. except there's some cases where it's been wider.

What I would say to you is that we recognize there may not be a need for parking on both sides, but there absolutely, even with lots of this nature, between people having events, people putting vehicles out in the roadway instead of their driveway and things of that nature, the township has seen not only a need but has continued with, policy of having parking at least on one side. And just so you're aware, we're happy to hear you prefer curbing because our board has been very emphatic that they want curbing and that all of their residential subdivisions over the past probably at least 30 years have had curbing.

Okay, fair enough. So 30 feet in curbing, one side of the street parking.

Now again, I made that statement. If the Planning Commission feels that it would be more appropriate to make a recommendation for parking on both sides or that there would be other concerns. I was just giving you a basic perspective.

I noticed something about possible street signage for park only on this side. In my opinion, living on a street that's 30 feet wide, I don't think that's necessary. I think people will sort that out by themselves. What's that? Having no parking on one side of the street.

No, no, no, no.

People will park wherever they want to park. It is not a problem in my neighborhood. That's what I'm saying.

Okay, I've seen it. Or neighborhoods that I walk the dog in. I've seen it down on Colony Drive where people park on either side of the street. Other places. It's not that big of a deal to put signs up, I don't think.

What are the advantages of that? is it ensures you don't have two vehicles directly across from each other that could potentially hinder emergency services and things of that nature. That's always one of the potential things to keep in mind. Again, I'm only here to give the input, the experience that I can pass along, but that is something that we do consider when we look at whether or not to have it specifically defined as one side or the other.

Great. I know we typically have parking on one side, but does Sunny Slope have no parking signs up? I don't think we discussed that with that one.

I thought they did, but I'm not sure.

I think there's certain areas where there is, but I don't know if it's predominantly throughout the development.

We could leave it without and come back and have them put in if it's needed. Jim's right, and Jacksonville is just a specific example.

Once you approve it, you're not going to be able to... I'm not saying you should make them do it up front. I'm just saying once you approve it, you've got to go back, unless it's a deferral.

Well, the other option would be then a later count of organs that would have to be separate from this...

whether it would apply retroactively to a previously approved development.

We're a petition signed by 48 of the neighbors saying please make it one sign.

I'd be happy to do it as a deferral if that would give you the peace of mind that if it comes to it, you can come back and require it. It's going to be a homeowners association. So there is a mechanism for funding something like that, as opposed to 63 individual homeowners.

It might be something, though, that you want to consider. And one of the things that we would typically do as part of that is have Kevin's team document that if they do choose one side or the other, that, again, via turning templates or other things, that we have adequate emergency service circulation and things. If I was going to make the recommendation that you're even considering on one side only and signing it, now's the time to do it because Kevin will be able to have his team take a look at things and make sure that it's going to work as opposed to something arbitrary at a later date.

I'll put them on the plan. I'll request a deferral and we can talk about it later. That way if the deferral doesn't go through, they're already on the plan and we haven't lost any time or effort. Sounds good.

I always like to bring up the bug of streetlights and Sidewalks.

Well, that's next on my list. Oh, I'm anticipating. But before I get there, would you mind if we stick with roadway improvements for a little while? Be my guest. Okay, let me finish my note here. So the surrounding roadways, that's also part of this comment 38. Each of the three surrounding roadways is somewhere about 18 or 20 feet wide. The comment references a 24-foot-wide cartway for local streets. If it's not clear on the plan... What I've proposed in each of these three situations is 100 feet in each direction from the roadway. There would be a curb return that extends out. And the roadway would be widened to 15 feet from center line. So that would be the half width of your typical 30 foot wide curb street. What it would also do is if you assume that the other half of the road is 9 feet wide, you have your 15 feet and you end up with 24 feet. That's 200 feet or 250 feet, I forget which, if you add the right-of-way width of the road along those, at those intersections to facilitate turning movements and visibility at those points. That's what I'm initially proposing for improvements and I'd certainly like to hear your feedback if that's something you'd be willing to accept.

Again, this is a discussion that you're going to want to consider, curb, sidewalk, for not only the interior of the development, but along the perimeter, which again is a discussion item that warrants consideration as to whether or not you feel that you want to provide pedestrian access along the perimeter or anything of that nature, as well as the roadways and things. Again, this is the time to do that.

Well, the problem with having curbs, say, on Green Meadow Road is water, the drainage. Where is it going to go?

Right now, it just sheets off the sides of the road.

Exactly. It has all of that to go. You put a curb there, you block it.

Well, they have to then provide a greater structure.

So this becomes very important.

Then you're tearing up 8,000 feet of roadway, and it's a really monumental undertaking. The limited stretches of curve I've provided, we've looked at it, and either the water will continue, you know, get captured at the curve face and flow into the subdivision, you know, on the uphill approach to the intersection, or at the downhill approach, it'll pass the curve and then sheet into one of the lots. So it's not a lot of area, not a lot of water. Thinks it's manageable without any drainage, we think it's manageable without any drainage improvements. Think it kind of, I mean, having the road widened, I don't know, if that's what you want, I'd Obviously, you have the authority to require that.

You won't be building along there because of the high-power electrical lines.

No, you'll note the edge of the easement on those lower lots. It's 100 feet wide, and it almost coincides on the south side with that 20-foot buffer strip. So it's about 120 feet in from the edge of the right-of-way to what would be the back building lines for those lots.

Right. That's a place for the water to go.

For sure, yeah. There's going to be a lot of green space there.

Well, would it be feasible then to put curbs along Cricket and Meadow Road alone, just those two, if that's the case?

Well, you're going to still end up trapping the water within the cartway and needing to discharge it at some point.

Understood. But, you know, currently if you don't, then it's going to go into those lots.

Yeah, but the way it comes off is it's not channelized and discharging at a concentrated point. Again, it's kind of hitting the crown of the road, going in either direction and dissipating into the lawns. I mean, obviously there are some points where we need to accommodate runoff where there are some low spots and things, and we'll take that into account with the... with the lot line swells and things.

Do any of the lots come out to Cricket or Meadow at this point?

No, everything is internally accessed.

I really wouldn't see a need for curving those roads unless we're seeing something unusual there. I don't think it warrants it like a subdivision where they're improved. Other than the curves that he's proposing as far as the 250 foot. Yeah, to kind of channelize if that's an intersection point, that makes sense.

But beyond that, I... Widening the roadway to, I'll say, a more typical width is still something that could be considered with or without curving. Correct. So, again, it's something that you want to look at and give some thought to. Obviously, this is our introductory discussion for this project and things, but If you haven't had a chance, you might want to take a ride out there and see what you think.

There's more traffic right now on Meadow than Cricket, and Green Meadow is the speedway. So I don't know how much widening I would go out and propose on Green Meadow, but they're definitely too short of width to safely accommodate cars at times. But the intersection at Meadow and Green Meadow is pretty gnarly with the driftwood the way it's configured. So proposing that other intersection close, we'll have to...

If I had my preference, that intersection would align with Bell.

Yeah.

Well, I'm just going to say, could you not, as part of this, can that not be accomplished? Well, they probably would lose a lot or two.

It really orphans a good portion of the property. We looked at that first off, but there's 300 or more feet of separation.

That lower road went straight to metal instead of coming to green metal, but you still lose the two lots unless those come out on the green metal.

Yeah, we've looked at a number of different configurations, and this is what we felt was... work best for the lot as well as, you know, providing for or limiting, you know, potential conflicts.

I would say keep it in mind because once you start doing PERC testing, you may find that you're going to lose some lots, in which case that may become a viable solution, potentially.

You won't likely see me back here with a revised plan for some time until we do get that testing sorted out. It's going to have a big impact, potentially a big impact, hopefully no impact. Potentially a big impact.

What would Norm say? He hasn't seen a new house go in that doesn't have a sand mound in this township.

Yeah, I very cautiously said to the applicant today that we may even see some in-ground systems here. We have some really nice deep soils.

Yeah, you may.

Potentially there's areas where you can see that, but there's a lot of factors that come into how it has been farmed that take into account.

Yeah, the development not far from you has kind of a mix of above and below ground. So it's kind of hit or miss later in that area.

I had deep limiting zones at my lot, and it still ran too fast and needed a sandlot. Well, that could be the case, too. Because of the shaley composition.

So I guess we'd like to go forward with the expectation or the understanding that this is an acceptable... configuration. We can talk about roadway widening or something along the perimeter. That's not really going to impact layout.

One of the keys is the fire marshal here or input from the fire company with regards to turning radiuses for fire trucks getting in and around that upper loop. I would see that as a potential concern.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, they all meet minimum turning radii or minimum centerline radii. We'll do some routings.

We'll be reviewing turning templates and things like that.

I did have a concern about some of the language in the review letter stating that showing tractor trailers utilizing the road network without crossing the centerline. I mean, that's the infrequency of that type of a vehicle as well as these aerial fire trucks. And the prohibition on crossing the center line seems a little bit rigid.

Especially when there's parked cars along the roadway.

We'll park both sides of the road, Jim. I don't care. But, you know, we'll certainly take a look at that. But the crossing of the center line, I mean, even PennDOT, when you enter and exit one of their driveways, they fully anticipate you're going to sweep across some center lines.

Would you like to see a design on Easton Road that's over 100 feet wide because... some permit manager would not allow any to cross?

I wouldn't be surprised. Those are, you know, when sensible abilities prevail, you know. We can take a look at that once we have the data. Thank you. Okay.

All right. Now for layout, back to, so you finished with the roadways at this point?

If you don't have any further comments and assuming that the geometry works with these larger vehicles, That we can move forward with testing. I don't have any other comments or questions.

Okay, so the sidewalks part of it. Yep. Were you going to go there?

I was eventually going to get there. I think I'm probably right about there. So, yeah, go for it. I was just going to say. Oh, good. What are you thinking?

We typically require sidewalks. And if this is a homeowners association and this is going to be, it's an isolated property. community, basically, which is a township in farmland. We need to be able to provide the residents with the ability to walk around, ride around within the community. So I think sidewalks would need to be there.

I certainly appreciate that opinion. I had looked at the Sunny Slope subdivision. I didn't see sidewalks on that plan.

um that has been the only exception more recently there was a lot of debate on that one that went back and forth in fact they deferred the perimeter sidewalk and then came back and said they wanted it yeah now the developer was pretty much we should have put it in it was a different owner when they developed it and subdivided the lots off yeah but um What historically has been done is sidewalks on one side, no sidewalks on the other side. More recently, we get complaints that why are the sidewalks on my neighbor's side and not on my side? I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or the other, but I think there has to be some walkability component to it. Maybe not both sides based on the center road, but you have some outer loops and other things that

Well, and this is the type of community that you might see your residents wanting to have the ability to have that walkable loop scenario. So, again, something to just keep in mind. I can't say yes or no that people will or will not, but it's certainly nice to provide that aspect as an opportunity, especially if they have children or other things. So, again, something to consider.

I agree that sidewalks should be on at least one side. Right, I think.

I think they should be on both because to your comment, people like to walk, especially in an enclosed community such as this. I mean, I drive around Hanover in the morning and I see people running and walking Kicking the dogs out.

Right in the road.

Where they don't have sidewalks, they're out in the road.

Oh, I mean the joggers. They're on the road no matter what.

There's a sidewalk and he's out in the road. But I think my opinion is that we should have sidewalks on both sides of the road. And then as far as lighting streetlights, I'm not saying you have to have streetlights everywhere, but I think at the intersections... We have them there.

I propose one at every intersection, including the perimeter intersections. Perfect. There was a suggestion in the letter that you might want to discuss additional placement.

Well, I think at the minimum, that's what we would like to see.

Okay, yep. I think we might have even put one around one of the bends at the... It might be a little dark back there. Yeah, because it is a pretty decent curve. I think we might have put one at the top corners, one at each top corner. I'll double check, and I'll put them there if they are.

Typically for, while we're still on the sidewalk part of it, we would typically be required to put a sidewalk along the perimeter of the property as well. Typically we would provide deferral on that, but the developers would tend to put it in the plan so it's there and then defer it potentially. But in this particular case, based on the overall plan, that might be something we'd want to do anyways, right?

What I will comment on is regardless of a deferral, unless the applicant would seek and be successful in a full-blown waiver, which would be unlikely from our township, we would ask them to... provide the layout and design of the sidewalk now so that even under the deferral, we know that they can just go in and put it in without any problems.

Which is basically what I thought I said.

Some of the issues we've had with the deferrals and the Planning Commission may not be aware of this is we had recently somebody put in sidewalks that got a deferral that didn't design it. And now we have to go out and correct design issues and other flaws that have happened because they've put it in. So now we're saying it has to be designed with the deferral so that if it is called, we're not going back and forth.

Because if it gets deferred, it could happen a year down the road, it could happen two years down the road. So I guess that's correct.

What seems to be the trend with the development of this size is When it's the deferral and it's down the road, who's paying for it down the road? Is it the HOA, which most likely doesn't have the funds, or is it the developer doing it? And in the case of Sunny Slope, they're stuck in the predicament of trying to figure out when we do the deferral, and they've come up with other ways of dealing with sidewalks beyond what we originally talked about on both sides of the road, and even the one road talking about eliminating it. So it's something that Yes, we can grant a deferral, but I know we've talked about this. At what point does the deferral get called, and at what point is who's paying for it, how it's being secured? That kind of thing becomes a problem for us administering a deferral.

I understand. So basically, I guess what you're saying at this point is if we would do it, we would want to do it right away. I mean, it just... I hate to say it, we have a set of sidewalks to nowhere that people complain about, but it's the same scenario. We required it to be put in, even though it's kind of nowhere, but it will be connected.

Will be connected, you mean at some point?

Yeah, at another location. Well, that one, there were subdivisions on opposite sides, and they just are still going through. design issues, and there's a UGI utility easement that has to be dealt with. But, yeah, I mean, I think there's some flexibility on sidewalks, basically what we're hearing right now. There's at least a minimum everybody is in favor of one side. The preference for some of them is both sides, and then there's discussion on how to handle the exterior roads.

Yeah, Mike, I would add, if I could, I believe a sidewalk should be put in on Green Meadow Road and also Cricket Road up to the entrance to the development.

I feel like that's really the only perimeter sidewalk that makes sense. I don't think you need it on Meadow Road.

I don't think you need to go further up Cricket. But at least then if people want to walk up.

It would create the loop. It would close the loop. Would you be open to a deferral of that if we design it or are we saying no, that it needs to go in?

I don't. Well, myself personally, I don't think I'd be open to a deferral.

Yeah, and as somebody that has experience in the HOA community, after the developer leaves, you're going to have 60-plus units. That's going to be a big assessment. That's a big nut, yeah, for sure. Yeah, so I'm with Tom on that one. Sounds like it would be something we'd want to suggest.

Could I go for the waiver of the beyond... You know, the Green Meadow, or I'm sorry, the Meadow Road. Well, you can go for any Meadow. Well, there'll be support for it, of course.

For me, there would be, yeah. I don't think it's necessary for Meadow.

Always deferrals. In these type of scenarios, always a deferral.

A deferral beyond what we're talking about, the loot piece.

Right. So beyond would be... If you ask about a waiver, I'm saying my recommendation would be not to grant a flat-out waiver. It would be to grant a deferral. That way, again, we have design laid out and we have the ability to do it, even if you never call that deferral. Right. We know it can be done.

So we do the loop, as Tom had suggested, and defer the remainder of it.

Yeah, design it in, and as Brent said.

That's not such a big piece. Yeah, and when you get to the deferral,

It's almost a waiver. Right. It's almost a waiver because it makes, it's, no one wants to go knocking on these doors saying, give me 20 grand for sidewalks.

So folks that know this area a little bit better than I do, because I haven't spent a lot of time in that area, where do the kids get picked up for school in general, like in that area? What roads do the buses travel? Do you know?

Airport Road.

I know one bus at least comes down Airport Road. There's a bus stop on Green Meadow. There is a bus stop on Meadow down the road more, but it's towards Snyder's Church. I believe there's one at Bella. I think they're at Pickup Bella. But beyond that, I don't.

So it's probably likely that school pickup is probably going to be in one spot for the whole development?

Or would they possibly... This size, I think you would probably have two. At least two. Yeah, I would think at least two within the development. It's 100 acres, so it's pretty substantial.

So it's interesting. Would they bring the buses into this development? Okay. So they wouldn't be picking them up on the perimeter roads.

What do they do at Sunny Slope? Does the bus go into Sunny Slope? I don't know if there's any kids in the development yet.

I don't think they've started that. Well, no.

I think there might be kids there. They pick them up on Hanover Street. But the section that I think would be the concerning for drop-off in Sunny Slope is not in construction yet. So there's no homes built that are being occupied. So we're talking about the little loop road. on Smith Court, which is the left side or west side towards Bicentennial.

Okay, so for the purpose of my question specifically for this is there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of stuff.

No, and I don't think there would be an issue with the bus stop even being out on Green Meadow, and if we're making improvements, it kind of, it'll be fine.

Well, there would be a sidewalk on one side.

Yeah.

Because that's part of the loop, right? Right. On the north side. I was really more asking about Meadow.

I know that with the sunny slope they have tried to design their deferral and part of their discussions with the board and the board's comments from some of the members was they want an area for buses that kids can be there and maybe that's not sidewalks but there's a bus stop area that's designated as part of it not saying that's with this project but that was some of the concerns that came up with why we need sidewalks on both sides and I don't know Most times they're going to stand at the sidewalk, but they can go anywhere.

The other thing that's come up of late is the need for mailbox locations and accessibility.

You'll have to have a mailbox cluster box because we're going through that now with Sunny Slope.

I've done that with others. We'll figure something out there.

School bus stops with parents parking their cars at intersections, parking on both sides of the road.

Excuse me, Tom.

Hi.

This gentleman came in. It's not comment time, but what I just wanted to say was you might want to allow him to comment. If he's here about Green Meadow, allow him to comment after.

Yes. We typically do.

Before we get to the other things on the agenda. Yes, well, we're not there yet. You're still with this guy. So I just want to let you know you'll have a chance to.

Thank you. All right. To recap. interior sidewalks, one side only?

If you can try designing both, and if you can't make it work, I think there's a consideration.

You've got split. You don't have a unanimous point.

I go for two. I can go for both sides.

I would suggest that unless there's some real hardship in doing so, it

It just seems excessive in terms of added impervious cover, added cost for 60 homes. From your perspective, I'm sure it does.

But from the homeowner's perspective, not so much. And I would have to say...

It does end up being a huge expense for HOA. That's for sure. I'm not trying to sway you. But someday, you're not thinking about the developer anymore. You're thinking about the homeowners and the association for the next 40 years.

Sure. Yeah. And I'll take for whatever it's worth, I lived in Minnesota for six years. There was a sidewalk on the other side of the street, not on my side of the street. I loved it. I didn't have to shovel it.

Well, it's funny because you get both sides of that coin. Some people complain that it's not on their side, and other people complain that it is.

And what happened with Tuscus was they had certain models available, and the models that they wanted were on one side without sidewalks, and they weren't on the other side, and it just became this weird debate on why my neighbor gets a sidewalk and I don't. And that decision was made in 2004, long before these homes were being built in 2015. All right.

Now just specifically along the perimeter roads, can I design this sidewalk without consideration for a curb and that the water would continue to sheet off the road as it currently does? We talked about no improvements in the roadway, but if we're going to put a sidewalk in and then we're putting curb in, then we're putting storm sewer in, then we're blowing up budgets.

I was thinking the same thing. There goes the curb situation.

I'm not a fan of sidewalk without curbing.

Yeah, see, there we go.

That's where this starts to snowball.

I think since it's not along a frontage where somebody potentially could be walking, other than they get stuck in a rainstorm, I don't see a problem on the Green Meadow. I would not allow it anywhere else. If you're proposing to curving, I think it's fine. But Green Meadow is probably the only one that maybe we would allow that to sheet flow, but

I mean, I'm talking about the perimeter road.

Correct, correct. Cricket, I... It's only that short stretch from... Yeah, there's not much... And that's the way the water does come off the road there, just like it does on Green Meadow. Those lots that front the outer perimeter roads, are you proposing swales then for stormwater, or just let it... No, let it do its thing.

Like it's always done.

Yeah.

Something to give some thought to.

I'll give it a shot. Yeah, I'll give it a whirl. I'll come back with some ideas.

What's the alternative is a sidewalk without a curb, which I don't, that's pretty rare.

If you're familiar with Hanover Township, Jacksonville Road, they put in a bike trail. And they did it in such a way because they wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise to do all of the infrastructure improvements that it would have taken in order to elevate curb and everything else. So they did have it. So it did allow for continued drainage of the yards and the other things. It went the other way, all from Shainersville all the way up.

The bottom half. Everything up in the rest of it is curved.

Right, that was built with curved. That was built with curved. But the older neighborhoods without the curves, they didn't go and put them in because of all the problems we're talking about here.

Although they have retrofitted some of them at this point now. But yes, the older stuff at the bottom, that's why when you said that I was wondering where you were referring to.

The one I'm thinking now is along Newburgh Road, there's that big church, and across the street is a development that has houses and... condos and so on, and they have a sidewalk, running track, that sort of thing, going around the perimeter. That might be something to consider. Isn't that the park? Isn't that Newburgh Park that you're thinking of?

No, you're talking about right off of 191 there, aren't you?

No, right off of Newburgh Road.

Newburgh. Yeah, that might be a park. There's a development that has sidewalks, but yeah, it would be similar to that where it's not going to collect the water and put it in a basin. It's going to go wherever it goes along the shore. There's a couple spots like Bethlehem Township and other places that I've seen. It's not common. It's more common with like a paved walking path scenario than an actual concrete sidewalk.

That's kind of what maybe that kind of compromises like a

Like you're saying, a walking path.

That would be... Could be asphalt.

Okay. All right. Well, I will put some thought into that and come up with something that hopefully you guys will like. I think we've covered a couple of things... more of a technical nature that I guess I'm spring up and if you think it's something I should just speak with Jim or Jill about, we can do that. Jim, drainage easements around perimeters of lots. It's a couple of statements in here that seem to require just these blank lot line easements all around the lot.

Blanket lot line easements typically do not count against the lot area.

Utilized easements do. That's what I was hoping to hear. I mean, I'll put whatever on paper. It doesn't matter But then when you have circumstances where, for instance, it's conveying, like that interceptor channel behind the lots up on the upper right. I thought that I provided them where they would be reasonable, but if there's others that you might require. But you're saying then all the lot line easements are shown, but unless there's some infrastructure of some sort beyond a lot line swale, then we need to deduct them.

Okay, fair enough. That's good.

Good, good, good. So little silly item. A lot of lines shall intersect roads at right angles. You can just have this going right in here like this. In my mind, maintain that straight line. Makes it easy. If you want, you can tweak it up like that. It just didn't seem to really offer much in anything. That's the only one literally in the entire situation is this one right here. So either way, if you care, I'll change it. If you don't, I'll leave it. Technically, it's a whip. It says, what is it, substantially. Is that substantially at a right angle? It's greater than 45 degrees, so therefore it could be substantial. More than.

If you look at it cross-eyed, you're fine. What's that? If you look at it cross-eyed, you're probably fine.

Turn your head a little bit, fine. Now, is that something you can do? We haven't had North go to the right, so I mean, based on that view, it definitely is substantial.

All right.

I think that's just a waiver that is appropriate.

If it makes a difference, if it's worth the paper, the time to write it. Okay. Okay. Good enough.

It's easier to keep that straight for the future homeowner's peace of mind of not having to worry about where is my line king. That's where I was thinking. So the waiver is definitely worth the time and effort.

All right. That's where my mind was. All right. So we've got the sidewalks. We talked about streetlights. There's a comment number 61 on page 9. It talks about the 20-foot-wide buffer yard. And that extends all along Green Meadow Road and all along Meadow Road except on the detention basin lot. So it goes about two-thirds of the way or half of the way up Green Meadow, I'm sorry, Meadow Road because of those reverse frontage lots. It's 20 feet wide. We've provided a mix of... What page are you on? 9, 61. It says the planting shall be reviewed. I'm not sure what that means.

I think it's just a Do we want it to be all one type of tree in a row, in a line? Do we want them staggered? I don't think there's anything objectionable with what you've proposed. I think it's just to make sure that we're comfortable that's how we want it landscaped and buffeted.

There's a graphic layout in one spot on it. It alludes to staggering and even different types of plants.

In your ordinance? Yeah. All right, I'll check that out. I've talked about 63 already, about the absence of karst geology. Next page, 10, comment number 11. The plan shall be revised to indicate and record a riparian buffer easement. Generally, the riparian buffer easement is 35 feet wide. We've shown a storm water easement 50 feet from both sides of the bank. Can those be one and the same? Do you have to have a separately defined riparian buffer? We don't care if the riparian buffer is 50 feet since there's already a storm easement there. It doesn't matter. And is this a separately recorded document or is this language on the plan?

It's usually a separately recorded document as a riparian easement. Okay. Technically, I think we have to keep it separate.

Okay. All right.

I'll clarify that.

I mean, would it They could both be 50 feet. I think we just say it's a minimum of 35.

Yeah, but I wouldn't want to not call or repair it.

Well, no, I'm just saying you've got both of them.

I mean, they're given a set distance anyway, I guess.

Yeah, that way they don't have to go out and calculate what 35 is. They already have the 50. But you're going to have to distinguish both lines of what they are.

I guess we'll also have to figure out how to document this easement, Jim. I mean, you see the the meandering nature of the stream. Yes, that's beautiful. To describe it by meets and bounds would be an absolute disaster, not to mention 10 years from now, the stream will be in a different spot, right? So not sure how to best do that. But hopefully something that doesn't require thousands and thousands of bearings and distances.

Yeah, I think in another community, Jill and I, we went out, and I believe it was just a center line, that we determined what the center line was the best we could, and then it was 50. Fair enough. We can talk about that then, I guess. An easier way.

Yeah. Yeah.

This is something that struck me as a result of, I guess, Sunny Slope Farm. Since you're talking about this riparian area. That's not something somebody can build it. That means that area, that property has to be devoid of any kind of building or whatever.

There are certain allowable improvements. I think the ordinance mentions a walking trail. But for the most part, it's intended to maintain a naturalized type of environment to provide a...

The homeowner couldn't come in and put a shed up or put a pool in?

No, no. No, and in fact, like I said, we have that stormwater easement there, which would also preclude that type of thing. Not to mention then we have a 100-foot wide buffer around the stream. So we got like three levels of protection on this stream. There's nothing going to be built physically within 100 feet of the center line of that stream.

I think, Joe correct me if I'm wrong, I think what we did because at Sunny Slope they built in the flood plain. Some of those lots are in flood plain area.

None of the structures are because... None of the structures.

But the lot goes through the flood plain area. I think what we, again correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what we did back then was we required that language to be placed in each of those specific deeds. for those homeowners so that when they bought that property, it was spelled out in that deed that said they could not build within that specific area on that particular lot. Got it.

What's going to happen is that there's going to be an HOA here, so there's going to be a declaration that's going to have to be prepared and filed with what are called plots and plans of the Uniform Plan Community Act. And those plots and plans will show these various easements on them, and we'll have a chance to review that. So anybody that's buying in the community receives a copy of that declaration. There would probably most likely be one area of that declaration that's specifically dedicated to this particular issue and the restrictions that unit owners would have from that.

Okay. And that also then applies to the easement for the utility line?

The overhead utility line? Yeah. That's already being restricted and that's locked in.

Okay. Again, they have to disclose it in the declaration and it will indicate to homeowners what they can do or can't do, but that and recorded and everything like that. But again, in my declarations when I do them, all of these various issues are fully disclosed to potential buyers and all the restrictions are laid out for them to understand what they can and can't do with the locks.

The only encroachments we have into the PPL easement are just the two southerly road crossings and all other septic systems, drainage facilities, all out of there. Just one other point of note, you've mentioned the sunny slope and the... the floodplain. There are no defined floodplains for this stream.

I looked it up. I tried to look it up today.

The Sunny Slope was a more recent floodplain delineation. It goes back to 2014 when they submitted the plans. There was a crazy spur-of-the-moment flood event that happened, I think, in the early 2010s, and that's what led to FEMA doing that. Because it's pretty abruptly, it's right at the... the bottom of Grace Industries and goes down to their property. But no, I mean, they're just going to have to depict it. Now, obviously, we have grading permit requirements that have to be reviewed. So when they come in, they're going to have to show their improvements. And that'll be the guide for each homeowner as they come in for a permit of where they can build and where they can't. I mean, Sunny Slope's a little bit different. The floodplain was more, wasn't jogging back and forth. It's pretty much a straight line across. So there was... some parallelness to it, but obviously here you can't do that. Sure. Yeah. I mean, what's going to happen is they're going to see an acre and a half to two acres for some of these lots. They're like, I want the big lot, thinking I can do a lot with it. And that's just going to be the curve. But we can put all the declarations, we can put all the deeds, we can put all the notices, we can put bright flashing signs out in the riparian buffer area and easement. They're still going to come in and want to build in it.

Well, sure. I mean, that's, of course.

Yeah, like it...

Okay. Since you brought it up, Brent, grading plans. Twice in the review letter, it says that the subdivision and land development plan shall show individual lot grading. I mean, that's a monumental undertaking.

Well... I think how we've handled it, if you don't do it, then each individual lot has to do it later.

And they don't have to do that otherwise?

No, basically what the intent of that is, is you have to show that you're going to be able to accommodate not proposing cross-lot date drainage and things like that. You're going to be representing the overall concept here. The individual lot grading plan shows the detail of how you're going to accomplish the concept. So that's where it's going to run into, you know, you have to show that you're going to be able to meet not having cross-lock drainage and things like that at the macro level. The grading plans will be your micro for each lot.

Okay. Does the township typically require, whether needed or not, lot line swales? I mean, I feel like that's kind of been where it makes sense. Past, you know, the point where it's not necessarily considered a great plan.

There's only one way to eliminate... cross-lot drainage where there's cross-lot drainage. And that would be either swale or some other method to do that. Now, obviously, if you're running a lot line perpendicular to the flow, you're going to have to figure out how you're going to prevent one lot from inundating the other one. But if it's running with the flow, we're not going to be able to put a swale line that doesn't receive anything.

Yeah, I get that. I mean, my point was the idea... In the ordinance, it talks about maximizing advantage of natural onsite stormwater percolation into the soils. That's in the language here. Just channelizing everything does the exact opposite of that. It counters the water and it shoots it out to the road into the storm sewer system. So naturally, this site drains all over the place. I know you don't want to take your downspouts and discharge them onto your neighbor's lot. You don't want to have runoff directly attributable to impervious areas. But when you have a lawn area and it naturally drains in this direction, do you really want to intercept it at every point and shoot it out to the road into the storm? So I think that's contrary to what would be considered the best practice.

If it's a lawn area, it really shouldn't concentrate. It'll stay as surface flow. shallow concentrated at best. I mean, so the idea would be that if you've got that much lawn area, you're not going to be channelizing water to any particular area as long as it has enough dispersal area.

Are you in support of the channels or not?

I'm going to tell you you need to have them to preclude cross-slot drainage where you need to have them. Yeah, there might be some areas where you don't need it. If there's one lot that drains across, you may not need a swale there. But if you've got six lots all going in the same direction... Sure.

That's, yeah. I mean, if we're talking a larger drainage pattern where you have, for instance, along the... Look in the loop.

Common line of the loop. Inside the loop.

Yeah.

If you've got water flowing to the south, you're going to get cross-slot unless you put a swale between those two lots horizontally.

Yeah, there's going to be certain areas just by the design of it that's going to meet it. And that's probably one of them.

For instance, these lots kind of flow in this direction. So every lot, at some point, the grass runoff is going to go onto the neighbor's lot. But you'll have a dwelling here which is going to take water that comes here. It's going to bring it around. You'll have a dwelling here to bring it around. You're not going to discharge it this way to your neighbor. At that point, it'll kind of naturally do its thing. But this water is going to run onto this lot unless you take and channelize this right down the line. So that's not what we're talking about. I'm fine with it. There are some instances here where the water actually kind of runs this way. It comes in towards the center here like this. And naturally, it's going to run this way along this lawn line. In which case, I would propose some sort of, actually, you don't really need a conveyance because it just goes, but an easement or something along here. But to just take what's considered and what's right now naturally sheet flow across lawn areas and interrupt that, and shoot it out to the road, that's where I would argue it's not always the best approach. So if we can talk about that, I think maybe I'll have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Yeah, again, like I said, it's more of a concern of how does one neighbor impact the other? So obviously the higher upstream you are, it's less of a concern, but if you get the cumulative effects, well, it's something we can work on. Sounds good. Okay.

Yeah, if there's areas that you find, just schedule a meeting with Hanover and we can go through... what needs to be done. But I know Sunny Slope, that became a sticking point with their swales and what they were proposing, and they were pretty much flat swales, and some swales were going 90 degrees, and water just turned 90 degrees, so we're going to want to work those out in the preliminary stage. Gotcha.

Okay, well, we'll talk technical stuff, and then we'll come back with a bigger picture discussion later. It's okay, I'm going to skip ahead to page 14, under zoning comment number 4. This is a real concern of mine. The zoning officer suggests that we ought to plan our stormwater management facilities to accommodate full 20% build-out of every lot, impervious coverage. That's what's allowed by zoning. What we're proposing, actually what we're showing on the plan, not on this plan, but we've shown some pretty large houses with three-car garages and driveways and some sidewalks. And granted, people are going to do more than that. So what we've shown on the plan is generally about 3,800 square feet of impervious cover. We've designed our stormwater system to accommodate an additional 2,000 something that gets us up to 5,325 square feet. I've done some other developments for a similar style, you know, scale of neighborhood and that turned out to be appropriate. for what we're designing. But these are acre lots, some of them much larger. And we said, if you're going to exceed the allotted 5,325 square feet, you do your own on-site development, your own on-site management, a dry well, an infiltration bed, something like that. The zoning officer is suggesting that we accommodate 20%. And there's going to be, I would say, very, very few, if any of these homes will ever reach a 20% on an acre of land, or an acre and a half of land.

So here's the, I'll say, the nexus of why that needs to be considered. A lot of your usable lot areas, if somebody has to put in individual infiltration facilities, they're not going to be able to fit due to isolation distance requirements and things of that nature, particularly for the lots that are encumbered by the various easement facilities, there is no room for them to put an infiltration facility and still have an isolation distance from a primary, alternate septic area, well, and the building itself.

Some of the lots.

Well, I'm saying the ones that are constrained like that. So that is why that... comment is very important.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree that it's a requirement. There's nothing that says you need to design your stormwater management facilities to accommodate full build out of these lots. This developer is taking it upon himself to say, what is a reasonable amount of development? I'm going to design for that, and on some lots you can do more. Maybe on some lots you can't. Not everybody in the world is guaranteed 20% impervious coverage. I don't think that represents a hardship. It just is what it is.

How many people come to a township and ask for a permit to put things in their lots? Not a lot. Not many. I don't know that. They all do. So you're basically saying that everybody's going to come to the township, they're going to want to get a permit, they're going to do something on their lot, and then we're going to know whether it's a full build-out or not, right?

Well, we've done this on numerous subdivisions and it's becoming pretty commonplace. I know that in the past, we've run into problems just like that because there was a design, but nobody really said what the design was for. And then the first 10 guys in said, well, I want to do a pool, I want to do a deck, I want to do a patio, I want to do this. And then guess what was left over? They couldn't even build a house on the last lots because, and Jim, you're probably aware of this because it was in this township, It's the development that straddles Hanover Township and East Allen Township off of Jacksonville Road.

So I'm very familiar with that project. Yeah, which is why the comment I believe was made was partly because of that. But I think...

In this case, though, you're providing an additional 1,500 to 1,600 square feet above and beyond what that requirement is, where in most instances... where these problems have cropped up over the years, that did not exist.

Yeah. So what does it come out to average, like 11% coverage?

12.2 according to the, I mean, if you're looking at an acre lot. Some of these lots are much smaller, or much larger, I'm sorry. But the other thing about this is that we're not saying first 10 in, you know, go nuts. We're saying first one in, you're limited to 5,300 square feet. Second one in, same thing. So you're not going to get that cumulative problem 10 years down when this is built out, or five years down when this is built out. So that's where I think we've made reasonable accommodations for stormwater. And on those lots that can provide for proper isolation distances and things, they can accommodate. They can do some on-lot stuff. So that's where we stand. The developer doesn't want to build something that he doesn't feel is a reasonable product or a saleable product. They've looked at it, and they feel that this number hits their mark, and then with a reasonable allowance for future build-out on some others, above and beyond the additional impervious.

I will say, not arguing against, we do have quite an amount of people that go to the 20% or try to because by the time they get done with their outdoor kitchen, their patio, their deck, their pool, and we've had people come in for pool permits that were 600 square feet, By the time we measured everything out, they're at 2,300 because of the patio for the sunbathing area. So people do slowly creep up. As long as we have a manageable number and there's some mechanism, I think we're okay. But the one that I think we're having issues with is that development in the other part of the township. The numbers aren't uniformly across the board. It's not like everybody has 10%. This person has 5%, this person has 6%, this person has 12%.

What it really comes down to, guys, is there's not enough room on an acre lot to do what everybody wants to do. Correct. Because you can't put your infiltration facility over top of your well or on your septic system.

Wouldn't that be discovered at the application? No. No?

Well, that's what people want to do in reality.

But I'm talking about the reality of what we're dealing with here. And again, the biggest concern is the constrained lots where we've got 1.01 acres and it's not truly 1.01 usable acres type of scenario. So the concern is that unless that is taken into account at the macro level, they can't do anything on the individual level?

Well, not nothing. You can build 1,300, 1,500 square feet, which is not nothing. It's significant. To consider a 3,500 or 2,500 square foot pool, sure, some people build them, but I don't think that's a guarantee. I don't think it's anyone's God-given right to

No, I'm just telling you the reality of what people are coming in. They want to widen their driveway so the driveway is as big as the house and they come in and we want to have a big pool in the backyard and maybe we can't afford the big pool so we're going to put in a big patio. To overcompensate, and then we're going to put in a pergola or something of that nature. An extra garage. Yeah, and then we have to have four-wheelers on it because we've got a one-acre lot, so now we need a space to put our four-wheeler or whatever we have. It becomes that creep that people have, and then we have to issue... Is there any wiggle room for more than what you've shown?

I mean, that's what it's going to come down to. We'll look at the numbers now that we have infiltration testing. We did some conservative estimates with our...

You understand our concern. I do. You're on both sides of the table. I do. You know. I do. And that's where we're coming from.

And I'm going to say this. You mentioned larger houses, right? Did you not?

These, as they're shown, are the biggest model of one of the other builders that I do work for.

Right. And if you're going to have larger houses, that's going to be, say, families with disposable income, which means they're going to want to do things. Mm-hmm.

Four bedrooms? Five bedrooms? Sure. That was part of the problem we ran into with Sunny Slope. They designed it for the standard, and then they had to come in and amend lots.

We're going to make sure that that's taken into consideration. With sewage facilities planning, they've also taken it into account for stormwater management planning.

No, that's fine. It's been a pain. And then the developer goes out and hires a contractor. The contractor strips topsoil. and they strip around what the areas should have been. But now that we have a bigger home, we need more areas, and they've cut into areas they need for their system. So as long as that's all being worked out when you do infiltration testing and you kind of have an idea, I think we're good. But they waited 10 years, and they fought on infiltration testing in the beginning, and we wound up with that battle.

One of the things you could do is relax the well isolation distances you have in your ordinance that are well above any that I've seen. I think it's 100 feet from an infiltration vent or something like that.

That's because the karst features is typically in the southern part. It really isn't the predominant factor of why it's there, but it doesn't take into account where you don't have full karst features. Right, which is here.

Yeah, that'll be helpful for you too because you won't have those isolation issues to deal with. Yeah.

Yeah, that's the saving grace that you have, that you don't have course features on any of these lots.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, so we'll look at what we can eke out, if we can bump that number up a little bit, but I'm going to go steadfast and say I can't sell 20%.

No, I think as long as we have a consistent number that's manageable and creates a usable lot that's kind of uniform, I think that's fine.

All right, we'll work on that. Page 15, comment 9, talks about traffic impact study. We submitted trip generation calculations and determined that AM peak hour, we have 13 incoming vehicles, 34 outgoing vehicles, PM peak, 39 incoming vehicles, and 24 outgoing vehicles. So minimal traffic impact. The ordinance reads a traffic impact study may impact in italics, be required for a residential development of more than 50 dwelling units. We're at 63, so we are above the 50. But I'm going to go ahead and ask if we can forego that, considering the minimal impact this is going to have. I mean, we're not going to be doing traffic signals. We're not going to be doing turn lanes. We're not going to have any of that stuff, which is really kind of the crux of the traffic study. The traveling roadway, the numbers on the existing roadways are almost Nothing. So, you know, our levels of service at these intersections should have, you know, really no issues. Jim's a traffic guy.

Our office will not support a waiver of the... I'm only one recommendation, but our office will not support no traffic study.

Can I ask what the cost of a traffic study generally is?

If I had to guess, I'd say $3,500 to $5,000 per intersection, depending on the number of intersections and also the amount of traffic that they have to look at the various different aspects of the report and the study requirements. I don't know. What would you say?

Well, what are you thinking here, and what are we studying? That's my question. What are we looking at? Are we counting airport road traffic? Good chance. Because that's, you know, then you're really up there. You're not at $3,500. Are we doing four or three intersections on the subdivision?

As it says, you guys determine what's required, and we will discuss that. Unless you're able to get a waiver from the Board of Supervisors for providing that, but this is a zoning section, so that would be a zoning variance.

Okay. I guess I would argue that there would be no need for a variance because it says a study may be required.

And if the board says do it, your only other option would be a zoning variance.

Now, understood. And I guess I'm looking to the planning commission to say, what are we looking to figure out here? Traffic comes, traffic goes. It's 60 homes.

So just to give you an idea of what we're discussing here, their traffic consultant indicated that they have 100% flow along Green Meadow Road to Airport Road. That would be roughly 60 vehicles in the peak hour hitting that intersection. So if that was truly the case, that could have an impact. I don't think all that traffic's going there, but again, this is part of why we need to have a developer take a look at this and address what needs to be done, or at least identify what has to be on the township's radar Are we getting close to a problem? Are we getting close to the need for something? So this is as much a planning tool as anything to determine if there's concerns or if there's already problems that we're unaware of.

In the last meeting, we had some residents voice serious concerns about one of the items was traffic in that area, people that live locally there. You said the ordinance is 50th?

50 units, 50 dwelling units, yep.

Do you think you're going to get 50 in here?

Well, we're at 63 as on paper. Paper's easy. I understand.

You've been out to the site.

I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful, yeah. Maybe it drops to 60, 55, but I'm hopeful.

I would think you need to talk with Hannah right here. I would think there needs to be some type of traffic study. If you're going to have... These homes, families, kids, parents working, I would think there needs to be some level of a study done. What exactly would need to be it? I haven't really figured it out, but I think we need to understand something about the volume of traffic that this is going to introduce into this local area and the condition of the roadways that we have.

I think there's, with respect, enough information and I think $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 is just enriching traffic planners without improving anything. But that's just my opinion. I like your opinion.

I didn't necessarily say we had to have one. I said we need to understand and make sure that if we do need one, we get one.

I think we have to look at the impacts on Green Metal Road. Beyond that, I think maybe there's some flexibility, but if you can... do some sort of preliminary analysis without doing a full-blown TAS.

Gentlemen, the bottom line is there's an ordinance that has requirements. And it says may. And here's what I'm going to say to you. In that ordinance, it says that any intersection within a half mile of the development may be included. So it's not necessarily something that has to be done. Again, may. Okay. But you could look at every intersection within a half mile of this site. Nobody's suggesting that, but it's something that needs to be looked at.

And we all know that 99% of the traffic flow is going to go towards Airport Road.

I don't know about that. In fact, that's part of what I wanted to find out, is how much is going to shoot out Driftwood to 329.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Yeah, I think you're going to probably have More on Driftwood. More on Driftwood than they've reported to us. Yeah, I see even Meadow going up that way. Surprisingly for what the road is and the lack of homes on it, it is a busier local road than what...

It's a short connection avoiding traffic signals to get from point A to B.

Let me tell you this. Airport road backs up in the morning in a southbound direction greater than any other direction. So if you're faced with having to go out Green Meadow to Airport Road, down to the light, and then west along 329, there's not a chance you'll do that twice. You will go right out Driftwood and make your right turn onto 329 and avoid probably at least 10 minutes of sitting around waiting. So it's not something that we have the data on. but it's something as someone that has watched traffic and observed traffic for coming up on 40 years, you'll only make that trip once.

All right. We'll talk with Jim's office and find out what the scope looks like. And... We already talked about the last one about tractor trailers traversing the subdivision. We'll do some templates and see what things look like. That's all I have. Is there anything else anyone would care to discuss? Yeah, I do.

You said this is going to be a homeowners association, right?

That's the idea because of the ownership and maintenance responsibilities associated with the basin. There's really no other great way to do that.

When I look at this development plan, what strikes me as odd is there's really nothing. Obviously, you maximize it a little bit, but there's nothing for the people. There's no open space within the development for people. Say, for instance, just below the loop. where the creek runs in and cuts into over half of those lots there, right? I mean, to me, that almost seems like a place where you would create an open space for people to throw a pavilion up, throw something, a little pocket park or something. Yeah, I mean, it just seems... In today's environment where you're trying to create good places for people to be, it just seems like it's lacking... A place for people to be there.

Yeah, some sense of community. And these houses, I'm sure, are going to be a million dollars. I'm sure. Cut out a lot of it, too.

Put a little pocket park in. That's my comment on it. I look at this and it looks sterile, almost. It's cookie-cutter sterile to maximize the profitability of the development, maximize lives. But there's no open space for people, you know, the community.

I know it would be the applicant's preference to do an open space fee in lieu of land. And that's what we talked about earlier today.

You could put a nice wildflower meadow right through along the creek. Put aside a couple acres for a nice little park.

Are you proposing any riparian buffer improvements at all in that?

It's possible as part of the stormwater management plan. We may need to do some wetland replacement because we will be crossing that stream and it will be impacting to a minimal minor extent. Some wetlands, and I was surprised I got caught. I was not aware of the EV status. There's that stretch down in Catasauqua that apparently nails this entire community and creates EV wetlands everywhere. So I did say, huh, and looked that up real quick when I saw the comment in Hanover's letter.

We were shocked, too, when we found it out.

Yeah, yeah. But now you know, anything tributary to the Catasauqua Creek is now EV because of that one little trout reproductive area. But our minimal, you know, the impacts will be minimal, but there probably will be some remediation within that area. Whether that means riparian improvements, vegetation, trees, I don't know right now. We're not anticipating that. We will certainly maintain what's there, which is a pretty decent tree row, which would, I'm sure, expand without the farming pressure or the cultivation of the lands just up to it. So I couldn't say. Yeah, I don't know.

Was the intent for the developer to propose recreation fees versus ? Yes.

Gentlemen, any other questions or comments? Would you mind the gentleman behind you? Not at all. State your name and address, please, for the record.

Yes, my name is John K. Smith. I'm the resident on Meadow Road across from Hillside. I've been there for 26 years. When man had the property, it was great. Farmed all the time. where the old farmhouses were, it was all kept up nice. When I'm sold to Antonio's family, J.O. Bradley, it just went to hell. And now, being it's this year, since you were in there testing and the power lines and stuff were redone, there was no crop planted and there's this cucumber vine that's called, it's just out of control because of the lack of maintaining you know, the areas around the wetlands and stuff, but that's just one point. Second point is how are you going to jam all them houses in with the power lines, wetlands, and then where I am proposing to put tension bases in the back. If this does go through with the amount of houses, whatever, with the wells, you're going to be drying everybody out. Wouldn't it be smart enough maybe to get the water authority to approve a water line coming up from Airport Road to feed the water source? Actually, if Joey Bradley is a contractor, I'm sure there could be some kind of enablement. That's just one thing because I think that will impact my water not only and also deck down at the corner there at the farm. Traffic, of course, you know, you never know when the traffic's coming, but with the school buses, you don't know if there's going to be some handicapped kids, things of that nature. You can't just say every family's going to have normal kids that can walk down sidewalks and have access for handicapped buses, you know, with ramps because my wife works for the Colonial Highway 20 and, you know, knows all about that. When these houses are, you know, put in and all that, I know from any rainfall in the 26 years we were here, exceeding four inches, that whole wooded area all the way up to the wetlands behind man's farmhouses raises two to three feet. It comes way out. So there is flooding. Believe me. If this goes through as a homeowners association and you have all things like you were talking about, As outside residents, we're not allowed to go in there and enjoy that? I mean...

There's nothing really proposed at this...

I'm just saying, you know, it's kind of funny to have an HO, you know, around here.

It's just for the reason for the maintenance of the stormwater management. The township... Okay, I was just curious about that. They don't want that responsibility.

Right, yeah, I'm not too, you know, informed about, you know, HOA and stuff. I mean, I've been an operating engineer for 40 years. I know about dirt. I know about drainage and all that. But if you do have detention basins behind our house, obviously you're going to be knocking down the old farmhouses and stuff. Because I've seen Joe Ames in there digging, leaving holes open overnight and stuff like that. But that's their property. Are you going to have... Privacy burns or landscaping around my place. I don't want to see a detention basin, you know. Who wants to see a big hole in the ground? Is there going to be a buffer to that first lot where I am? You know, I don't want people looking in on me. I mean, it's just me. I'm just one person out of the township. Is my, you know, voice concern mean anything? I don't know. But it just doesn't seem like you're going to get that many houses in. There's got to be a buffer between the power lines. And who wants to have a house? We didn't even want to buy it at the time because of the power lines. And we're, you know, way far from it. You know, like I said, you've got all that wooded area there that has a lot of nature. You know, you've got deer, you've got fox, you've got all kinds of things. You're disturbing all that, you know, just to jam in houses. And if it is information that, who is the developer? Who's going to be the developer? Or, you know.

As far as I know right now, I'm working for VR. Okay.

Okay. You know, so I was just, there was some information that just came out just like that. Because I was talking with Antonio, and he assured me no house is just going to be solar farm. And I was in here last time. They said they haven't heard anything about any solar farm being proposed or anything like that. So that was smoke that was blown up.

Now, he had a lease on the property with a company that was holding it. Right. They took that away. It wasn't his doing. That's what caused it.

Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. You know, I mean, he doesn't have to tell me nothing. He doesn't owe me nothing. But just out of respect, you know, when you question something and, you know, you get an answer like that, oh, yeah, there ain't going to be no homes. And all of a sudden, boom, 63 homes were proposed. So it's kind of, you know, fishy. Like the township is saying, you know, is this a money grab? You know, million-dollar houses where I've got a house that I paid $135,000. It's just going to put, you know, a sore thumb. I'll be the, you know, the ugly duckling, which I really don't mind. You know, I'm getting close to retirement anyways. I just turned 62, so I've got a few more years to work. But it's just kind of funny, you know. And I was always under the impression, especially when, you know, I came up to the sale that that was all in, you know, preservation, which it isn't. But everything around is, you know, so I just don't get it. You know, people got to make money, but, you know, and why they didn't plant crop or why Antonio doesn't push to keep those areas clean. It looks like hell. They got the renters there that don't clean up. I don't know if they're Section 8, whatever they are. But when man had everything, everything was manicured. And we never had no problem with cucumber vining. I mean, I got to go over there and maintain it off my property. Just so they don't come in and infiltrate my line. So I just don't understand. No, that's about all I got to ask. Obviously, you know.

Two comments. Yes, sir. Based on what you said?

Yes, sir.

The plan does show landscaping around your property. Okay. The perimeter of your property on page, oh, what the heck is it here? Oh, I don't even know. In here, it does show landscaping around your property. Okay. Yeah, because I don't have that.

I have a picture of that. Right. But it's only half of it. I don't have the cricket road side or anything like that.

And with regards to water line? Yeah. Brent, correct me if I'm wrong.

wrong but the only place we would get water from would be the city of bethlehem and they cannot get water up that high right i understand they can only come as high as spring lake village i believe well they can go a little higher i think the issue that the city runs into is storage capacity is lacking and the water line runs airport road north uphill right which water doesn't like to do so there's a booster pump in spring lake village that feeds that system Beyond that, there would be substantial improvements needed to get public water for what would be needed for this amount of homes.

It doesn't work from a dollars and cents standpoint. No. But to speak to your other concern about the well matter, the township's ordinances have measures in place that will require testing, pump testing, which we will do before any of these homes are approved. That's the requirement of the ordinances, to have those wells in place and tested before we can even, I think, submit for a final plan, maybe. But it's going to happen, and that's the whole purpose of that is to prevent these homes from impacting surrounding residences.

I know it will definitely impact, especially if it goes through with all them homes. Not that I don't have any problems as of now, but I know The deck farm, you know, they were having some problems with water. And the developments down, you know, along the, well, not developments, houses down along the creek down, you know, hillside. In the past years, I don't know if they, you know, had an aqua duct or something on the other side, one of those artesian wells. But, yeah, I was just, that's my concern, you know. I mean, okay, you know, if you get 30 houses in there, That's 30 less houses. There's a lot of impacting that, you know, is going to be going on, and I'm sure yous are taking that into consideration. But, I mean, I just don't see – I didn't even know you were allowed to run a road under power lines like that. I know we've got the township roads that go under there, but – We'll have to have – I mean, that's kind of screwy.

We'll have to get permission from PPL, but it's regularly permitted.

Right.

With conditions. Yeah.

I mean, like I said to Antonio, I said, you want to buy my house, you could go right from Hillside right into development, change your direction a little bit, maybe, you know, but then you'd have to replant everything. That's how it is. I don't, you know, I don't know who speaks for Joey Bradley, if it's Antonio or, I don't know this gentleman's name, but obviously he has something to do with Joey Bradley. I think you kind of look like the guy that owns the company. But anyways. There's a lot of houses down there. That means you've got to up your apparatus.

I can look at this in multiple facets. I can understand your side of the thing.

Right.

And it's a shame. I mean, you're one voice. Yeah. I face the same situation.

Right. And then you've got to tank your water in. I'm not saying that it's never going to be a possibility to get water up there, but if there's a fire, three or four fires in one development, that's going to be a tough fight. During the dry season, you've got no access to the creek there.

Well, hopefully if he does get approval, we will get members from that development that will be able to get the tanker up there.

True, true, true. That's the only concern. I'm the only resident there. other than the farm down at the corner that will be impacted.

We had several people who were here in the last meeting who voiced their concerns and comments about this particular development. And we do appreciate you coming in. We do appreciate you voicing your concerns because this is the opportunity where you are able to do that. Obviously, there's going to be many more meetings and discussions about these plans as they move forward. He said there's going to be a lot of work and a lot of time to get some of this stuff done that they've got to do. So, you know, stay tuned, stay in touch.

It's every first Thursday. This is probably just going to continue until it's approved or, you know. Right. Okay. Right. Call to see what's on the agenda.

Right. Or you can go online and look at the agenda online. Yeah. And you'll see whether they're on the agenda or not as far as activity that night. Okay.

You can still sign up also to get an invitation that you'll get the agendas when they're published. Now, it might be only, you know, three days ahead.

Sure.

But at least you get them and you don't have to remember them.

There's always a chance that once you retire, you can become a member.

There you go. Yeah, I wish. Yeah, maybe you can include my house into that. All right. All right. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Yeah.

Yep.

All right. Just want to say thank you for the thoughtful dialogue. I think it was very helpful to the project. Thanks for your time. See you. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, business being carried. The first item is Saldo 2025-006, retail and convenience store and fueling at 6500 Hanover Road. Plan expires August 31st. We need a recommendation that if we don't get an extension by the 31st, a recommendation to the supervisors to reject this plan. So moved.

I second.

We have a motion by Tom and a second by Art. Roll call, please.

Mr. Chamberlain? Yes. Mr. Long? Yes. Mr. Hemming? Yes. Mr. Mills?

Yes. Let the record reflect. Motion passed. Four votes to none.

We did actually receive an extension for this project today. This agenda was printed prior to receiving it, and we also received the extension for... Oh, no, that one's not on anymore. UGI. UGI. It's not on anymore.

How deflating.

So what's the extension? What's the new plan expiration? Did you know it? Give me a minute, and I'll tell you. Actually, wait. Okay. That's okay. I'll add for nothing. I'll just say no action.

Cool. Next item, Saldo 2025-005, 6780 Jacksonville Road Minor Subdivision. Plan expires September 30th. No action required by the board. Next item, Saldo 2023-000, Noelwood Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan. Expiration... September 30th, no action required. And finally, Saldo 2024-004, Sheila Gibbs Minor Subdivision, 8253 Valley View Road. Time expires December 31st, 2026.

No actions required by the board. Their extension is good until October 31st, 2026 for Airport Road Partners for the convenience store.

That's a convenience store? Yes. October 31st? Correct. October 31st. That's October 31st, the convenience store.

God, I was so looking forward to that. 31st, October 31st.

Are you sure you received it?

We can change it. Lost in cyberspace? It was after we published everything.

Oh, man. All right. The next item on the agenda is public comment. Let the record reflect there's no public to comment.

Theoretically, there was.

There was, but that was earlier on.

Yeah, but he's part of the public comment section.

And the last item is I need a motion to adjourn. So moved. We have a motion by... Marty. Marty. We have a motion by Marty.

Second.

Second by Art. All in favor say aye. Aye. Let the record reflect the motion passed, four votes to none.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

All those old parliaments, that's how they would stay. They wouldn't approve adjournment. Oh, because in some legislatures, they would try to adjourn it. No, we're not adjourning. We're going to stay here forever.

Well, how come our politicians don't do that?

Gentlemen, basically what I will say to you is, waiving the traffic study could be...