Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

It's he tells me it's already it's our notice, so to speak. [laughter] No, but this is this is

Yeah. No, this was Oh, what? Yeah, that's why the came they just sent it to us. Besides that that pro this this same thing is probably in there. I'm sure Joe can answer for a little while. We didn't we didn't even discuss it about approving it. We This was never discussed the warehouse. No, the written opinion. work that wasn't discussed. We denied that. We denied their application.

Yes. But it takes a written opinion to make it formal and this is a decision. There you go. When did this get filed? The decision

this this was never discussed this decision. Yeah. And I read it was we never discussed it. What?

No, I'm not suggesting, don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with it, but I don't remember ever having what?

All right. I'm I'm trying to de I'm trying to decide if I'm I'm really over the Did we vote on that decision? We never voted on the decision on this document. Oh, I understand that. I was here for that, but we never discussed the

Okay. So, I think that's really it. Are you uh I'm happy with it, but and I'm glad there's certain things in there that I didn't I didn't expect to be in there, but they're in there and I'm happy about it. I mean, we never discussed this decision. We discussed that that they were not going to they were not going to be approved. That was unanimous, but we never discussed what he was going to have to write. [clears throat] You know what I'm saying?

I do. So to speak. Yeah. So I I assemble can I get rid of all that? I I took it. I gave it back to the office here. Oh, did you? Yeah. I brought it in. Okay. Dumped it on that poor girl. She She said, "I can't carry that." So I said, "I'll carry it." And then by that time one of these guys came out. Yeah. I got all that back of my truck and all that. I wasn't keeping that. I had

Well, I thought it's kind of a shame. I'm more than glad to But I mean, if somebody else could use it. Well, I mean, that was an expensive. Yeah, I know. I know. It's kind of a shame just to throw out the garbage, which I'm like I said, I'm more than glad. You're right. But I'm more than glad to drop it off. What can you do with it? So I brought I just brought it back.

All right, I will. How's your morning? Doing okay. Five week yesterday. Sadler did it. the uh the first two weeks were come around. What did she have to do?

Oh, it's She has a she has a concern.

Excuse Mr. Shipman here. Mr. Halman here. Dr. Green here. Mr. Aerson. Miss Wagner here. If if I could just make one note, if you can have your mic on when we're talking because we're we're live so everybody at home can hear us.

Sorry. Thank you very much. I turned it off when you said uh you're going to hear everything and I forgot to turn it back on. Um so we did just open the meeting and we did have a roll call and uh we'll move to the reorganization part of the agenda. Uh Mr. Shear, thank you. Um as we do every year in the first meeting, uh we elect the uh chairman and we elect a vice chairman. Um, with that, uh, is are there any, uh, uh, motions to or any nominations, I should say, uh, for one of the members to act as the chairman? Nominate M. Dr. Green.

Okay. And is there a second for Dr. Green? Okay. Uh, are there any other nominations? Hearing none, we'll close and, uh, I'll ask for a vote. All in all, since there's five of you here, all in favor, I think we could take a voice vote. All in favor, signify by saying I. I. Anybody I I don't see anybody who who's here who didn't say I. But is there any nays? I don't hear any naysay. So, I I will abstain. Mr. Green,

since we have since we have a quorum here, I I'll you, Mr. Congratulations on uh on your uh on your effort to continue to be Chad Elliot's uh uh record [laughter] of successive terms as chairperson. I believe I only have about 30 more to go. Well, [laughter] it's and um as as uh as I have in the past, I do appreciate the confidence of my fellow commissioners and uh we'll strive to do uh good work again this year. And I could turn the I could turn the chair now back to you for the nomination of a vice uh chairman. Great. Thank you. I nominate the president vice chair which is Mr. Echerson. Mr. Okay, that's a nomination. Do we have a second?

I'll second it. Nomination and a second. I'll make a motion to nominate the be closed. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Second. Uh first and a second. Uh we'll vote on the nominations to be closed. Uh voice vote. All in favor of of them to be closed. Yes. I I I. Okay. And now we'll vote on the motion uh for Mr. Etches to be the vice chair. Um all in favor? I I And I'll Mr. Mr. Etcherson will abstain. Uh vote passes. So we have uh welcome welcome back and thank you. Thank you for serving.

All right. We'll move to approval of the agenda. The agenda [clears throat] is uh the special exception for a single family at 536 Northampton Street, a lot line adjustment at 218 to 220 Northampton Street, subdivision 501 to 503 Northampton Street, and land development for a [clears throat] parking garage at 669 Washington Street. Are there any changes to the agenda? No. All right. Given that, do we have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. And a second. Second. Miss Wagner with a second. All in favor?

I opposed. Okay. We'll go to the minutes from the December 3rd meeting uh which as we're reminded that since these are being live streamed, those minutes are at least that the um the draft of them comes from that which is uh very helpful. So, um, does anybody have any additions or, uh, corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? So, move and a second. Mr. Humman, a second. Um, all in favor? I

opposed. Okay. And we'll move to privilege of the floor. Uh this is the opportunity for anyone anyone in the audience to address the commission on any matter that is not in the agenda. All right. Seeing none, we will move to the agenda items and we start with a special exception for a single family dwelling 536 Northampton Street.

The applicant, Andre Gosling, desires to convert a short-term rental use to a single family detached use at 536 Northampton Street. This property is in the downtown street quarter zoning district block class B where the proposed single family detached use is permitted by special exception per 59520C. The zoning administrator has determined no variances are required with this application. The proposed single family detached use is permitted by special exception in the downtown zoning district. The proposed use is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and city codes. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the zoning hearing board for granting the special exception request to Andre Gosling for a single family detached use at 536 Northampton Street. Okay. And are you the applicant?

I'm the applicant's attorney. Kate Derso. I'm sorry. Kate Kate Derso. Kate Derso. Okay. Mr. Derso. Uh it's it's a rather straightforward application, so we're happy to answer any questions that the clinician may have. Great. Nothing nothing to add to what's already been said. It's Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Okay, great. All right. Uh, Mr. Shipman, do you have any questions? I do not. Thank you, Mr. Echerson. So, this is going to be a rental property, I'm assuming. No, he is going Mr. Gosling's going to use it as his residence. I see. No other questions?

No questions. And and this was a property that was the zoning was changed to a short-term rental if I remember correctly. Correct. The current own the current owner Yes. got approval for a short for a short-term rental. And was it a single f family detached residence prior to that? It was a mixed use. It was a mixed use before that. Okay. I mean, it sort of looks like a single family type of home, so that makes sense. I don't have any questions. Um, so thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Right. Um, is there anyone who'd like to speak regarding this application? Seeing none, we have a recommendation uh from the staff that the commission recommend to the zoning hearing board request for special exception be granted to to change the zoning to a single family detached use. Um, provided the conditions as stated in the draft resolution. Anyone like to make that motion or any other? Let me motion to move forward with the staff's recommendation. Do we have a second? Miss Wagner the second. Uh any discussion

uh for the for the staff and for my information? What what had to change to go from what it was? It was a it was a short-term rental short-term rental to a single family. So the the new owner the new owner wants to purchase it and live in it as his his personal residence. So basically the change was it's not a rental. It's not a rental. Yeah. It's no longer a short-term rental like an Airbnb.

Okay. And All right. And the there the short-term rental would have other uses other requirements. That's correct. So this is a different kind of Yeah. This is a single family dwelling use. All right, that's all I want to know. Okay, any further discussion? Okay. Uh, on a roll call. Mr. Etcherson, yes. Miss Wagner, yes. Mr. Hileman, yes. Mr. Shipman, yes. And I will vote yes as well. So, you have our recommendation to zoning and good luck there.

All right. Uh, next item is a lot line adjustment at 218 to 220 Northampton Street. The applicant city of Eastston has proposed a lot line adjustment that will reduce the western portion of their parcel at 218 220 Northampton Street by 6 in. The purpose of this lot line adjustment is for the parcel at 222 Northampton Street to encompass the entire building which is owned by J Mr. Day. The city and Mr. Day reached an agreement after the city repaired the wall that is attached to the building and Mr. Deay will now own the wall in perpetuity. This property is in the business and entertainment zoning district block class B. The zoning administrator determined no variances are required with this application. The applicant proposed lot line adjustment will allow the building at 222 Northampton Street to be entirely within its own parcel. Therefore, staff advocates the planning commission to grant conditional final approval of the plan titled lot line adjustment 218 to 220 North Hampton Street. And um just for the commissioners, if you in case you didn't get to an email today, uh Mr. Mangus sent out a uh resolution. It's actually from July 2021 um from city council u authorizing an agreement uh on this specific item. So if you saw it, great. And if you didn't, that that that we did receive that today. Um great. Thank you. Uh is the applicant here? Yeah. Hi, my name is Dave Hopkins. I'm the city's director of public works. 123 South Thirdrd Street Eastston.

You have anything to add to Not Unless there's any questions. Unless there's questions. Okay. So, we'll we'll go with questions. Miss Wagner, do you have any questions? I don't have any questions. Uh, Mr. Etches, no questions. Um just just so I understand the the the build the way it's positioned is the building sits on a lot that is 6 in too short for what for where the building stands. By by way of background my recollection is that back in maybe 202021 uh they received a code's notice for uh you know disrepair to their I remember their eastern wall. Y

and so we ordered them to repair the wall. After some back and forth, they appealed and and made the claim that they didn't own the outer portion of the wall, that it was sort of a party wall. And I guess back back when that building burned, the we left the outer portions of the existing building to shore up the walls on both neighboring buildings when the building was torn down. So, as a technicality, the six inches of outer wall ended up to be the cities. So our legal team negotiated that if in fact the city repaired the wall, they would agree to own the property into perpetuity. So we did that and this was the the resulting outcome.

And this just sets it to what the existing conditions in essence are. The existing condition of the building going to the property line. Technically what what the lot line adjustment will take into account that he's taking ownership of the city's former exterior wall, right, as his exterior wall. And so it will now meet where the the boundary of the building is. Got it. And the reason for that is if if the city back when the building had burned down had removed that exterior wall, it would have undermined the exterior wall next door. Sure. Makes sense, Mr. Hileman? No questions. Mr. Shipman. Well, there's really no other way to to to resolve this except by agreement. I I think it's probably the the best outcome.

Well, I mean, it'd be pretty hard to make a purchase of this. You'd have to shake It it would I'd say they're inextricably tied and they are mechanically tied together at this point. I congratulate the parties for resolving it in the only way that I think it could be resolved. I have no further questions. Y thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. You're welcome. Appreciate it. I'm just going to hang here for the next one.

Oh, well, we may well you can hang there and we'll see if anybody wants to come up and and question this. U anybody from the audience who would like to speak on this application? All right, seeing none, um we have a resolution that the commission grant conditional final approval of the plan um as as described of the lot line adjustment. Uh would anyone like to make that motion or any other? Mr. Hileman with the motion. A second. Second. Mr. Shipman with a second. Any discussion? All right. Um roll call. Mr. Hileman. Yes. Mr. Shipman. Yes. Mr. Etches. Yes. Miss Wagner. Yes. And I will vote yes as well. So

there you have the plan uh the uh plan approval. Okay. Uh we'll move to the next item which is the subdivision at 501503 Northampton Street.

The applicant city of Easton has proposed to subdiv subdivide one parcel into two parcels located at 501503 Northampton Street. The purpose of this subdivision is to separate the Hooper House, which the city reached an agreement with Rock Church to acquire, and the Timothy House, which The Rock Church will retain ownership. The lot size of the Hooper House portion lot one, will be 1417.04 ft. And the lot size for the Timothy House portion lot 2 will now be 19.94 square ft. This property is in a downtown street quarter zoning district. The zoning administrator determined a variance for lot size, which is a minimum has to be 2,000 square feet, is required with this application. The zoning hearing board granted this variance at its meeting on December 15, 2025. The applicant's proposed subdivision will take one parcel and create two parcels, and it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and city codes. Therefore, staff advocates the planning commission to grant conditional final approval of the plan titled boundary survey 501503 North Hampton Street. Mr. Hopkins, anything to add or just questions?

Just questions. Okay, Miss Wagner, I don't have any questions. Mr. Etcherson, we just dealt with this. Is there an adjoining wall between the two properties? There is an adjoining um well, there's three structures on the parcel currently. The the two structures, [clears throat] you know, the one is the Hooper House. There is an adjoining structure which is basically integrated into the Hooper House structure. There's no separation there. And then there is a bit of separation between those two structures and the Timothy house.

And by separating these out, does it just allow us to allow the city to do fundraising to renovated or what's the purpose of doing this? So, there was a court settlement um between the Rock Church and the City of East where uh they contested the taking as being an overreach and through negotiations um the city conceded that we would let them keep the property. Initially, the city was intending to either demo or improve. We hadn't gotten that far, the Tim the current Timothy house. And uh through the negotiation, we agreed that we would allow the Rock Church to keep the Timothy House provided that they use the proceeds from the sale, which were about $350,000 to improve the exterior of the Timothy House uh solely for the use of the funds. And then if there are any remaining funds there to be used for the church proper.

So is the current plan has that bargain been followed so far? Yes. You you've been able to monitor it?

Well, we haven't gotten as I mean we have to get through the planning process. So once we get through the subdivision process, um the agreement uh contemplates a sort of a committee made up of Rock Church and City uh candidates who were members who would be on the committee to try and steer the improvements to the building and that's that's where the negotiation is now. But materially, we've agreed upon the the terms of of the subdivision and the sale price and where the proceeds from the sale will go. Now, I think it's a matter of executing the plan and and entering into a final agreement as to how that happens.

Yeah, I would agree that was a that was a topic of it was a matter of both parties not not happy. that situation for a long time. Correct. All right. I'm glad again that that that's resolved. I don't know how else you would have done it. Uh probably gone through court case. Yeah, I would assume. Okay, that's I'm sorry. Thank you. That's right, Mr. Etcherson.

So, it sounds like the negotiations have been focused in terms of the Timothy House renovation. Is there a plan, not that this matters, but is there a plan right now in terms of what's going to be the disposition of the Hooper House?

Yeah, the city's intent is to initially get approval from the HDC to put some type of construction wrap around the front to seal it and, you know, keep it secure as we, you know, it would be sort of a decorative probably Americana themed wrap and then we would proceed to fundraising for improvements to the Hooper House. It's its final use has not yet been determined. Uh but the intent is to improve it, weather seal it, and make it habitable for some form of use in the future. I have no other questions. Mr. Hman, you see a problem with this, Joe?

No. No. The biggest issue would have been the zoning issue because these two lots are undersized, but the zoning board already granted the variance for that. So, at this point, it's really just a matter of engineering. if the if the lots have been drawn properly and you have two smaller lots, it's there's really not a whole lot here because it's not it's not like a really a land development plan. It's only a matter of saying, "Yeah, it's okay to uh it's really I mean, I think at this point it's almost ministerial." Um, if there was something you didn't like the way it was broken up, then it would be it would be something different. Uh, in fact, because it is part of a court order and and a a negotiated settlement, uh, sometimes you there there's some case law that says you could actually bypass uh, low land use uh, process because of the, uh, court oversight, but uh, no, there there's I don't see any issue any problems at all. And it's just a matter of the recognition [clears throat] and the compromise that the Rock Church could continue to utilize the Timothy House for whatever their purposes are and that the city will now be able to take control of the historic structure which also includes an a small addition, but they'll it'll it'll be separating it so that the two properties will be distinct properties. uh the the you know the Hooper House used for its historic to maintained for its historic purposes and the and the Timothy house to be used as the church would wish the monies to be used as this committee will eventually be uh formed and and that's there there's uh one of the one of our assistant solicitors is assigned to take over where Jeremy Clark was working in the negotiations but that's eventually that'll get resolved indep which is independent of the issue before you on the subdivision.

What about the sharing of the wall though that that there's no there's no sharing of wall anymore, is there? No, they are separated. The shared wall is between the Hooper House and almost the integrated structure that the city would own. They they would be contained on one parcel that the city would retain ownership for. Okay. And then the second parcel would be the Timothy house itself, which is built very close to the the two I'll call them two structures. There's probably maybe six to eight inches separating them. Okay. And that's where the property line would be subdivided. Okay. I misunderstood that. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Shipman, any anything else? No. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Hopkins. Thank you for your consideration. Appreciate it.

Uh, anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this application? Seeing none, we have a uh recommendation that the commission grant conditional final approval of the uh the boundary survey for this um with conditions. Anyone like to make that motion or any other? I'll make that motion. Mr. Etches second. Second. Miss Wagner second. Any further discussion? Mr. Etches? Yes. Miss Wagner? Yes. Mr. Hileman? Yes. Mr. Shipman? Yes.

And I'll vote yes as well. So again, thanks to the city for all your work on both of these things. We appreciate you. And uh then land development for parking garage at 669 Washington Street. The applicant. Northampton County has submitted land development plans proposing to demolish the existing two-level parking garage and surface parking area at 669 Washington Street and construct a new 38,991 square foot three-level parking garage with 322 spaces. The existing parking garage and surface parking area have a combined 298 parking spaces. The proposal includes eliminating the entrance along Washington Street and converting the existing surface parking area into open lawn space. The entrance exit will be located in the rear of the parking garage that will be accessed from the existing fire lane. This property is located in the institutional 2 zoning district block class A where the proposed parking structure use is permitted per 59519B. The zoning administrator has determined no variances are required with this application. Uh okay. Uh plans were submitted to LVPC uh for review and they uh responded the proposed development fills the intent of future LV to encourage reuse and redevelopment within urban areas and improve efficiency of existing infrastructure. The proposed parking garage is permitted within the institutional 2 zoning district. This proposal was appropriate for this location considering it is replacing the current parking garage. The proposed use is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and city codes. Therefore, the submitted plans titled government center parking deck replacement appear complete enough to support conditional final plan approval with conditions. Thank you.

Hi, good evening. My name is Tom Serpico. I'm with Penoni Associates. I'm the civil engineer for Northampton County for this project. I'm here to answer any questions you have about the project. Um, before I begin, I usually like to ask if you'd like me to set up the board or if you have any questions, if you'd like to see the project. Um, if not, then I can um answer any questions that you may have. Uh, I think I'll just speak for myself. I think seeing seeing them uh because we have limited uh view of what we can see and and also we may have members of the public who'd be interested. If you have them here, we might as well see them. It looks like it has solar panels, which excites me. Yeah, same right there. Very good. [laughter]

It's little things, Ben. Well, while that's being set up uh to um preserve time, I I just would like to introduce the commission members to Michael Vargo. You could raise your hand. Michael was uh sworn in uh uh at the last city counsel meeting to be an assistant solicitor along uh with Brian Lawer. And uh I would anticipate that Michael will be taking my place sometime by the April meeting uh advising you as I uh move into um a retirement from the city position while I continue my private practice. So that maybe in a year and a half I could be representing an applicant.

Very good. No one can take your place, Joel. Well, Mr. Vargo, welcome. We look forward to working with you. Thank you. Uh okay, Mr. Is it uh Serpico? Serpico like the cop. Serpa. Okay, got it. Yep. It's like the movie.

Uh as discussed by Mr. Mangus, um the parking garage is located at the intersection of Washington Street and South Union Street. Uh the plan is to demolish the current parking structure and then the service lot that is currently there and to construct a three-story parking garage with 322 spaces. Uh so in general, you know, it's uh fitting basically what's there currently just with an increase spaces and then also an increase in open space for the lot. Um it's a better use for the parking garage for the county and that's basically what they're trying to propose. Um in general, it's going to function almost the exact same way in terms of storm water traffic, things like that. There's really no major upgrades or I shouldn't say there's no major upgrades or improvements but um the major upgrade is that it's a new infrastructure more spaces but it's going to function pretty much exactly the same way in terms of service.

Okay. So as everybody hear me? Yeah.

Okay. So this is the proposed garage for perspective. Are there any questions from the planning commission? Um, Mr. Shipman, we'll start with you.

The open space is parking as well. No, the open space is just a lawn area. You're going to keep it in lawn? Yes. Okay. No other question. Mr. Hman, why are you doing this and you're going from 322 to or from 298 to 322? You're gaining 30 parking, 24 spaces. Um, whatever.

Yeah. So, um, one just new infrastructure. Um, there's some other infrastructure improvements that'll be kind of done. There's a tunnel that connects the, uh, other areas. um the increased parking spaces, the increased open space is also something that they're you know looking at and something that they they want to accomplish. It's um the current parking garage and the current situation um I think they want to upgrade and upgrade the infrastructure that's in there. So the new parking garage is going to be just a better build than what's currently there. So that's basically the main reason as to what they're looking to do and in the process of replacing it if they can get more spaces. Get more spaces. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Etcherson.

Um, are charging stations part of the new construction? Uh, I believe that there may be one or two spaces within the parking garage. I would have to check with the the architect on that. Um, I believe that was contemplated. Um, but I'm not sure the total number of them. Uh, that's curious. One way or another, we're going to end up with a lot more electric cars. I would encourage you guys to think more seriously about at least having the ability to add a significant number of charging.

So, yeah, I I so there will be, you know, electric in there and I believe that they would be have the ability to add electric spaces at least on the surface if if needed. They could run electric to those and put charging stations on the top if needed. Um, so that's something that we can bring back and take a look at. And wasn't making it up. Are there solar panels on top of this thing? Uh, I believe the intention is to have solar panels on top of that. The intention, don't tease me, man. I I uh I'm not not 100% uh on that. I wanted them to say about 99%. Uh, so I'm the land bump engineer. the architect is the one who is kind of driving that for us with the uh um solar panels on top.

Well, what appears to be solar panels on top in the picture that we have in our packet [clears throat] is a uh wonderful addition and I sure hope they are and stay that way. Understood. Um the only other question I would have is is there any concern about going from two entrances to one?

So uh based on the traffic study that uh was put together by our transportation department um there the queuing and what sort of traffic that goes on to South Union Street and eventually gets to Washington Street, it's going to function uh almost the same as it is currently. Um, we believe that the the one entrance in the parking garage will be sufficient and be adequate for the use of the garage and that's, you know, how they're looking to proceed with the project. So, given the given the current use of the garage and everything else going on around it, we think that one entrance would be sufficient for what they're trying to accomplish. Also, with the construction of the parking garage and the elevations around it, um, it kind of only lends itself to that one area to go in and out of the garage. Are there any requirements from an egress and entrance standpoint in terms of a parking garage to have only one entrance and egress?

Not that I can think of. I mean, our in city year looked at it and didn't have a comment about it. He was satisfied with it. I'm going to move on on that. Um, I'm assuming you guys will prohibit lawn darts on the on the green space. Well, you know that that's uh up to the North Hampton County. I'm not going to say that they won't get a little wild, but yeah. Um, I have nothing further. M. Wagner,

if the fire department and engineering doesn't have any concerns about access, that would be my only understand. [clears throat] Okay. Um from the um again I know that this is a conceptual drawing that we that we've been provided here. Again not knowing whether exactly whether the solar panels are parked. It appears there are uh cars parked on what what are an upper deck. Is this a twostory is a three-story park. It is a threetory park garage. Okay. I wasn't clear about that. Um, yep. So, the the top level will have the solar panels, surface parking almost, and then the two other levels will be underneath that.

And looking at the layout that's here, um, it's hard to determine h how do cars get from the second and third floor to the first to exit the facility. So, it, you know, typical parking garage would be two-way access around basically, you know, you come in and you go up a ramp and then you'd have a level and then up a ramp and then area, right? Right. in that area where the entrance and exit is is where that would occur.

I see. And and then that way. Okay. Okay. And a threetory. And I I'm not familiar with the um the the status of the current garage. Maybe maybe you are in terms of on an average weekday how there's 298 parking spaces. How how full is the lot typically? So, I'm not um extremely uh well verssed in and how much it is, but I do know on court days, I know that they have quite a bit in that um in there uh in the parking garage. So, having the extra spaces that brought up the extra 24 or so spaces will be helpful for that because it is used by employees and visitors as well. Correct. It's used by both.

Yep. It's used by both. I believe the uh the lower portion actually has a connection. Yep.

Okay. This is this is not germanine to the project itself, but currently the city has a an agreement to utilize the the current parking space in off hours. Are are you aware that that would continue? Is the intent for that to continue? I believe that the intent would be for that to continue. I think you know any agreement with North Hampton County and the city of East would have to be worked out with both of your attorneys and any sort of you know planning commission and things like that. So, but you're not aware of any uh any reason why given a new structure that there would be a change to that? No, I'm not aware of any reason why there would be a change now. Okay. Yeah. One more question. U

Sure. Yeah. I I I don't Yeah, I don't think I guess I'd go back to and and I think you you answered this, but this this lawn space is simply being considered by the county as just more open space. Yep. Correct. More open space. So, from a stormwater management perspective, um you know, we're showing a net reduction in impervious cover. So, um you know, that'll be less of a burden on storm sewer systems and things like that. Um so, to make the project as easy as possible, you know, that's the current plan is to keep that as open space. I believe they're also uh planning on having you know like um I don't want to say decorative but a kind of a wall that kind of says in a Northampton County park.

Yeah, it's shown on the on the drawing here. Okay, thank you. Y Mr. Etcherson, another question. Um how long is this going to take from start to finish? construction wise. Um I think it's going to take I want to say over a year to 18 months. I think I'm I'm not positive on that. I have to check with the um with the construction crew on that, but I'd have to uh have to confirm that

because the only other concern I would have would be what do the what happens to the parking for the residents who live around it while it's under construction? And the answer is nightmare. So, uh, you know, they're obviously going to, um, try to do it as quickly as they can. I mean, I know that they're in the process of getting, you know, pre-fabricated pieces that will be able to come in, be constructed, and then try to get this up as quick as possible. So, that's the goal is to have as little as disruption as we can. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

Um, anyone from the audience who would like to speak on this application? Seeing none, um we have a u um proposed use here that uh staff has uh stated appear complete enough to support conditional final plan approval with conditions um of a government center parking deck replacement. Um anybody like to make that motion or any other? I'll make the motion. Mr. Shipman, we have a second. Second. Mr. Etches. Any further discussion? Okay. For roll call. Mr. Shipman.

Yes. Mr. Etches? Yes. Miss Wagner? Yes. Mr. Hileman? Yes.

And I will vote yes as well. So, you have uh have that approval with the final plans. Thank you again and thanks to the county for your work. Okay, we have a couple of discussion items um on our uh agenda here uh at the at this end of the meeting. Um the first is with regard to planning commission procedures. Um these were introduced uh in July uh of last year. Um and they were intended that the commission be transparent about the um regulations or procedures by which it operates. And so is an attempt for the commissioners to consider what would be best practice, what would work for us, what we think makes some sense. Uh we went through a discussion and um had some comments and and um edits to it. The u the current draft is in your packet with strikethroughs and bolds to show those changes. And um the intent is to see if there are any is there any further discussion any other um changes edits now that people have had some time to think and with the intention that whether there are or there aren't that we move to approving these procedures at our next meeting if they're they seem sufficient.

So I'll open the floor. Yeah. The only thing I would say is perhaps in point number five that we make sure that we have both u residents and businesses within 100 ft of an application site. So the current says uh we'll send written notices by mail to residents. Um do when is is is it unders I mean we'll put the language in. Was it normally understood that it's businesses as well or owners of Yeah. It goes to the owners of the property and if there's like a rental or like you said a business there, it says if you have any tenants, please inform them of it. I mean, that's the best we can do because the Sure. the list we get is from Northampton County.

Okay. So, the recommendation is is to add and businesses. Actually, am I correct that it really is owners that are you're sending it to? It's the owners of the property. Yes. So, so the word residence isn't even what if what if we just use partial to the parcels within 100 ft? Well, you're sending it to you're sending you have to send it directed to something the owners would make the most sense in that regard. It it is limited though in this

Yeah, it's just Well, that's why you post a property. I I I guess it's in your letter. it would be um I guess incumbent to ask the owners to to advise the occupants whether it's a business or a resident of the pending uh application but it impacts the owners I mean that's usually the concept there okay so g given that let me ask the question um a different way do you typically send um notices to owners and tenants no just owners

just owners Does that seem sufficient, Mr. Etcherson? I I mean, I think the word, first of all, I would say that the word owners makes more sense because when you say residents, not all residents are owners. So, it's the building owners would be probably more appropriate. I I would agree with that.

Yeah. And I guess the the concern that I would have is I mean we've just approved how many buildings that have, you know, 200 units in them, right? So we send a letter to the owner and the owners in Jamaica, right? The tenants aren't going to find out about it. They're going to walk up to me on the street and yell at me. Um and so it's like, yeah, but we sent a letter to the owner. Well, I don't know what the remedy is other than

there is a remedy and and I don't know whether it can be done or not. What the ideal situation would be if you you send it to mail to owners of parcels within 100 ft. So So owners of parcels makes sense. Get get rid of the live. But what would be nice is if we could in the case of apartment houses if we were allowed to post the way we posted on the property that's the applicant. if there was a way to post it on on those other properties, but I don't know if you know it's their private property. I don't know. And and they're not the applicant, so I don't know that you have a right to just post notices.

But to that point, the properties not uh post it. It's on the website. We have our media people put it out as well. We give it to Crystal Rose to put on Facebook. I mean, we we try to hit every outlet to get people informed of what's going on within their neighborhood. I mean, more more than less going and knocking on each individual door and giving them a a paper and saying, "Hey, listen. There's a a development going on. We want you to be aware." I'm like, I I don't know how much more notice we can give residents if we're owners of parcels. I think is

Well, I mean, the only other thought I would have would be to provide them with the option of a pre-printed notice that they can post if they want it sort of thing like the letter that we send them. I mean if if if if the owner of the building is getting the letter I mean does the letter say on it that you know please feel free to post this for your tenants or whatever. No, I think it just what does it say? Just notify the tenants. notify the tenants and then explains what the you know gives a broad thing of you know land development like say for the parking garage a three-le park garage replacing the existing one

is there any reason why we wouldn't encourage them to share share and post I mean we could we could put that on our put put a little thing if you could feel free to post this on your property or or you're encourage you're encouraged to post this on your property that there's no violation then of a law which I don't think you could you could u enforce but using that language would be sufficient. You you got to you always have to be worried about when we're mailing things to owners of parcels and some of these owners don't even live right here. I know a lot of owners that live out of town and out of state and and by the time they get it in the mail, it'll especially

our postal services now said you can't even rely you're not getting a postmark anymore when we process it. We'll stamp it. Yeah. And I get like maybe five to 10 per month back and I I go on Northampton County and use the current addresses for the parcels, not from what GIS is. So Crystal, did you you were squirming. Do you have something you want to

So I think from speaking with resident Crystal Rose Eastn City Council, um, one thing I had asked previously over a year ago was that we extend over 100 ft because in a city that's so condensed, for example, we just had the zoning uh North Fourth Street project at a special hearing um for zoning about two weeks ago. there are people another block down who are affected by some of these developments and changes and they don't hear about it and I also think expanding that footprint more people in the neighborhood would hear about it. So I think more tenants would hear about it as well. I'd like to see at least a full city block but even two with some of these projects I think that's a fair range to be sending letters to personally.

[snorts] Um, I had hoped that the administration would take that on themselves, but maybe I have to bring that to council myself. Um, we've talked about this a few times. And Dwayne, you said you were going to look into it. Mhm. What's the zoning requirement? 100t. 100 ft. Yeah. That's I don't think that's sufficient personally. I mean, if something happens another block down, living in such a condensed area, it would affect me and I think it affects our residents in many cases. We're not like a township or something. I mean, even in those cases, other municipalities have longer range than we do. The MPC says 100 ft. Yeah. And that's state law.

The other thing that I would bring up too as far as notifications, and I just spoke with Dwayne, is he's going to put a QC process in because we've had issues with the wrong meeting dates going out to people, including um the one that just went out for the Northampton County garage that you just reviewed. Um, it had the correct Wednesday date. It was advertised correctly, but it had last night's meeting date. And then two people that I know of came here last night and couldn't get into the building. So, a QC process, I think, is needed since we've had two date issues in the last month. So, that that's all I have. Um, but I I would request that we extend that notification. 100 ft is not very far. Thank you. Can we do that?

The u the ordinance or whatever that you referenced says 100 ft or does it say a minimum of 100 ft? Say 100 ft. That's that's the municipality's planning code and that's directly involved with zoning. There is no there's a there's no requirement at all for notices relating to planning submissions. So that um what we're doing here is a matter of policy uh and I don't think would ever be you know like fatal if there was a mistake because it isn't it isn't a right it's a courtesy essentially. So extending it beyond would not be you don't you don't see as problematic.

Well it no it wouldn't I mean it the problematic would is a matter of asking what effort what additional effort does it require of the staff to do that. That's that's that's always something that, you know, I'm sensitive to because I have to run into these people. Um but um but that's that's you know that's the question. What what does it take to to to draw that circle and how many additional people are you dealing with and but then if we wanted to because we're just doing the courtesy we certainly can suggest that. So uh so let's ask that question. What what would be entailed with making that circle 200 feet?

Additional uh letters, more postings. Well, more postage, more stuffing envelopes. Yeah, just additional work for whatever how many parcels or how how much work is that typically on a on a downtown block? I don't know. Well, the the garage I sent out 49 notices. So, potentially potentially double that. Yeah. Are we talking about just people who own these properties or we talking about just people who own them? Just just parcel owners of par. Imagine how you figure out who the tenants are. Yeah, just owners of parcels. Okay, that makes sense.

Sounds like you need an intern. While while we think about that question, um the other the other uh question I would have is we we state in um in item number three that not only are the agendas mailed to the commissioners at least one week uh before the meeting, but then they are posted um on the city website as soon as possible thereafter. So in in that we're we're presuming and asking the staff to you know make the extra effort to post these so that there's transparency out.

Um you've already stated that the current practice is that not only the staff send the written notices to the owners within 100 ft but you also post these on media to the ex let me put the language to the extent that that's available as widely as available. That's correct. Would would that be any concern putting that into these procedures as just a statement of Yeah, that's fine. Because I think that does also address the concern that's expressed is well, how do I know what's going on? Well, it's posted in multiple, you know, multiple media, if you will. Um, anybody have objective objection to adding that kind of language here? the media piece.

This the staff uh you know beyond issuing the writ notices that they are um that that they will be posting this publicly in available media. Just leave it vague to allow them to to use what's available to to them. Does that seem reasonable? Should we have working tirelessly to find No, I think that's great. Okay.

Yeah. I I I I note that since we do have two members of the press here tonight, the way people used to know about what was going on in the planning commission is that generally a week before a planning commission meeting, there'd be a very detailed article by the press about applications that were going to be pending at the next meeting. And sometimes there'd be, you know, invest, you know, there'd be additional information. We sort of lost that. So, well, that information does get sent out to them. Yeah. No, I know. But but it doesn't get published yet unless it's something big, you know,

right? But we have other ways of, you know, getting that message out. All right. So, we'll add that as a second statement. Um, right now we have the recommendation um or suggestion of that the written notices by mail to owners of parcels who live within right now 100t was the consideration of whether we go beyond that. Is that does anybody have a an opinion on that? I'd like to go to 200 personal. Sure. I think it's 500 in New York City. Now, we're not in New York City, but I'd like to go to 200. So, I I hear from a couple, Miss Wagner, do you have any opposition to that?

I agree with 200. And then if like what Crystal said, if 200 ends up being like a couple feet shy of like a a parking lot or something else that something across the street, it could be written that it could be extended if there [snorts] was I think yeah I mean I think we'd have to be real if we're going to ask for this we have to be clear about the limits of it so Mr. shipment. You have any concerns about that extension? No, I don't have any strong feeling. Okay. I think 100 feet is I'm sorry for the uh I think it's sufficient.

All right. But there's others who feel that 200 could work. Okay. All right. Um All right, then. We'll we'll add that. Any any other cons questions? Uh suggestions, anything else on on the procedures?

Yeah, I have one um in regard to point number seven. If [clears throat] the quorum isn't quorum isn't reached as long by 6:30 p.m. I believe in the 15minute rule. 6:30 is a long time or said differently waiting 30 minutes from the beginning of a meeting to get a quorum is a long time. So I would suggest that that time be changed to 15 minutes or 6:15. Any questions? Any objections? Any concerns?

I I would be I my concern is that if we are dealing with a t a matter that's has time pressure on us on the city, you know, where you got the time the clock's running. Uh we we need to be patient in that particular case. I also think that even though you can't conduct even though you cannot take action, you could still do something during that time. You could have a discussion about anything and as long as you're not voting. Um uh so so that it makes it makes better sense to keep that cushion in time in my view and and and utilize it whatever way whatever way you want. Um

even if I'm not here, if you give me a call, I'll run down and I'll tell you some stories. We may uh we may ask you to do that. Mr. Etcherson, you all right with He talked to me on Okay, very good. Any other uh any other comments? Point makes me giggle, but we'll move on. Okay, good. Um

uh num number point number 12, we did note some potential for further discussion on the idea of executive session. Is there any anything anybody would like to discuss there? I felt the way that we handled it when we needed it u with the most recent issues with the warehouse scenario were was very helpful without being exclus exclusionary to our public and the sunshine elements that we're all concerned about and and I did I think we do not use it enough

uh we you're not allowed we are not a zoning hearing board and we and we are allowed to have meetings. I I I suggesting that we do it regularly and I'm happy with the way we did it this time and that's what I was going to say. I would have done more, but I'm happy the way.

But I I just want to clarify something that came to my or at least was focused on when we had the recent Northampton County uh um uh seminar colloquium on zoning and and and and uh um Mike was there also. It was made clear that that ability to deliberate is only in quasi judicial matters like zoning. It does not apply to planning. So we can meet for what we exactly we did to to get the advice of the council on process and and and and and rules, but we cannot deliberate before you vote the way you do in zoning. I didn't make it up.

I'm happy with what we did. Okay. And I'd like to keep it that way. That's all. But no, I I just wanted to I I I I I had I'd been under the impression that we that this was a matter of choice and that we just decided that all our deliberations should be in public. But I was further educated that no, we we have no choice. We have to deliberate in public. So I I think it sounds like we're of the same opinion that the way this is written addresses how things should work.

Okay. Very good. Very good. All right. Anything else with regard to that? All right. Um I will I will make uh changes. I'll get it to you. We'll have a clean copy ready for the next meeting. Okay. Our second discussion um will be on uh data centers. And I know this is a topic that um is certainly provoking a lot of interest and discussion not only in our region but uh uh in many places around the country. um and a concern about what that would mean uh particularly for um you know water usage, electricity usage and how that could impact a community um and where warehouses um were were a wave certainly that um impacted the Lehigh Valley because of our location um and as as a logistics center um whether data centers would you know have that kind of impact we don't know but we know so that there are communities around us who are preparing and we received a couple of uh examples of ordinances that are being considered. I think one of the ones that we received has actually been adopted now. Um and so uh was thought I think Mr. Etcherson you may have brought it up first uh and I know Mr. year. You've commented on it to us uh that u we we should at least give some consideration as to whether um this is a matter we should discuss whether we should consider an ordinance ourselves uh to to share with council or what have you. So that's just a introduction to the topic and I don't know if anybody has any comments based on what you've read or what you've considered with regard to uh our current ordinance and thank you uh uh Dwayne for uh for sharing with us the uh the current state of of where we where we sit uh with regard to ordinances.

Yeah. Well, my concern is that our current state is not prepared to deal with the modern the the discussion of modern data centers as they're being developed today. What way? In what way are you concerned that we're not equipped to discuss it? I'd like to hear it because I don't understand it.

The descriptions the description is very generalized in terms of what a data center would fall under or said differently. [clears throat] the way that the the staff would have to and and Dwayne, you'd correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I saw, the way that we would have to interpret an application for a data center folds into such a loosely defined use pattern that there are very little protections for our community on that development. That's correct.

Right. Because I don't remember what the It's just a very broad brush of It's kind of a leftover what what what what concerns you is that it is not specific. It would be too easy to get a data center. What concerns me is that uh the short version is yes, it's too easy. it would be too easy to get one through because it's not regulated and it needs to be regulated. Yeah, I I did not bring those model ordinances that I shared with um at least the chairman and and and with with you. Um

I I believe I shared them. You followed through. Yes, I did. And and and I think was it North Whiteall that passed it? One of one of the uh South White Hall. South Whiteall. South Whitealt and um Hanover Township have plans right now for hypers scale data centers which means they're over 1 million square feet

and and I think that what you find in those legislations is more details as to what impacts you look at and how it's and that's the biggest thing. It's it's a it should probably all be you know if I was in township call it a conditional use here special exception um so that it is never as of right we do have I mean the the thing is we do have to provide an area where it's allowed within the city or it becomes something that they could put it anywhere uh now because of the size required you're going to be limited unless someone just you know wipes out an entire portion of Southside or or pallet.

So, just looking at a couple of those, um, the majority of it is only allowed by special exception in certain zones. So, there's that stipulation that's already on it. But to Mr. Etchinson's concerns, I feel the same way. There should be more depth in for each use and more requirements on top of those uses for each one when you break them down. So, I talked with Craig Beavers from Palmer and their ordinance kind of breaks down each use and has requirements for each one. So, and that's probably the type of zoning, you know, amendment to our current zoning ordinance that we that should be developed and and and introduced.

So, so the way that it works, and I think you pointed this out, Mr. Tilman, um the way that it would work in our zoning format is through uh adopting supplementary standards that correct that then would apply to that particular use. Yes. Or or adding additional uses under the data center. Okay. Right. like small scale, large, hyper scale. Yeah, there's I think there's like four or five within Palmer's uses that they have in their ordinance.

I I I think I mean the ones that we were that were shared with us um were upper Makuni and Moore Township. Again, they're they're located nearby, but I I wonder whether Palmer would be good for us to take a look at for two reasons. Obviously, they're neighbor and and they're they're, you know, much more space constrained like we are. And it might be good to I think so. Can Can you Yeah, I can I can get that to you. You can distribute that. Okay, great. I mean, I'm not ending the discussion. I'm just saying I would I would like to see that. I think that might maybe there's things in there that might be models that we would consider. Well, I think bring it back and I I agree with that. Yeah. Okay.

I I also think that the tiered approach is also important. I just I can't remember where I heard it. There was a news report about warehouse space going empty, starting to go empty across the United States. Uh oh, boxes. All right. So, the the notion of having a tiered approach in terms of what a data center uh does, how it is constructed, what are the power requirements. You know, so often when we look at any of these projects, there's sort of a blanket statement of minimal impact on the infrastructure. Well, this isn't it.

You know, we're talking about massive amounts of power. We're talking about, frankly, some things that probably need to be thought about in terms of of uh uh uh uh water cleansing. That's not the word I'm looking for. I can't think I can't think of the word but uh addressing the water the possible possibility of water pollution um which may or may not have any kind of guidelines certainly not these days from a federal standpoint u and um from a state regulatory standpoint might be questionable as well. So we have to protect ourselves. We've got all these beautiful rivers. We've

fought like a Dickens to try and have access to our waterways and and um and allow the public to recreate. You know, for for heaven's sakes, we're talking about putting green space in next to the courthouse. Uh so, if we're trying to make the outdoors nice, we certainly need to make sure we've got some provisions to protect that. Um, we just went through this with the warehouse where at the end of the day, the the reality was they really never put together an environmental impact statement. Not a real one. Um, be careful.

Yeah, I know. And I've got a stack of paper here next to me that's yelling at me not to talk about that too much. But when we're talking about a data center with so many impacts that are known, um, I think some serious thought needs to go into that. you know, does it have does it have a 50% offset requirement from a from a power standpoint or does it have, you know, I'm not sure what the what the things are that this is part of the reason why I suggested maybe we have a conversation with the the I Valley planning to get some guidance from them on their thoughts on the specific issues of power usage and water cleanliness. So given given that point, are we aware of Lehigh Valley Planning Commission having any whether it's model ordinance or guidelines to share?

Not yet. Um they're in the process. I believe they will be doing it because like I said, South White Hall has gone through them. Yeah. And this one over here in Upper Mckenji has gone through too.

Yeah. And I you know the the upper Mckeni and Moore examples that more T township examples that we were given are are quite similar. A lot of the language is is the same and they do consider things to the point of what's being considered things like um dimensional standards and landscape buffers, screening and fencing, noise and vibration, water and sewer, power supply, emergency management, aesthetics, even parking. So I mean there's you know pretty comprehensive in I think the things they're looking at. So I guess you know if we can get a look at Palmer's maybe by the time we get to that LVPC may have something that we can take a look at

and I I would just ask us to take a look through these as well as the ones we're given and I think be ready to come you know because you know deliberation discussion on this is fine but um unless we have an ordinance in place you know we are bound by an applicant utilizing the current standards. So, uh, if we're going to make any kind of recommendation to council and add some things, whether we word smith all the language or we simply broad brush it a little bit and give it to council and the staff to consider, I I think uh, you know, we'd be better off doing that sooner than later. So, could we put this discussion back on for next month and uh, and we'll pick it up there and uh, give give uh, folks a little more chance to read the things that we have and whatever we're going to receive. I think we should talk about it again because I don't know enough about it.

Okay. Joel, did the uh did the city council act on our our did they accept our recommendation that the warehouse not be approved? The the city the city council has at this point in time has not been uh is not part of the process. the the decision made is purely from the planning commission. It's the final it's it's the final subject to appeal by the applicant decision

and and and and our our ordinance provides a right of the applicant to file an appeal directly to city council in which they would state what their objections are. As of this moment, we have not received an appeal to city council. Okay, that was my question. And when we do, there'll be, you know, there'll be hearings. What is Why do we have these? Yeah. Well, we should talk about that off the record. If you want to have a short exact session afterwards, we could do that. Not a bad idea. I'd like that. That'd be a good idea. Okay. All right. Well, um, we have, uh, do we have a motion to go into executive session? So, moved

and a second. I'll second. Mo motion and second. Um, did you want to come back and we'll do an adjournment also? Um, so the motion uh, Mr. Etcherson, second Mr. Hman. Yes. Has something? Well, we're going to do this first. Interesting. Um, all in favor? I I opposed. Okay. So, we will go in executive session. Um, Miss Rose, do you have anything for the good of the order before we adjourn?

Thank you. I just wanted to thank you all for having the discussion on data centers. I had actually started working on um in December a data center ordinance and I served on the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission this last year. We switch our seat just as a piece of information with Bethlehem each year. So, I'm off in 26, but I did reach out to our other municipal partners in Lehigh Valley and Lehigh Valley Planning Commission doesn't have something to share at this moment, but as was discussed, but um I I will uh get something out to you guys in the next week or two. Um so, you know, better together, right? So, I I'll get that out to you and look forward to more discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Uh motion to adjurnn.

So, moved. Second. Any uh um I'm being mean uh roll not a roll call. All in favor? Thank you. All in favor? I [laughter] we are adjourned.

I'm gonna uh chat with Miss Rose for a few moments, but I'll be right in. Okay. [laughter] It's got your name on it, right? It's got your name on it. [laughter] In lies my point. More than whatever. I was just about to throw away all the paper.